1

Introduction

The Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (DOE) is responsible for the safe cleanup of sites used for nuclear weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. Established in 1989, DOE’s cleanup program originally encompassed more than 100 sites. Cleanup is planned to last another 40-50 years with total lifecycle costs approaching or exceeding $350 billion. The annual cleanup budget is around $6 billion.¹

Low-level radioactive waste (LLW²) is the most volumetrically significant waste stream generated by the DOE cleanup program (approximately 17 million cubic meters per year³). LLW is also generated through commercial activities such as nuclear power plant operations and medical treatments. DOE disposes of LLW at its own sites as well as at some commercial facilities. Commercial LLW is, with some exceptions, disposed of at commercial facilities.

In the United States, LLW is not necessarily defined by low levels of radioactivity. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPA amendments⁴) defines LLW as

___________________

¹ This value is an average of the past four annual budgets for DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (Regalbuto, 2016).

² “LLW” and “LLRW” are commonly used acronyms for low-level radioactive waste. “LLW” is used throughout this proceedings unless “LLRW” is included in a quote from other sources.

³ This average was calculated from a DOE complex-wide disposal rate for LLW and mixed LLW (Marcinowski, 2016). LLW containing hazardous chemicals is referred to as mixed LLW.

⁴ “Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985,” accessed February 24, 2017, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-99/pdf/STATUTE-99-Pg1842.pdf.

low-level radioactive material that:

1. is not high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material (as defined in section 11.e (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 . . . [⁵]); and
2. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, consistent with existing law and in accordance with paragraph (A), classifies as low-level radioactive waste.

Thus, LLW is defined by exclusion (i.e., by what it is not).⁶ LLW is physically and chemically diverse, ranging from lightly contaminated soils and building materials to highly irradiated nuclear reactor components.

The laws and regulations related to the disposal of LLW in the United States have evolved over time and across agencies and states (see Box D-2 in Appendix D), resulting in a complex regulatory structure. This structure has provided adequate guidance for the successful disposal of the majority of LLW streams, but there are some types of LLW streams—many of which were not anticipated when LLW regulations were created—that lack an obvious pathway to disposal or whose disposition could be considered incommensurate with the hazard of the waste. “Challenging LLW streams,” as used in this proceedings, have potentially non-optimal or unclear disposition pathways due to their origin, content, or incompatibility with existing standards, orders, or regulations.

DOE asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) to organize this workshop to discuss approaches for the management and disposition of LLW. The workshop explored the following two issues:⁷

• the key physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics of LLW that govern its safe and secure management and disposal in aggregate and in individual waste streams, and
• how key characteristics of LLW are incorporated into standards, orders, and regulations that govern the management and disposal

___________________

⁵ “[B]yproduct material . . . as defined in Sec. 11.e (2)” is provided in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended: “Sec. 11 DEFINITION . . . e. The term ‘byproduct material’ means . . . 2) the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content. . . .” See “Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended by Public Law 114-92, Enacted November 25, 2015,” accessed March 1, 2017, https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Atomic%20Energy%20Act%20Of%201954.pdf.

⁶ The definition of LLW is complicated, requiring one to understand the definitions of other waste categories such as high-level radioactive waste and byproduct material. The full list of byproduct materials as well as definitions of other waste categories mentioned in this chapter are provided in Appendix D, Box D-1.

⁷Appendix A contains the full statement of task.

This proceedings provides a factual description of the workshop presentations and discussions and is limited to the views and opinions of those participating in the event. Further, the viewpoints and comments from the workshop attendees are their own and are neither necessarily attributable to the organizations for which they work or support nor necessarily representative of the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. This proceedings does not contain consensus findings or recommendations.

1.1 WORKSHOP PLAN

A committee of four members was appointed by the National Academies to plan the workshop.⁸ The planning committee met once to develop the workshop format and agenda and to identify speakers. In addition, a white paper developed by the rapporteur was distributed to participants prior to the workshop to provide background information on LLW.⁹ The workshop was held at the National Academies’ Keck Center on October 24-25, 2016.

The workshop began by defining the “universe” of LLW within the United States and elsewhere—first by introducing the types of LLW that exist and then by discussing the standards, orders, regulations, and laws that define and control their disposal. Next, case studies were presented to highlight the successful disposal of a variety of wastes that previously lacked a clear disposition pathway—these case studies are referred to as “success stories.” The studies were selected from within and outside of the United States.

The participants explored common themes that led to success within the case studies such as: the use of existing regulations and standards (i.e., waste classification) to provide an anchor for disposal decisions; the identification of lessons learned from similar or analogous problems such as Canada’s or France’s approach to managing and disposing of very low-level waste (VLLW); and the importance of site characteristics for disposal decisions. These themes were organized into an approach to guide future discussions and disposition decisions for challenging LLW streams—a “common themes approach.”¹⁰ The approach is described in Chapter 4.

___________________

⁸ The planning committee’s role was limited to planning and participating in the workshop. See Appendix B for the planning committee member biographies.

⁹ The workshop agenda and white paper can be found in Appendices C and D, respectively.

¹⁰ The “common themes approach” was developed as a discussion tool; it was not intended or presented as a consensus statement by the planning committee or the workshop participants.

The common themes approach was applied to a set of five pre-selected challenging LLW streams that spanned a variety of waste characteristics:

• Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) and commercial transuranic waste (TRU) waste in excess of 100 nCi/g
• Sealed Sources
• Very Low-level and Very Low-activity Waste¹¹
• Incident Waste
• Depleted Uranium

Each of these waste streams presents a unique set of challenges for disposal. For example, “GTCC waste and commercial TRU waste in excess of 100 nCi/g” lack a clear disposition pathway (as will be discussed in Chapter 4), while “Very Low-level and Very Low-activity Waste” have a disposition pathway in which the level of protection may be considered incommensurate with the hazard, or a potentially non-optimal disposition pathway (discussed in Chapters 2 and 4). The application of the common themes approach to these diverse waste streams was intended to explore how adaptable this approach would be as a tool in discussing or presenting a variety of disposal options.

One leader from each breakout group introduced a specific challenging LLW stream to the full workshop and later summarized the breakout group’s results of applying the common themes approach to the issues associated with the disposal of this waste stream. Several participants identified short-term actions or “next steps” that could be taken to show progress in addressing each challenging waste stream in the final session of the workshop.

Presenters and attendees provided perspectives from academia, industry, federal agencies (including those outside of DOE), state governments, international organizations, public interest groups, and national laboratories. All participants were encouraged to contribute to the workshop discussions.

Several major topics emerged during the discussions throughout the workshop: complexity of regulations; communication among stakeholders; diversity of the type, source, and hazard of LLW; and integration of knowledge gained from operations. These topics are described below.

1.2 COMPLEXITY OF REGULATIONS

The complexity of the current U.S. LLW regulatory structure was mentioned in several presentations and discussions. Participants noted that the current regulatory structure is the result of “tweaks” and “adjustments”

___________________

¹¹ The planning committee proposed “exempt waste” as a category for the subgroup, but the topic of the subgroup’s discussion focused on very low-level waste and very low-activity waste.

to regulations to address unanticipated types of wastes or other challenges. Several participants argued that the current LLW regulatory system should be thrown out and that a new system should be “developed from scratch.” This “revolution instead of an evolution” of the LLW regulatory structure was raised several times during the workshop. Participants also discussed the complexity of the definition and regulation of TRU waste, noting that multiple laws and regulations contain definitions of TRU waste that can be inconsistent with each other.¹² It was also noted that the current LLW regulatory system has the flexibility to deal with unanticipated waste streams through case-by-case exceptions—which adds to the system’s complexity. The unintended impacts of this complex system include the following: potential loss of public trust and confidence; mounting costs for disposal that are passed on to rate payers; and levels of regulation that are disproportionate to the hazards posed by LLW.

1.3 COMMUNICATION AMONG STAKEHOLDERS

Several participants noted that the complexity of the current LLW regulatory system leads to communication problems with stakeholders. Many stakeholders assume that LLW must be dangerous because the regulations are so strict and complex.

The appropriateness of the language used when discussing stakeholder or public concerns was also questioned by several participants. Some noted a move away from the use of “stakeholder”—which is a term that is difficult to define—to “concerned” or “interested parties” to be inclusive of a wider group including waste producers, academics, and other members of the public. Other phrases often used by experts that raise concern include: “Talking to the public,” which implies a one-way flow of information, instead of “talking with the public.” Or “educating the public,” which was identified as denigrating; its use presupposes that the public is uneducated and also that, if given education, the public would agree with the experts doing the educating. Improving communications among stakeholders involves a change in mindset in addition to a change in language. Decisions on the final disposition of challenging wastes could be informed by a continuing conversation with stakeholders throughout the lifetime of a project.

___________________

¹² The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act provides the definition for defense TRU waste. The USNRC’s document, Statutory Language and Regulatory History of Commercial Transuranic Waste Disposal (USNRC, 2015a), provides an example of conflicting definitions of TRU waste, which highlights the complexity of the topic (p. 5): “According to section (A)(i) of the [Low-level Radioactive Waste] Amendments Act, TRU waste is LLRW. Based on (A)(ii) of the Amendments Act, the [US]NRC can set the definition of LLRW. Consistent with (A)(ii) of the Amendments Act and because the 10 CFR Part 61 definition of LLRW excludes TRU, TRU is not LLRW.”

The topic of accepting responsibility for the waste streams now to ensure safe disposal for future generations was repeatedly discussed at the workshop. Several participants noted that discussions with stakeholders on the final disposition of LLW were aided when the origins and social value of the activities that produced the wastes (i.e., medical treatments, electricity generation) were described.

1.4 DIVERSITY OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE TYPE, SOURCE, AND HAZARD

Participants noted that the “universe” of LLW in the United States is large due to its definition by exclusion. In the United States, high-activity wastes such as irradiated metals and sealed sources of high activity are considered LLW. Also, very low-activity wastes in the United States are subject to disposal requirements that many participants believed exceeded the hazard of the waste. Participants noted that characteristics such as half-life and activity levels (or hazards) of the waste are used in other countries to define waste categories and disposal options. Participants also noted that other countries have a “cleared” or “exempt” category of waste that allows for less protective disposal—an approach that is commensurate to the hazard of the waste—while there is no low-end threshold of activity for LLW in the United States. Also, in the United States, the states have regulatory authority for some radioactive wastes and regulations can be inconsistent across state boundaries even though the characteristics and hazard of the waste remain the same.

1.5 INTEGRATION OF KNOWLEDGE GAINED FROM OPERATIONS

The United States and other countries have been managing and disposing of nuclear waste for at least six decades. Several comparisons of early to modern LLW disposal concepts and facilities were presented at the workshop including: the EnergySolutions LLW Disposal Facility, Barnwell (South Carolina), Waste Control Specialists (Texas), and the Centre de la Manche (CSM) and Centres de stockage de l’Aube (CSA) (France) disposal facilities. These comparisons highlighted the improvements in modern facilities that resulted from applying the knowledge gained from the construction and operation of earlier facilities. Another point that was repeatedly raised by participants at the workshop was the importance of site characteristics of modern facilities in the United States, many of which are located in arid regions of the country. Several participants noted that the United States should find a way to integrate this new knowledge into the regulations and rules that govern the management and disposal of LLW.

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS

This proceedings is organized following the general structure of the workshop:

• Chapter 2 includes introductory remarks by the chair and an overview of the scope of the LLW challenge (or the “universe” of LLW),
• Chapter 3 presents the case studies of successful LLW disposition,
• Chapter 4 identifies common themes for finding successful disposition solutions, applies them to a set of five challenging LLW streams, and summarizes concrete next steps towards a disposition pathway that might be taken for each.

This page intentionally left blank.