ML19210B723
| ML19210B723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1979 |
| From: | Miner S PRESIDENT OF U.S. & EXECUTIVE OFFICES |
| To: | Fine P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210B720 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911120172 | |
| Download: ML19210B723 (22) | |
Text
u 9
lc' IN
- p
)
Dek ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP 9
Initials
'Date' TO: Name, office symbol, room number, Ilding, Agency / Post)
C' " A
);
1.
3.
3.
4.
s E
Action File Note and Return j
Approval For Clearance Per Conversation 4
As Requested For Correction Prepare Rep!y Circulate For Your Information See Me Comment Investigate Signature 5
Coordination Justify RCMARKS N fd 9 b y& C5
-h A. xce, D,Q f
1757.081. von 120 /7 A DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions Room No.-Bldg.
FROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post)
Phone No.
E OPTigL FgM 41 (Rev. 7-76) 5041-102V
"" " 3 C 88I-83 #
Wi s, n, i.. c m o... i... s :u. i 4
v TID-29442 U C-70 1
i 2
4,
" Repon1t to the President
+
e by the l
Interagency Review Group j
on I
R1uclear Waste Management l
.~
March 1979 i
i i
l
\\
4 l
Washington, D.C.
1757 082
w
/
4, Avcilable from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Depart:nent of Commrce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price:
Printed Copy:
$10.75 7
g}
Microfiche:
S 3.00
_A i..T
'7""
\\'
t i
Y K
Y h
%s a
' Department of Energy J
t Washington, D.C. 20585 l
k L
1 (4
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, GOVERNORS, STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC a
Enclosed is the Report to the President fron the Inte'ragency Review Grppp on Nuclear Waste Management (IRG) established last Mdrch at the direction of the President.
In October a
}
draft report was offered for public review, and extensive comments were received. This final report presents the f;
findings, policy considerations, and recommendations reached
-3 by the IRC as of this date.
The IRG has attempted to ensure r
that this final report accurately reflects the full range of such cocments and concerns.
The findings and recommendations contained in this report, 1
reflect the unanimous views of the individual agencies participating in the effort. As appropriate, independent views of some members are also included. The IRG appreciates the extent and quality of public comments it received.
}(
g.
These cocrents assisted the IRG icaeasurably in formulating,
its recommendations to the President.
g; Ey The IRG is grateful and appreciative of your interest and h,
L assistance.
cv s :;
95 Thank you,
'W t~
}
D V
dt,,j il 3I -
\\ John M. Deutch, Chairman j',
Interagency Review Group on f
Nuclear Waste Management
.a;
- y r
i k-1757 084 1-
-m B
s
, -f (i) 3 i
4 f
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
L T
Page
{
PREFACE
[l INTRODUCTION 1-14
{
Background
'l Historical Perspective
(
Nuclear Waste Disposal and Future Use of Nuclear Energy
}l Scope and Magnitude of Waste Management
{
Scope arg Content of Report fl
/
C I.
Objectives and Procedures 15-34 Planning Objectives l'
Technical Objectives Objectives Related to Implementation The Decision-Making Process F-Development of an Interim Strategic Planning Basis I
Development of an Implementation Plan for NEPA N
Requirements j'
Development of Criteria and Standards
/
s
}
Regulatory Program and Licensing Process Licensing Determinations P
<;;;.=
II.
Technical Strategies for High-Level and Transuranic Wastes 35-76 Candidate Technologies Status of Knowledge of Mined Repositories t;
Risk Assessment
'y Technical Conservatism r r:
4 Interim Strategic Planning Basis for HLW Disposal
'T-Initial Definition of Technical Strategies
?!
Regional Site Selection Intermediate Scale Facilities i T IRG Recommendations on Near-Term Approach to d
HLW Disposal gy Fu Evaluation of the Recommended Approach
f Technical Strategies for Disposal of TRU Waste rkk Storage Processing and Relocation Strategies for y
HLW and TRU g
Defense Waste g
1757 085 g
e, a.a.
, 5%
l %.
hs_-
1
..a (ii) l Page III.
Technical Strategies for Other Waste Types 77-86 Low-Level Waste Uranium Mill Tailings Waste Generated by D&D IV.
Institutional Issues87-116 Cooperation with State and Local Governments Overall Planning Siting Activities i
NEPA and Regulatory Review Public Participation Institutional Issues Related to Waste Types Spent Fuel
,j Low-Level Waste U.S. Involvement in International Waste l
Ma nagement Efforts 1
Transportation Issues V.
Management Considerations 117-149
' Organizational Issues Waste Management Costs and Financing Legislative Requirements Draft Work Plans VI.
Appendices A.
Presidential Letter A-1-2 B.
Members of Interagency Review Group B-1 C.
Public Interaction C-1_11 D.
Scope and Magnitude of Waste Management D-1 -32 E.
Summary of Proposed EPA Environmental Protection E-1 Criteria for Radioactive Waste F.
Risks Due to the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste F-1-ll l
G.
International Programs in Nuclear Waste Management G-1-11 H.
Summary of Draft Report 11 2 1 1757 086
I I
PREFACE The Draf t Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group on Naclear Waste Management.was released f or public review and comment October 19, 1978. The Report presented the findings, policy considerations and tentative recommendations reached by the IRG.
Some 15,000 copies of the Report were issued f or review and comment.
A total of 45 days were allowed for public review and comment; however comments received after that time period have also been included in this review.
A total of some 3300 comments ccvering all states have been received and reviewed to date. About three-fourths came from private individuals.
A substantial number were f rom Stat e governments, the utility industry, the nuclear industry, public interest orga nizations, environmental organizations, academia, and the general business community.
Responses were also received from Congress rad a number of Federal Agencies.
The responses ranged from brief, one or two sentence letters to very lengthy, substantive documents providing in-depth analysis of the draf t report's contents, conclusions and recommendations.
The responses presented a wide range of viewpoints on most of the issues addressed in the IRC Report. Most commenters indicated t'at the draft IRG report represented an important contribution and significant step torward in addressing the complex issues of waste management programs. However, nearly all commenters soaght further clarification of or disagreed with some of the views expressed in the draf t report.
The IRG acknowledges and appreciates the extensive participation of the public la commenting on the draf t report.
Comments have been given careful consideration and were extremely valuable to the IRG in formulating its recommendations to the President.
The degree of public response indicates the seriousness and interest of the public in this important national issue.
The IRG wishes to encourage continued public participation as the nation's nuclear waste management policies are developed and implemented.
This version of the IRG's Report contains the original text of the draft report plus a summary of the public comment on individual sections inserted at the end of each.
An IRG response immediately follows the summary of public comment.
These IRG responses reflect a modified or amplified view based on the public comments and/or additional deliberations 3)y 4he IRG.
The I
original text of the Summary of the Draf t Report is included hs Appendix H.
l This revised report is being provided to the President, together with IRG recommendations which reflect its understanding of the public comment and its current views as indicated in this revision.
1757 087 1
4 N
I i
4&L
.__.=_.2.m--r
.r.m--m-----~-
I l
PREFACE The Draf t Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management was released f or public review and comment October 19, 1978. The Report presented the findings, policy considerations and tentative recommendations reached by the IRG.
Some 15,000 copies of the Report were issued f or review and comment.
A total of 45 days were allowed f or public review and comment; however comments received af ter that time period have also been included in this review.
A total of some 3300 comments covering all states have been received came from private individuals. A and reviewed to date.
About three-four 1
substantial number were f rom State gove
.ents, the utility industry, the nuclear industry, public interest organizations, environmental organizations, academia, and the general business community. Responses were also received from Congress and a number of Federal Agencies.
The responses ranged f rom brief, one or two sentence letters to very lengthy, substantive documents providing in-depth analysis of the draf t report's contents, conclusions and recommendations.
The responses presented a wide range of viewpoints on most of the issues addressed in the IRG Report. Most commenters indicated that the J aft IRG report represented an important contribution and significant step f orward in addressing the complex issues of waste management programs. However, nearly all commenters sought further clarification of or disagreed with some of the views expressed in the draf t report.
The IRG acknowledges and appreciates the extensive participation of the public in commenting on the draft report.
Comments have been given careful consideration and were extremely valuable to the IRG in tormulating its recommendations to the President.
The degree of public response indicates the seriousness and interest of the public in this important national issue.
The IRG wishes to encourage continued public participation as the nation's nuclear waste management policies are developed and implemented.
This versior. of the IRC's Report contains the original text of the draft report plus a summary of the public comment on indiv.'. dual sections inserted at the end of each.
An IRG response immediately follows the summary of These IRG responses reflect a modified or amplified view public comment.
based on the public comments and/or additional deliberations,)y 4he IRG.
The f
original text of the Summary of the Draf t Report is included as Appendix H.
This revised report is being provided to the 2:esident, together with IRG recommendations which reflect its understanding of the public comment and its current views as indicated in this revision.
l757 088 t
I
1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Since taking of fice in January 1977, President Carter has taken a series of important actions to address important nuclear issues.
As part of the National Energy Plan, the President ordered a review of the U.S. nuclear This led to the creation of an internal waste management program.
the review and Department of Energy (DOE) task force which carried out and published a draft report in February 1978. 1/
- area, Setting forth preliminary views on key issues in the waste management the DOE f ask force report highlighted the need to develop a national nuclear Further, the report noted policy and integrated program.
waste management it must reflect that f or any nuclear waste management policy to be credible, agencies, the Congress, the States,
the views of the involved government local governments, industry, the scientific and technical community, and other members of the public.
On March 13, 1978, in response to the findings, the President established the Interagency Review Group (IRG) to formulate by October 1, 1978, recommenda-tions for the establishment of an Administrative policy with respect to long-the of nuclear wastes and supporting programs to implement termmangpementHe also asked for the deliberations of the IRC to provide for po licy. --
appropriate participation by the interested public.
Chaired by the Secretary of Energy, the IRG is composed of representatives entities 2/ ncluding i
of 14 government Department of Energy Department of State Department of Interior Department of Transportation Department of Commerce National Aeronautics and Space Administration Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Environmental Protection Agency Of fice of Management and Budget Council on Environmental Quality 1/
of Energy, Directorate of Energy Research; Draf t Report U.S. Department February, 1978.
of Task Force for Review of Nuclear Waste Management; 1/ Appendix A is a representation of the Presidential letter.
11 Appendix B is a list of the Agency representatives.
1757 089
4 i
2 Office of Science and Technology Policy Of fice of Domestic Af fairs and Policy National Security Council Nuciear Regulatory Commission 4/
A Technical Advisory Committee was established to assist a special sub-group of the IRG in formulating a description of the state-of-the-art of alternative disposal technologies and developing and analyzing alternative strategies for high-level and transuranic waste disposal. 5/ The Committee membership represented a broad range of scientific, technical, industrial, and environmental viewpoints.
In carrying out the Presidential mandate, the IRG has attempted, by a variety of means, t o obtain a broad range of inputs and views f rom many sources, including Congress, State and local government, Indian nations, industry, the scientific and technical community, public interest and environmental organizations, and the public. 5/
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 2/
The management of radioactive wastes for the past three decades can be characterized by inadequate integration of waste management R6D efforts with thos e for other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle.
This has been caused in part by inadequate perceptions of the additional technological and scientific capabilities needed to develop an acceptable disposal capability (historically assumed to be achievable through isolation of wastes in mined geologic repositories)' and in part by low funding levels compatible with a view that the waste management program should focus on only one geologic medium (salt) for HLW disposal and f ew sites.
A/
The NRC participated in the activities of e IRG as a nonvoting member.
In view of its status as an indepe_Jent regulatory agency with responsibility to regulate certain activities discussed in this report, the 1RG's participation does not constitute any endorsement of the report's findings and recommendations.
~5/ The work of the subgroup is available in a draf t report, "Alte,rndtive Technology Strategies f or the Isolation of Nuclear Wastes," October 1978.
k/
Activities are summarized in Appendix C, and reported in detail in Summary Report of Public and Small Group Meetings.
Z/
This brief perspective emphasizes activities associated with high level waste disposal because of the substantial number of issues associated with this catter.
Later sections of the report include background inf ormation on other waste types as they are discussed t hroughou t the document.
1757 090
3 Previously, very few earth scientists have been involved in either program or scientific R&D for what is now recognized as a problem whose ma nag ement resolution will clearly require an unprecedented extension of capabilities in rock mechanics, geochemistry, hydrogeology, and long-term predictions of seismicity, volcanism, and climate.
Important groups of scientists from modeling have disciplines such as materials research and risk assessment until recently also not been incorporated into the program.
The costs of radioactive waste management have consistently been viewed as insignificant relative to the other costs of nuclear power.
Further, the absence of facilities for the ultimate disposal of radioactive wastes have not been seen,.until recently, as a potential constraint on uses of nuclear energy.
The increa/ed levels of support, beginning in Fiscal Year 1975 (Exhibit 1),
and broader range of disciplines involved have led to a greatly increased accumulation of knowledge within the program. The current rate of growth of relevant knowledge is very large.
Confidence has now increased to the point where the majority of informed technical opinion holds that the capability now exists to characterize and evaluate media in a number of geologic environments for possible use as repositories built with conventional mining successful isolation of radioactive wastes f rom the bio-technology and that sphere appears feasible for periods of thousands of yeats.
It is important to review some of the past aspects of government management of radioactive wast es so that future dif ficulties can be avoided without losing programmatic momentum.
i s
5 Initially radioactive waste was generated by def ense-related activities _ that n
were driven by overwhelming security priorities and severe time constraints.
Savannah River, Wast es in many forms were produced at Hanf ord, Washington; South Carolina; and at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho, and 1
were managed in a wide variety of ways with varying degrees of success.
These waste materials remain in existence today and will require extensive and costly ef forts for ultimate disposal.
I
~
s In the 1950's and 1960's, commercial wastes began to be produced in various E
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Manage-of the National Research Council / National Academy of Sciences evaluated f
forms and in increasing amounts.
a ment to a number of caveats, ultimate disposal of wastes and recommended, subject f
disposal in deep geological salt formations.
r i
low g
Attempts to develop methods to do this continued sporadically and at funding levels through 1975. A demonstration of retrievable storage in rock i
salt was performed in Kansas in 1969, but for numerous technological and h
For awhile the
{
political reasons f ailed to mature into a waste repository.
but this effort also was abandoned.
s' AEC then began to f avor surf ace storage, e
Owet F
z:
y E
1757 00
_F:
d
.,4 4
I I
Exhibit 1 AEC, ERDA, and DOE Budget Expenditures for Nuclear Waste Management 1/
Fiscal Year Budget (millions $)
1967 and prior years 206 1968 21 4
1969 26
^
1970 28 1971 32 l
1972 46 1973 48 1974 61
' 1975 94 1976 158 1977 230 Subtotal - actuals 951 1/
j All figures are rounded.
Includes facility construction as well as operating dollars.
e r
i 4
1 l
i i
1 9
1757 092 i.
p_-
~
5 In 1976 there were substantial programmatic changes which began to increase but, the Presi-the number of candidate media and areas for consideration; dential decision in 1977 to def er commercial reprocessing conf ronted the fuel) about which technical community with a potential waste form (spent on the disposal of much less is known as compared to the previous R&D ef fort reprocessing wactes.
Political considerations have also reached new levels of intensity, most notably because of greatly increased public perception and concern with it has become clear that prior concentra-environmental matters. With time, on engineering solutions with minimal earth and materials science input It is now recognized that a much more broadly bas ed tu, has bs.<tn too simplistic.
program which addresses fundamental scientific questions within a systems is peeded; in particular, ene which emphasizes flexibility in pro-grammatic and repository design to permit disposal of all types of existing 4
concept and future radioactive wastes.
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL AND FUTURE USE OF NUCLEAR ENERCY/ NEUTRA Some members of the public have expressed significant concern over the advis-to nuclear power until there is ability of f nereasing the U.S. comm'.tmentthere can be saf e storage and disposal of nuclear was greater assurance that particularly to the hazards these wastes can pose to future genera-Some have proposed linking the licensing of new nuclear power plants to They point nuclear wastes can be saf ely contained until
,I tions.
a convincing demonstration that decayed to harmless levels.
i the technology for j
On the other hand, some members of the public believe that is moving waste disposal is well in hand and question whether the government quickly enough in developing repositories for high-level wastes and otherwise Generally, this group believes there
{
doing enough to allay public concerns.
are limii ed benefits and considerable economic risks in linking the reactor s
licensing and waste disposal issues.
Still other members of the public share selected views in common witn both of e
i the preceeding groups.
4 of nuclear waste concerns on the future of nuclear The question of the impact been conclusively addressed at this juncture power in quite complex and has not strongly held and dif f ering views on the I
The IRC is aware that by the IRG.
Theref ore, the IRG has adopted the following approach for I
subject exist.
t purposes of its report:
should be informed of the nature and intensity j
o The President of the public views on this issue; The IRG's analysis and recommendations should address the M
o nuclear power future neutrally, and d
I 1757 093
?
6 an orderly, step-by step decision making process that o
ensures consideration of all facets of the issue and pays maximum attention to the public health and safety should be followed in the development of the policy, plan and program for nuclear waste management.
important to securing broad public supportThe IRG recognizes oach is for waste management efforts.
IRG recommendations, therefore, The are not skewed by a desire to either shore up the nuclear option or to mine it.
under-The IRG has implemented its views on neutrality in three ways in dev l the material in this report.
- First, e oping
(
civilian and military nuclear wastes mustthe substantici existing inventory of way and must be subject to the same strict safety criteria applicable tbe m newly generated wastes, despite pressures o
to be more lenix.t wastes.
An important question is whether the risks associated with thetowards existing management of existing wastes are larger than we would be willing if we had a choice, and of course we have such a choice with reg
> accept waste commitments.
o d to new Second, the IRG has reviewed the dimensions and implications of th active waste issue from the standpoint of alternative nuclear grcwth f e radio-For example, be considered for three situations:the magnitude of the required nuclear waste m utures.
effort can the current waste inventory, the projected waste inventory committed if nuclear power grows to an installed ca 148 Gwe by the year 2000, and the projected waste inventory committ d if pacity of nuclear powEY grows to an installed capacity of 380 Gwe by the year 2000 e
material is presented in the following section of the Chapter This And third, the IRC has taken care that viable, whatever the future course of nuclear power growthits conclusions and re to alternative nuclear futures.
, and are neutral as The IRG particularly welcomes public comment concerns and the future of nuclear yower.on the relationship between waste pa nag em ent
_ublic Comment:
p
/
a.
question of the future of nuclear power.Many commenters agreed wi on the achieved this objective butSome of these felt, however, that the IRG had not or by implication -- favored one or another view on the questiin fact had - either e o n.
of these also f eltMany con = enters disagreed with the IRG's objective of neut that the IRG was in fact rality. Most ceived the IRG to hold views contrary to their own. neutral and usually they per-not Many industry commenters, 1757 094
f
-p F
i the IRG's technical findings should have led it to for example, argued that conclude that the waste disposal problem need not impede further expansion of nuclear power.
In fact, hcwever, they f elt that the IRC recommendations 3p t
would further delay the disposal of commercial high level waste and exacerbate 1
By con-public concern, and thereby inhibiting the growth of nuclear power.the IRG should have explicitiv 1
many environmental groups argued that
]-
linked the future of nuclear power to a solution of the waste problem.
- trast, Instead, they said, the IRG had made statements and recommendations designed In their view inadequate distinction was made to support nuclear power.
between existing waste which must be disposed of by the best available method f
and future waste, the generation of which should be made contingent on the
(
existence of truly adequate disposal technology.
7 felt that the IRG Many corpedders, including some f rom state governments, suf ficiently acknowledging that a linkage exists 3
was being unrealistic in not in state regulatory actions and is increasingly being expressed in state law, again including some from
- Others, and by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.the IRG's discussion of the linkage question was j
that state governments, felt for inf orming the President about public views on the not adequate as a basis subject.
the relationship between waste The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said thatlegally imposed by the Atomic Energy Act p
disposal and reactor licensing is not 2
it will not con-the NRC has determined, as a matter of policy, ttat I
have reasonable confidence that waste How eve r,
does not tinue to license reactors if it lC can and will in due course be %
disposed of.
w Some commenters urged a thorough evaluation of the environmental, social, A portion of these urged j
technical and economic aspects of nuclear power.
N such an evaluation be done comparatively between nuclear power and coal k
that c
derived power.
3 a~
IRG Response:
- j I3 many people perceive that a linkage does and E
The IRG recognizes that should exist between nuclear waste disposal and the future of nuclear power in other countries and by f
and that the linkage has been made in some states, 6
The IRG also understands that positive toward resolution of the waste disposal problem will not only deal the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
'y with serious environmental issues, but also influence public perceptionssense can be viewed
.co veme nt kr concerning the acceptability of nuclear power and in thatits task is to help resolve the b
being neutral.
The IRG feels that The future of nuclear power S
as not nucle.ar waste disposal problem for its own sake.
{J and the relation of this energy source to other energy sources are important the IRG believes it should y
questions that will be debated in many forums but standards, g
participate in those debates. The IRG reiterates its view thatthe public must g
not criteria, and regulations to protect
, ga 1757 095 lg 3Cn+
r
$Y 7
x
8 The IRG emphasizes that the United States possesses significant quantities of existing nuclear waste, much of which derived f rom sources totally separate f rom nuclear power, and that even if no new waste were generated by the nuclear power industry, a significant problem of nuclear waste disposal would still exist.
Some IRG members believe that the IRC report does not adequately meet its own stated criteria for neutrality.
These members believe the IRG has not adequately described or analyzed the ways in which differences in future nuclear growth might heighten or reduce waste management dif ficulties. Many of the IRG analyses and recommendations are focused on more near-term issues such as those associated with the existing wastes and first repository.
These members believe the report did not adequately analyze the ef f ects of future nuclear growth on the real ability of our technical, political, and social institutions to manage nuclear wastes saf ely.
Some IRG members believe that the present U.S. commitment to the use of commercial nuclear power should not be substantially increased without con-vincing assurance arrived at in a public proceeding that nuclear waste disposal can and will be accomplished without unacceptable risks to public health and safety.
SCOPE AND MAGNITUDE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS Radioactive wastes are produced in a wide variety of activities including research investigations, medical diagnostics and therapy with radio-pharmaceuticals, mining of uranium ore, and def ense-related nuclear activi-ties, and the operation of commercial nuclear power reactors.
During the last thirty years def ense-related nuclear activities produced most of the radioactive wastes in terms of volume and radioactivity.
Today, and as projected for the future, the radioactive e9ste generation rate of the def ense-related programs is about cons tant and small in relation to the f uture generation of the nuclear power industry.
The commercial nuclear power industry has grown during the 1960's and 1970's, anJ. as a result, has now generated more radioactive waste (measured in terms or cumulative radio-activity) than the past defense-related activities.
The annual generation rate of waste f rom the commercial nuclear power industry will contf nue to grow as new power reactors come into operation.
S' Waste consists of radioactive species of almost all chemical elements; some t
contain naturally occurring radioactive materials and others contain man-made j
radioactive materials; the wastes exist as gases, liquids, and solids. Yet i
for all their variety, radioactive wastes have one thing in common:
as long i
as they remain highly radioactive, they will be potentially hazardous. This
]
pot ential hazard results f rom the fact that exposure to and/or uptake of
?
radioactive material can cause biological damage.
t i
i 1757 096
9 can lead to death directly through intense exposure and a variety i n ma n, it radioactive including cancer, which can be f atal. In addition, material can be mutagenic thereby transmitting biological, damage into the of diseases, future.
about radioactive material is that there is no The central scientific fact i
ins urthod of altering the period of time in which a particular spec es rena and thereby potentially toxic and hazardous without changing radioactive, Only with time will the material decay to a stable (non-that species.
radi oactive) element. The pertinent decay times vary from hundreds of years for the bulk of the fission products to millions of years for certain of the and future i,f present actinide elements and long-lived fission products. Thus, generaticas are" to be protected f rom potential biological damage, a way must be provided eit'ber to isolate waste f rom the biosphere for long periods of into non-time, to redove it entirely from the earth, or to transform it radioactive elements.
directed the IRG to focus on the means for the saf e long-term The Presidentand disposal of all types of existing and future wastes.
ma na gement The major classes of nuclear wastes are:
fuel assemblies High Level Wastes (HLW) are either intact are being discarded af ter having served their useful o
that lif e in a nuclear reactor (spent fuel) or the portion of fuel that the wastes generated in the reprocessing of spent of contain virtually all of the fission products and mostThes'e the actinides not separated out during reprocessing.
wastes are being considered for disposal in geologic repo-sitories or by other technical options designed to provide long-term isolation of the wastes f rom the biosphere.
Transuranic (TRU) Wastes result predominantly f rom spent fuel reprocessing, the fabrication of plutonium to produce o
if it should occur, plutpnium fuel nuclear weapons, and, fabrication f or recycle to nuclear reactors. STRU waste is currently defined as material containing more than ten nanocuries of transuranic activity per gram of material.
These waste would be disposed in a similar manner to that used for high level waste disposal.
is presently under study by NRC and may be increased.
8/
This numerical list The recategorized the TRU waste volumes would decrease.
If this happens, wastes would then be law lev 1 and suitable for shallow land burial.
1757 097
10 J
4 Low Level Wastes (LLW) contain less than ten nanocuries of o
transuranic containments per gram of material, or they may be f ree of transuranic contaminants, require little or no 1
I shielding have low, but potentially hazardous, concentra-tion or quantities of radionuclides. Low level wastes are 4
generated in almost all activities involving radioactive materials and are presently being disposed of by shallow land burial.
Uranium mine and mill tailings are the residues from uranium o
mining and milling operations which contain low concentrations naturally occurring radloactive materials.
The tailings are generated in very large volumes and are presently stored at the site of mining and milling operations.
at Caseous effluents are released into the biosphere and become o
thereby diluted and dispersed.
(These materials, while important, are not considered further in this report.)
H Decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) is an activity that can generate significant quantities of wastes.
These wastes are not unique and are categorized in the same manner as explained above.
D&D'is examined in this report because, until retired nuclear facilities.no land are decontaminated, such facilities and land must be considered and treated as a waste storage sit e; D&D is potentially a source of large quantities of radioactive wastes.
In Ohat follows, a description of nuclear waste management requirements is given in terms of the number of disposal facilities and associated activities j
required to handle existing quantities of nuclear wastes.
4 In addition, because there are operating commercial nuclear power reactors and a continuing j
nuclear def ens e program, there is a requirement to dispone of the waste to be generated over the remaining lif e of these facilities and programs.
Thes e "lif etime" requirements are included in the results which follow.
Exhibit 2 presents the quantities of existing def ense and commercial wastes 3yl of all types (including spent fuel).
Because it is not possible to predict with accuracy a number of important j;
future decisions which will impact nuclea r wast e ma nagement, the IIRG has used two scenarios to illustrate dif f erent potential levels of raq'lrements in j
u management and disposal for both existing and future wastes. $hese require-
{
ments are summarized in Exhibit 3.
4 1
f
.h 1
1757 0 %
11 Exhibit 2 Quantities of Existing Waste High Level Waste (HLW), thousands of cubic f eet Commercial 80 Def$nse 9400 Transuranic Waste (TRU), contained TRU, kilograms Commercial 123 Defense 1100 Spent Fuel Discharged from Commercial Reactors 2300 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) buried Low Level Waste (LLW), millions of cubic feet,
_ Commercial 15.8 Defense 50.8 Uranium Mill Tailings 140 million tons 1757 099
,=E 12 Exhibit 3 Nominal "Lif etime" Requirements for Nuclear Waste Management and Disposal 1/
1/
Case 1 Case 2 Geologic Repositories:
for def ense high level wastes 1
1 for def ense TRU wastes 1
2 f or commercial high level waste 2/
2 5
l'otential Away-f rom-Reactor Spent Fuel Storage Facilities:
if repository opens in 1988 3
3 if repository opens in 1992 6
6 if repository opens in 1996 8
9 if repository opens in 2000 12 14 Low Level Waste Disposal Sites:
commercial LLW (acres required) 300 950 defcnac LLW (acres required) 140 700 4
1 Uranium Mine and Mill Tailings:
billions of tons 1.9 5.2 number of sites 40 40 m
Decontamination and Decommissioning Activities:
number of facilities decontaminated 148 380 and decommissioned (commercial facilities only)
Transportation Requirements Low level waste volume 4/
120 450 a.
b.
'! umber of trips uith high Invel wastes 3/
1400 3200 c.
TRU waste volume 4/
6.8 116 r
l 1/
Defined in Appendix D.
_2 /
The requirement for repository space is not sensitive to the decision to dispose of spent fuel or to reprocess the spent fuel and recycle the uranium and plutonium.
3/
The number of trips does not include interim storage of spent fuel in an AFR storage facility. Depending on the date of a repository opening these numbers could be somewhat (50%) higher.
_I L
Millions of cubic feet, cunulative through the year 2000.
1757 100
' se.
r ~,a,
- w
- r 13 n
..t c.sn
- ~
SCOPE AND COSTENT OF REPORT p ^E{"
.e to include:
- g.
The IRC has designed the remainder of this report ik criteria and procedures for D:
National goals, planning objectives, e
nuclear waste management to guide policy, planning, program,
~ EI o
M,.
activities.
i:~
regulatory and research and development
'fy
5Q for key Discussions of technical issues and recommendations elements of interim strategic planning bases (which are needed n -l[
o and plan R&D, to develop near-term programs, assign priorities, Pf 59 but which do not prejudge future NEPA or regulatory decision-f N$
making requi;rements) f or the disposal of:
fys
,..br e
_3 y
/
- High l'evel and TRU wastes 3O
- Low level waste
{N!
t.
- U-mill tailings and "w%
- 'Jaste f rom D&D activities.
y-ey w%
1
<a i,,,4.,
Discussion of institutiomil Issues.
% w%
o
-migy including recommendations Discussion af Management Considerations
("jg{
o for follow-on implementation.
,'iX f/f((
based on the goals, Work plans for each major type of waste, bi;<p,.
decisions, and interim strategic planning bases, that:
o
, a se y
o.-. m '-
- Describe key tasks,
.)R$
- agencies, Z~f2? '
- Assign those tasks to appropriate government
- Schedule achievement milestones against which progress Ed.E.
can be measured, and
[fj(]
Identify the nature and timing of future major decisions pera:
.pky((
of that will either validate or require readjustment current plans and/'r tiaing.
Tm E @:
take three types a gy, ef f ective approach to program planning must s!D#2 Any cradible, of considerations into account-
,ue g
-)
~1 5.%+ ;
y gy on a well-f ounded scientific, 4%EA Technical. The resulting plan must rest
. m;x technical, engineering and environmental bases.
- 73 be socially u,.
shq$d{
The planning and decision-making process cust I
Ins t i tu tional_.
must be open to wide and diverse participation, pI'5 I
That is, it acceptable.
and as sensitive to ficxible enough to accommodate changing perceptions, institutional concerns as it is to technical concerns.
n k
~
I 11 k o
ki::
x2 a
i e
a 21 ME j%rx I GlQ ITUS 1757 101 m
m ym
a 14 Ma na g em ent. The management approach must be comprehensive enough to inte-grate all elements into an ef f ecti re whole and to provide for continuing evaluation of achievements against expectations.
The approach to nuclear waste management planning set forth in this report attempts to meet these planning guidelines.
w
/
1, 1757 102
N C/
)$'
862 Nicholas Street Bethlehem, Penna. 18017 April 29, 1979 Mr. Landon Kite Staff Assistant The White House Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Kite :
In my letter to the President, dated April 14, 1979, I stated my reasons why there should be no more nuclear nower plants and why there should be a halt to construction of new nuclear power plants.
In your reply, dated April 23, 1979, you stated the points relating to the Three-Mile Island accident that are t o be examined by the Presidential Commission.
W1ll the_ problem of containment and _ storage of radioactive nuclear waste 'ElsoTplly' investigated by. thEPrea aon+ ial C_ommission?
If the Commission is NOT includin~ the problem of nuclear waste in their official investigation, please clarify why the President has not requested the Commission to do so.
Thank you.
Sincerely
^
Bett iamond 1757 103
'7FFIEFEEQ.
.