ML20062B490
| ML20062B490 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/31/1982 |
| From: | Gornbraun J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062B487 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8208040541 | |
| Download: ML20062B490 (121) | |
Text
.
9 e
AN ANALYSIS OF LOW LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE BURIAL SITE CAPACITY PROJECTIONS 6
Prepared By Janet Gorn-Braun U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (October 1981)
July 1982 e
em r*
9 8208040541 820728 PDR WASTE WM-3 PDR
)
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................... 1 1.1 Background................................. I 1.1.1 Current Disposal Site Status....... 2 1.1.2 New Disposal Site Status........... 7 1.2 Scope and Objective.......................
17 1.3 References................................ 19 2.0 Waste Data Sources and Limitations............. 21 2.1 Statutory Mandates and Constraints........ 26 2.2 References................................ 28 3.0 Waste Projections.............................. 29 3.1 Selective Projections..................... 31 o
3.2 Comprehensive Projections................. 33 3.3 Model Evaluations......................... 34 3.4 Model Limitations......................... 37 3.5 Model Applications........................ 40 3.5.1 EPA Studies........................ 41 3.5.2 NUS Study / DOE Study................ 43 3.6 Referer.ces................................ 47 4.0 Common Data Bank............................... 48 4.1 Centralized Data Bank..................... 48 4.2 Responsibility Center..................... 50 4.3 Current Improved Data Collection Efforts.. 51 4.4 Data Collection Innovation................ 52
5.0 Evaluations and Conclusions.................... 55 5.1 Impact to State Role...................... 56 5.2 Impact to Commission Role................. 58 5.3 Recommended Commission Activity........... 61 5.4 References................................ 64 Appendix A: AIF Study............................... 65 Appendix B: University of Maryland Study............ 83 Appendix C: Teknekron Study......................... 85 1.
Appendix D: EPA Study............................... 87 Appendix E: 00E/NUS Study...........................
105 Selected References.................................
112 O
e
.w s
1 1.o Introduction 1,1 Backcround One important part of the flation's commercial nuclear industry that is yet to be fully established is a national low-level waste management system.
Inclusive in this system are the institutions, actihities, facilities, and regulations, which are necessary to collect, handle, treat, transpor3, Store,andultimatelydisposeoflow-levelradioactihewasteproducts.
Dehelopmentofthiskeyelementintheindustrywascostponedforyears, while efforts were concentrated in creating the nuclear-power electrical generating system and its associated support facilities. tiow the increas-ing generation of low-level radioactive waste from an expanding nuclear
~
industry, coupled with recent events surrounding the uncertainties regaro-ing the disposition of adequate shallow-land burial sites, has created an urgency to intensify development of a low-level waste management system.
Establishing a waste management system not only encompasses a technological challenge, but significant social, political, and ethical questions as well. Resolution of problems surrounding such a system requires no breakthroughinnuclearphysictnorehenthedevelopmentofaradically new engineering technology. What is required is the application of reasoned
(
judgement in identifying and assessing the various facets of the problem.
l Indispensable to the judgement and assessment activities for the planning and design of methods and facilities that will be needed for low-lehel radio-active waste management, is a technologically valid projection of the quan-tities of radioactive wastes that will be generated by the commercial nuclear industry and consigned to shallow-land burial sites.
l l
2 The purpose of this study is to provide an analysis of projection trends used in comorehensive forecasting of commercial shallow-land burial site i
i capacity for low-level radioactive wastes, to evaluate the reliability of conclusions drawn by forecasters, and to access the fluclear Regulatory Comission's need to take a more active role.
1.1.1 Current Discosal Site Status The United States Government has been generating icw-level radioactive wastes in defense and other government programs, since the inception of the nuclear weapons (Manhattan) project in World War II. All these wastes, along with those generated from minor co=ercial activities, were disposeo of at the Atcmic Energy Comission (AEC) shallow-land burial facilities or by ocean disposed burial.* When it became apparent that co= ercial act-ivities within the private sector would generate low-level' radioactive wastes in significant quantities, consideration was given to the possibility of developing ccamercial sites. After the determination was made that sites j
could be safely developed and operated by non-federal management, the AEC announced a new regulatory policy,1 Ehat stated comercial sites were to be established on federal or state land, and operated by private firms i
under Atomic Energy Commission or Agreement State license.
The AEC licensed the first commercially-operated shallow-land burial site in 1962 at Beatty, tievada.
Since that date, comercial management expanced to include three private companfe!: operatinr; s.1 sites. The sites are
- tio licenses for sea disposal were issued after 1960, and the U.S. dis-continued this method in 1970, following the recommendation of the Federai Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
l l
l l
L
3 located at Maxey Flats, Kentucky; Ceatty, Nevada; Sheffield, Illinois; Barnwell, South Carolina; West Valley, New York; and Richland, Washington (Figure 1) The three companies licensed to operate the sites are U.S.
Ecology, Inc. (formerly Nuclear Engineering Company (NECO))at Washington, Nevada, Illinois, and Kentucky; Chemical Nuclear System, Inc. at South Carolina; and Nuclear Fuel Services at New York.
Five of the six sites are located in Agreement States and are regulated by the States. However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses special nuclear material (SNM) in the commercial sector which exceeds formula quantities.* The burial site not located in an Agreement State is Sheffield, Illinois, and it is regulated by the NRC although the State licenses and controls activities at the site concerning naturally occurring and accele-rator-produced radioisotopes (NARM) - not subject to NRC's control. All the burial grounds are on state owned land with the exception of Hanford, f
Washington. For all sites the state has commitments for assuring long-l term care and maintenance of the site, although responsibility for the Hanford site will eventually revert to the Federal Government.
Of the six original sites, only those in Washington, Nevada, and South Carolina, are presently operational and considered viable for disposal operations (Table I).
The first to close was the burial site at West Valley, New York. The site operator, Nuclear Fuel Services, voluntarily discontinued operations on l
1
l l
4 Y
9 e
3 F
3 S
1
\\
e e
O 3
m
\\
9 E
C
.1
\\
T T4
~
w C
E r"
u C
I a
-[
2 f
m i
I i
l l
U=
2 z
e e
e e
TAlli.E I COMMERCIAL t0W-tEVEL WASIC BURIAL CR0t#4DS Year Originally Currently IRu Operational O
location Operator licensed by iIcensed by Accepted Status yn 1962
- Beatty, friC0*
AIC State & NRC**
<10 nanocuries/
Open Nevada gram 1962 Haney Jlats, NECO
/
gentucky State
<10 nanocuries/
Closed rentucky gram December 27, 1977*
1963 West Vstley, NFS***
New York State 0.1 gram PU/fts Closed tiew York other elements'.
- MarcgII, yes 1975 1965 llan f ord, NECO AfC State & NRC**
<10 nanocuries/
Open Washington gram 1967 Sheffield, NECG AEC NRC
<10 nanocuries/
Closed lillnois gram
- Marcg8, 1979 1971
- Barnwell, Chem-South State & HRC**
<10 nanocuries/
Open South Nuclear Carolina gram Carulina Systems.
Inc.
Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc. (Nf CO)
- tJRC licenses only Special Huclear Haterial
"*tiuclear f uel Services (tiFS)
- 8urial was suspended on December 27, 1977 due to leakage in trenches that resulted in on-site migration of buried material N
Burial was suspended on March II,1975 due to seeping water containing tritius and 5R from two trench caps
- 8urial was suspended on April 8,1979 due to filling of available capacity cn
6 March 11, 1975, because water containing tritium and strontium-90 was seeping from two of the trench caps.
The second burial site facility to discontinue operation was Maxey Flats, Kentucky on December 27, 1977. Waste burial was temporarily banned by
~
state officials for a safety study after it was found that leakage in trenches had resulted in some on-site migration of burial waste material.
The site was permanently closed in 1978.
The third site to close was Sheffield, Illinois on April 8, 1978. The last available trench had been filled. The Nuclear Engineering Company applied for a license for future burial space, and when hearings were pending, the company decided to withdraw its application for expansion and announced it was terminating its license to operate the facility.
Subsequentlythe Nuclear Engineering Company was notified that licensees cannot unilaterally relinquish their responsibility and the company was ordered to maintain the site.
With the closing of three of the six sites, a severe regional imbalance emerged from the locations of the remaining sites. This imbalance was aggravated in 1979 when the Governors of Nevada and Washington, because of various shipping and packaging irregularities, placed a temporary embargo on waste acceptance with the opening and closing of sites. The site at Beatty, Nevada closed for the first time on July 2, 1979 and re-opened on July 24, 1979, and for the second time on October 23, 1979 re-opening on December 10, 1979. The site at Richland, Washington only closed once on October 4, 197f,' reopening on' November 19', 1979.
7 The Governor of Washington and the Governor of South Carolina also placec a limit on waste volume to be accepted. South Carolina limitec waste to 3
100,000 ft on October 1, 1981. Washington announced plans to exclude all out-of-state waste with the exception of medical waste after 1982. A State initative passed in late 1980 moved this date up to July 1, 1981.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the State's ban and a subsequent Court ruling declared the ban unconstitutional.*
The Governor of the State of Nevada attempted closing the Beatty site per-manently when the site operators applied for a license renewal in 1980.
The State licensing board however approved renewing the license. That decision is now undergoing additional State review (license is still in effect and considered in a state of " Timely Renewal").
The present physical capacity of the three open sites is estimated to be adequate to meet disposal requirements until 1985 (Table II).
1.1.2 New Discosal Site Status From 1962 until 1969, siting and location of new low-level radioactive waste burial grounds was based mainly on initatives of private operators.
l Site suitability.vas based on evaluation of individual radiation-safety l
merits, and licenses were issued or denied on that basis.
In most instances l
little consideration was given during licensing reviews to the actual need for a burial ground in a specific region and at a specific time.
In some
~
cases, siting was promoted by a state to provide capabilities chiefly or United States of America vs State of Washington, et al., C-81-190, June 30, 1981.
8 TABLE II STATUS OF LAND USACE AND AVAILABILITY AT COMMERCIAL BURIAL SITES" S
SITE STATUS D WILIZED W D AVA M BE (hectares)
(hectarcs)
(hectares)
West Valley, NY Closed 8.9 5.8 b
Haxey Flats, KY Closed 102 66.8 c
Sheffield, IL Closed 8.9 8.9 d
Barnwell, SC open 104 39.2 64.8*
Richland, WA Open 40.5 2.0 38.5' Beatty, NV Open 32 7.3 11.38 Total 296 130 115
~
i
- a. Source: U.S. Department of Energy. August 1980. Soent Fuel and Waste Inventories and Pro.iections. Report: URO-?/8.
OakRidge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, Tn.
- b. Burial was suspended on March 11, 1975.
I
- c. Burial was suspended on December 27, 1977.
- d. Burial was suspended on April 8, 1979.
- e. Expansion of this site is planned, although the area available has not been determined.
~
- f. The 40.5-hectare site is part of 405 hectares which the State has leased from the Federal Government. The 364.5-hectare tract may be l
available for future waste burial.
!~
l
- g. Approximately 162 hectares could be purchased and added to the site if expansion were allowed.
i t
I
9 exclusively for the state's nuclear industry.
WiththepassageoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActin1969(NEPA)
~
(83 STAT 5841), NRC was required to use a cost / benefit analysis as a mech-anism to consider the need for sites licensed and to consider alternative licensing decisions. The states, under the terms of their agreements, were not required to comply with NEPA, but in 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission sent a letter to all Agreement States requesting that the national need for burial grounds be considered to minimize environmental impacts and to con-trol site proliferation. The states complied with the request.
The passage of NEPA also caused a wide range of Congressional, technical, industrial, public, and government groups to give serious attention to the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes by shallow-land burial and radioactive waste management.
In June 1974, the General Accounting Office (GA0) initiated a review of waste burial grounds and presented Congress with a final report on January 12, 1976.2 The report addressed both commercial burial grounds and technological practices, finding that:
e No systematic site selection process was practiced.
e Site criteria had not been established, and characteristics at existing sites varied greatly.
e Radiological problems had. begun to develop at some sites, and radioactivity migration had been detected.
e Recordkeeping practices at disposal sites needed improvement.
l e
There was slow progress in getting an Agreement I
State licensee to implement effective corrective action.
l i
i i
10 Consequently, as a result of the 1976 GA0 report, Congressional hear-ings were held during February, March, and April 1976, by the Conser-vation, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on the House Committee on Government Operations.
In House Report No. 94-1320,3 dated June 30 1976, the Committee reported it found that management and regulatory responsibilities for low-level radioactive waste disposal were dispersed throughout the Federal and State governments and were without consistent direction and coordination.
In addition, it found that the performance of existing disposal systems was not unifdrmly good and radioactive waste migration had occurred. The Committee put forth seven recommend-ations, and two of those rccommendations affected new siting and in-ventory:
Recomendation (2): State-Federal authorities and programs concerning site operation and financial and technical assis-tance should be clarified and a comprehensive policy developed.
Recommendation (4): Agencies should collect data on radioactive wastes already disposed and projected to be disposed.
The Subcommittee on Environment and Safety of the Joint Atomic Energy Comittee (JAEC) also held hearings in May 1976.# During the hearings the Committee questioned whether the newly created NRC, in view of the current problems at the low-level radioactive waste sites, had control over the activities of the Agreement States in the management of radio-active wastes. The NRC testified that it was presently involved in a reassessment of waste management issues, and described its plans to review the Federal / State regulatory roles for low-level waste management
11 e
established under the Atomic Energy Comission.
In response to the GA0 report and the Congressional hearings, ftRC estab-lished a Task Force to review the Federal / State Program for regulation of commercial low-level radioactive waste burial grounds. The Commission issued its final report in January 1977.s The increased attention on the low-level radioactive management issues gave rise to three very distinct points of view in regard to regulating commercial waste by December 1976:
A. Conaressional Viewooint Congress strongly leaned toward tiRC exercising licensing and regulatory authority over low-level radioactive waste management rather than states. This recommendation was based not so much on the states' ability to regulate, as on the premise that low-level radioactive waste was a national problem, requiring centralized control for standards development, environmental assessment, licens-ing, decommissioning, and long term care and maintenance.
o B. States Viewooint States believed they have an important role in the licens-ing of low-level radioactive waste burial grounds within their own borders, since they have traditional responsi-bility for assuring the health and safety of their citi-zens (although opinions among State Officials varied as to how a state should fulfill its responsibility).
C. t1RC Viewpoint The Comission took a strong policy position, in regard to developing new low-level radioactive waste disposal sites, based on the conclusions reached by the f4RC Task Force on review of the Federal / State program for regu-lation of commercial icw-level radioactive waste burial grounds. The Task Force found that the present system for low-level radioactive waste management lacked national organization and direction. The states, in discharging l.
their regulatory duties, have operated under difficult
i i
l'N ^
12 5
' circumstances, but have adequately protected the public s
health and safety. There is no compelling health or safety retson for reassertion of Federal control. However, the states do not have the resources to provide the needed overall leadership or organization, nor do'they have the obligation to find solutions to the national problem of waste management. The development and implementation of such a plan can be more readily achieved if the NRC assumes regu-latory control (with state participation). The Task. Force
- \\-
further identified ths need to investigate alternative methods for waste disposal and to develop standards and criteria.
An additional need was to better define capacity requirements on a regional basis. The continued licensing of shallow-land N
burial sites prior to the evaluation of alternative methods of burial and regional planning, could result in site proliferation of what is less than cptimum disposal method. The Task Force esticated that the six sites (all six were operational) would provice: sufficient ca;acity until 1990. Until a need to expand 1
capacity or.a national low-level radioactive waste management program has been established, licensing or additional low-level waste disposal is unli) ely to be in the best public interest.
In 1977 two significant events too.: p' ace that directly impacted new dis-pasal -sites as well as recharting thetdirection of low-level radioactive waste management efforts. The first event was the enactment of P.L.95-110 repealing Chapter 17, of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, thus abolishing
?
the Congressional Joint Atomic Energy Committee. With the disbanding of the JAEC, all functions and eversight responsibilities were reassi aed t
to several Senate and House Committees effective September 20, 1977.
These comittees became actively involved with radioactive waste manage-ment issues, and began to introduce numerous piecas of legislation to address the problem.
The second event was che inauguration of Jimmy Carter in January 1977, and the beginning of a new Presidential Administration. After taking cffice, President Carter took a series of important actionsto address nuclear issues. As part of the Nationsi Energy Plan, he ordered a rniew
\\,
i I
(
\\
^
- a
13 of the U.S. nuclear waste management program. This action led to the creation of an internal Department of Energy task force which carried out the review directive issuing a report in February 1978 (Deutch Report).O The report set forth preliminary views on key issues in the radioactive waste management area, and highlighted the need to develop a national nuclear waste management policy and integrated program. On March 13, 1978, in response to the findings, the President established the Inter-agency Review Group (IRG) to formulate by October 1, 1978, recommenda-tions for the establishment of an Administrative policy with respect to lengterm management of nuclear wastes and supporting programs to implement the policy.7 The Task Force was chaired by the Secretary of Energy and representatives of fourteen government entities.* The final report was issued in March 1979,8 and the IRG recommendations ultimately formed
~
the basis of the President's policy statement outlining a Comprehensive National Radioactive Waste Management Program.
The President announced the nation's first national radioactive manage-ment program on February 12, 1980.9 It contained a number of key elements for the management of low-level radioactive wastes. Among those key ele-ments were several directly affecting new site disposal:
- Department of Energy; Department of State; Department of Interior; Department of Transportation; Department of Commerce; National Aero-nautics and Space Administration; Arms control and Disarmament Agency; Environmental. Protection Agency; Office of Management and Budget; Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Science and Technology Policy; Offfce of Domestic Affairs and Policy; National Security Coun-cil; Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i I
14
- 1) The DOE was directed to prepare a National Waste Management Plan to be updated biannually.that was to include plans for low-level radioactive wastes;
- 2) The 00E and NRC was directed, until such time as additional disposal facilities are sited and licensed, to assist states in setting up interim storage facili-ties;
- 3) Legislation to assist states in managing comercial low-level radioactive waste and the authority to enter into regional organizations or compacts for the operation of the sites was to be submitted to Congress;
- 4) The DOE was directed to work with the states in their efforts to establish a reliable commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal system;
- 5) The DOE was directed to work with the states to assist in their activities to establish regional disposal sites for low-level wastes from the fuel and non-fuel cycles; and
- 6) To involve all levels of government in sharing the responsibility for safe management and disposal of nuclear wastes, the President created, by Executive
=
Order 12192, a State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management (SPC) to advise the Executive Branch and the Secretary of Energy, and work with Congress in making and implementing decisions on radioactive wastes. The SPC was directed to give low-level radio-active waste management early, priority attention.
By the close of the Carter Administration in early 1981, national sensitivity to low-level radioactive waste issues had generated a number of actions to address proposed plans, notably in the area of new sites. All areas of interest contributed to defining low-level radioactive waste management based upon state or regional responsibility.
The Department of Energy had prepared and issued a working draft National Waste Management Plan,10and Congress in December 1980 passed P.L.96-573, the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (95 STAT 3347), establishing Federal Government policy on low-level radioactive waste:
r____-
_-_-________.-_._______________.________.___._________________________m-
15 A) Each state is responsible for providing for the availability of capacity either within or outside.
the state for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders; B) Low-level radioactive waste can be most safely and efficiently managed on a regional basis; and C) To carry out the policy, states may enter into Congressionally approved state compacts.
The riuclear Regulatory Comission had completed its examination of alternate methods of low-level radioactive waste disposal,11 and issued a draft rule (10 CFR 61) in support of siting and management technology for near-surface land burial (1979). Additionally, on flovemeber 7, 1979, Commission Chairman, Joseph Hendrie, testified before Congress in support of a state site thrust for disposal responsibility.12 The Comission felt that while Federal planning would reduce the possi-bility of unnecessary disposal site proliferation, the same might be accomplished by the States through compact arrangements on some pro quo basis. flew sites were needed (with only 3 of the original 6 still in operation), and it had been demonstrated that states can perform the technical assessment successfully.
In support of the Low-Level Radioactive Policy Act (95 STAT 3347), the Com-mission revised its Statement of Policy regarding agreements with states, and criteria for guidance in discontinuance of i1RC regulatory authority, and assumption of regulatory authority by states through the State Agree-ment Program. This policy revision allows interested states to enter into agreements with NRC to regulate only low-level radioactive waste sites (46 FR 7540).
16 The SPC Presidential Task Force had compiled with the President's directive to give low-level radioactive waste management early, priority attention by passing the following resolutions, at the beginning of its tenure:13 e
Resolution 2-2: Every state is responsible for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated within its boundaries, and states should enter into compacts, as necessary, for carrying out this responsibility.
e Resolution 4-15: Each state develop a. comprehensive plan for the management of its low-level waste generated within its borders.
e Resolution 4-17: Host states or regional compacts should be authorized by Federal statute to exclude from their disposal sites waste generated outside the state or the region.
e Resolution 4-21: The Atomic Energy Act be am' ended to clarify NRC authority to enter into an agreement with a state solely to authorize state. regulation of the disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
e Resolution 4-20: Congress enact legislation to ensure that Agreement States meet nationally uniform minimum standards.
e Resolution 4-18: Congress authorize NRC and DOE to provide technical and monetary support by the appro-priate mechanisms to individual states for the development of sites for regional use.
Passage of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (95 STAT 3347)
I served as a catalyst for a number of states and regional organizations to begin efforts to establish new sites:14 Northwest Interstate Compact (Idaho, Washington) e Southwestern States (Western Interstate Energy e
l Board)
17 e
South Central Region (Kansas, Oklahoma) e Southeast Ccmoact (Southern States Energy Board) e Mid-Atlantic Region (Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Washington,D.C.)
e
!!ew England (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey)
A number of states have conducted comprehensive assessments of their in-state low-level radioactive waste inventories, issues, and options:
e Arizona e North Carolina e
1.2 Scoce and Obiective The current approach to low-level radioactive waste management is based upon state or regional responsibility. The recently passed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Policy Act formalized the approach as a national policy. The role of Federal agencies at this point is to support states in planning for low-level waste management, whether on a single-state or regional basis, and implementing those plans.
One such support function is to provide generation data to aid in establishing a basis for sound waste management. This analysis identi-fiesandevaluatesthequantitatiYecharacterizationforecaststudies, projecting expected quantities of low-level radioactive wastes to be
18 A
generated and disposed of, at commercial shallow-land burial sites through the year 2000. Generation forecast studies considered in the analysis are comprehensive projections that combine data from both fuel cycle and non-fuel cycle sources.
The scope of this study includes a thorough search of technical liter-ature in the public domain to identify and investigate all radioactive waste forecast projections. Studies specifically addressing selective forecasts were examined, but not included within the scope of this analysis. The decision was based on the number, subject approach, meth-odology, and applicability to site capacity forecasting.
At the onset of this analysis, two objectives were identified. The first objective was to examine the basis for each forecast study to determine whether or not sufficient operating data and historical data were available, to permit the forecasters to draw valid conclusions about the amounts and types of low-level wastes that will be generated in the future, or about the useful life of existing licensed commercial shallow-land burial sites.
The second objective was to examine the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulatory responsibility and statutory authority, to take an active role in characterizing data for forecasting quantities of low-level radioactive wastes, and inter-agency activities to support a common data base.
4 e
e
19 1.3 References 1.
U.s. Atomic Energy Commission. AEC Formulates Policy for Land Discosal of Radioactive Uastes: Government-Controiiea Sites to be Estaolisned as fleeded, Press Release: January 28, 1960.
2.
U.S. Comotroller General, General Accounting Office.
Imorovements Needed In the Discosal of Radioactive Waste: A Proolem or Centuries, Report: RED-76-54.
January 12, 1976.
3.
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives.
Conference Recort.
Report No. 94-1320. 94th Cong., 1st Sess., June 30, 1976.
4.
U.S. Congress, Jcint Atomic Energy Committee. Hearinos on Low-Level Maste. 94th Cong.,1 st Sess., May 1976.
5.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NRC Task Force Recort on Review of the Federal / State Procram for Recuiation of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste durial Grounos.
Report:.1UREG-J217.
Maren 1977.
6.
U.S. Department of Energy, Directorate of Energy Research. Recort of Task Force for Review of Nuclear Waste Mananement.
Report:
DOE / ER-004/ D.
Feoruary 1978.
7.
U.S. President, 1977-81 (Carter). White House Memorandum esta-blishing a Nuclear Waste Management Task Force. March 13,1978.
8.
Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management.
Recort to the President.
Report : TID-29442. March 1979.
9.
U.S. President, 1977-81 (Carter). White House Memorandum to the Congress of the United States establishing A Comprehensive National Waste Management Program.
February 12, 1980.
10.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Tha Marinn31 pl a n enr Dadin=c-4va th e a Mana cemen t : Workinn Dra ft 4, Vol. I and Vol. 2.
January 1981.
11.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Evaluation of Alternative Methods for the Discosal of Low-level Radioactive Wastes. Report:
NUREG/ CR-66dl.
July 1979.
12.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Testimony on Low-Level Radio-active Waste Disposal before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production, House Committee on Science and Technology, presented by Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman. Novemoer 7,1979.
20 1
13.
State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management.
Interim Report to the President.
February 24, 1981.
l I
14.
State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management.
Docket Book: Sixth Meeting.
June 8,1981.
15.
Kathleen Newsome-Schneider, Office of State Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, personal telecommunication with J.G. Braun U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management, June 1, 1981.
e b
e a
,,,,-,n,-,-.-
21 2.0 Waste Data Sources and Linitations There are three data sources available for preparing low-level radioactive waste forecasts: generator license records, shipping manifest records, and burial site records (Figure 3). All material and facility licenses are required to maintain detailed records (10 DFR 20.401) with regard to radioactive materials for audit and inspection, however there are no re-quirements for selection or aggregate reporting of such data. Therefore no central common data base is available for modeling or analysis of generator data.
Radioactive material transfer records (10 DFR 71.62) are also required, and shipping manifests (49 CFR 170-189/ Proposed 10 CFR 20.311) accompany low-level radioactive waste in transit.
In addition, site owners and ship-ping broker companies retain a copy of the manifest. Generators or brokers prepare packaging labels and shipping manifests (brokers sometimes repackage or consolidate shipments under one manifest).
Disposal site operators are required to maintain records and must rely on package labels or snipping documents to maintain records of waste burial.
To avoid exposing workers to radiation, disposal site operators usually do not open waste packages to validate package or manifested information.
With past practices, many waste package labels or shipping documents con-tained only general information on the waste form, composition, or isotopic content of the waste. Burial site records reflect this information.
22 FIGURE 3 Radioactive ow-Level Weste teneration Weste Disposal tho
, 7-i i
l
's +
rc 1+/
\\ + /Cossion %
/
'. + I Sewage /
I hallow-1 a i On.5itei e Trash I = ALL C M RATED 6tmospherj Co mERCIAL WASTE' Burial
/
\\
,a
's N.e#4,%,'w' s
/
's.,
,/
,a*
~
~',
3,/
s r~ ~ ~ ~s
/ Waste + \\
(Treatment 7and?
yReductic,'
%w'-
{
R' N
Label
+ Shielding /
d Packaging State Comoined o.
- *" * [d
^v a
f p,,
Label m
Yes bhiccingMani.
.L No Coccine.
?.
est or Report or IM Forwarded QM1 epac
,e
-\\
e s
mrokee Broker 4
- ollectier Shipping
\\
{
\\ Coreercial Waste l
Shipped thallow-Land Bu ial Facili v
(
gcgf33 Waste FerrQ waste and/cr + Volu e ) + 5%ielding/ = Suried Trea tnen t Redaction Packaging Laste
23 Disposal site reporting requirements to the state vary from state-to-state.
South Carolina requires a microfich copy of the shipping manifest be sent to the State Radiological Health Office, where it is entered into a com-puterized system.1 The State of Washington also requires a copy of the manifest be sent to the State Radiological Health Office.2 Nevada requires totals to be sent; however they are reviewing the possibility of receiving a more detailed monthly report.3 Data extrapolation from burial site or state inventory records has a number of inherent information reliability problems, and are therefore limited in modeling or analytical utility for the following reasons:
1)
Infonnation is dependent upon the recordkeeping i
of the generator and/or shipping broker.
- 2) There is no uniform system of recordkeeping for the generators, shippers, burial sites, or states.
- 3) Data entry and data transfer errors are inevitable.
4)
It is reasonable to assume that several inventory records will be missing in all inventory record-keeping.
5)
Information is often consolidated or generalized, and not adequate to characterize quantiatively - unique contribution as a data element is hampered.
- 6) The facility and site operator may round-off figures used, thus resulting in differences.
- 7) Estimated rather than posted data may be used and not designated as such.
- 8) Propriety record agreements between brokers and gener-ators often prohibit certain types of breakdowns in data used.
- 9) Generator information is sometimes misleading - ship-ments may be listed as having originated from a state where it was not generated, because brokers list con-
24 solidated waste as originating from the state of the broker's home office.
For the past decade, there has been evidence of efforts to improve record-keeping, for example:
The University of Colorado Medical Center found that maintaining an accurate and current inventory of radio-active nuclides was both difficult and. tedious.
In an effort to keep pace with the ever-increasing use of radio-active materials, a number of non-automated inventory methods were tried and found to be inadequate, and often introduced additional complications. To help solve the dilemma, the University invested in an automated digital computer recordkeeping system. The introduction of this computer recordkeeping system not only reduced the burden of maintaining an accurate and current inventory, but provided unanticipated benefits, which contributed to a moreefficjentmethodofcontrolanduseofradioactive materials It is believed the majority of generators however still use a non-automated system of recordkeeping.
Site operators and state radiological offices have also investigated auto-mated record systems to improve shallow-land burial site management. The first use of an automated system began with the Maxey Flats, Kentucky site in 1972. Leakage in the trenches resulting in off-site migration of burial waste material provided an incentive to closely examine the burial inventory records. The Kentucky Radiological Health Department,under con-tractual agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, auto-mated burial site inventory records from 1963-1972.
The data transferred during the project comprised nearly 200,000 computer cards. Each data record on the computer tape contained up to 25 separate pieces of information or data elements: burial date, burial location,
25 isotope buried, isotope activity, volume, etc.
l This project is conspicuously illustrative of automated record com-j pilation problems that occur with historical inventory records, and
~
the analytical or modeling complications that may result:
1)
Information transfer errors from shipping manifest to inventory records for the site.
2)
Information transfer errors from inventory records to computer cards.
3)
Inaccurate information on the original shipping documents (e.g. failure to ident.ify the isotope properly, f ailure to associate the correct isotope in the shipment with the listed activity, failure to list the complete details needed for inventory, etc.).
- 4) Some known shipments of large quantities of radio-active material information missing from inventory data records.
- 5) Possibility of one or more shipments of radio-active material information missing from inventory data records.
- 6) Differences in recorded quantities versus actual quantities contained in individual shipments -
biased toward exaggerating the recorded quantity (it is well known that the best place to tally
" Material Unaccounted For" is in the waste shipment).
- 7) Estimates of the activity content in a shipment were sometimes arbitrary.
- 8) Discrepancies between statistics reported at the site and elsewhere - some due to reporting methods.
Bad records encountered amounted to 15% of the total. The project attempted to reduce this figure by computerized correction, and
26 tracing of individual records through the shipping records to the generator (a formidable task). The project concluded by recommend-
~
ing that about 15% should be added to all activities on the site to accomodate for bad and missing records.
The seconc use of an automated inventory record system is the Barnwell, South Carolina site. The State Radiological Health Office requires the site operator transfer a copy of the shipping manifest to the State Office where it is' transferred to an automated data system.
The proposed Rule for low-level radioactive waste shallow-lana burial f
10 CFR 61 (46 FR 380S1-38105) addresses many of the data record problems encountered in the past.
Improved methocr for record keeping and mani-
)
fest reporting have been incorporated.
2.1 Statutory Mandates and Constraints Lcw-level radioactive waste data collecting activities historically have been heavily influenced by Congressional statutory mandates and constraints, and this in turn has influenced forecasting and assessment capabilities.
1 First by legislation, such as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the i
j National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, impacting the stringent i
regulatory and licensing data record requirements placed on the private i
sector. Second by legislation impacting the regulatory information I
collection and paperwork burdens:
- 1) The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1950 (P.L.96-345) obligating agencies to fit regulatory requirements 4
to the scale of the affected activity, and to lessen ij-the economic impact to small business entities.
I s
i i
27
- 2) The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L.95-511) tightening the oversight authority of the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and in-creases the requirements of the clearance process needed before. information requests can be made of the public.
And third by legislation impacting specialized data reports required by Congress:
- 1) The Hazardous Substances Releases, Liability, Compensation Act of 1980 (P.L.96-510) or Superfund Act requiring EPA to conduct a study that will in-clude an assessment of current and projected treat-ment, storage, and disposal capacity needs and short falls for hazardous waste (includes radioactive) by management category on a state-by-state basis, and an evaluation of the appropriateness of a regional approach.
- 2) The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (P.L.96-576) shifting disposal capacity responsibility I
to the states (remaining under NRC regulation directly or indirectly through the Agreement States Program),
and requires DOE ta prepare and submit to Congress and to each state within 120 days a report on the. disposal capacity needed for present and future low-level radio-active waste on a regional basis, and to include an inventory of types and quantities of waste (D0E Report:
DOE /NE-0015).
All developers involved in forecasting activities must take into consider-ation, both the technological and administrative directives incorporated in statutes affecting federal agencies, as well as the inherent problems found in recordkeepios mathematical modeling, and statistical projections.
-r
28 2.2 References 1.
Hayward Shealy, State of South Carolina Radiological Health Office, personal telecomunication with J.G. Braun, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Division of Waste Management, April 8,1981.
2.
Lee Granameier, State of Washington Radiological Health Office, personal telecommunication with J.G. Braun, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Division of Waste Management, April 8,1981.
3.
John Vader, State of Nevada Radiological Health Office, personal telecommunication with J.G. Braun, U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Com-mission, Division of Waste Management, April 8,1981.
4 Ibbott, Geoffrey S., et. al.
" Record-Keeping In A Radiation Safety Office By Timesharing Digital Computer", Health Physics, Vol. 21, October 1971, po. 581-584.
5.
Gat, Uri, and J.D. Thomas.
" Radioactive Waste Inventory at the Maxey Flats Nuclear Waste Burial Site", Health Physics, Vol. 30 pp. 281-289.
S e
29 3.o Waste Projections The essential elements of a satisfactorynational low-level radioactive waste management program are those that provide for:
a) Adequate disposal capacity at the least environ-mental and social costs; b) Well defined standards and regulations for dis-posal (e.g. shallow-land burial: site selection, operation, and long-term care); and c) Caoability of those governmental agencies having responsibility to implement the program.
The first stage in dealing with the development of a low-level radio-active waste management program is a determination of the quantity of waste generated, and where it is generated. The second stage is to de-termine how it is disposed of: sewage disposal, effluent disposal, decay disposal, or shallow-land burial disposal (Table III). And finally, the third stage is to project the anticipated shallow-land disposal capacity required on a national, regional, and state-by-state basis.
In the face of rapidly changing technological, economic, and political requirements, there has been a common and understandable tendency to concentrate on step three and disposal capacity for burial sites. This tendency has increased with the development of both technical and admin-istrative uncertainties surrounding the number of available sites.
The operational lifetima of each site depends upon the rate at which waste is received, site size, land availability for site expansion,
~
4 8
yre ts s
nh ag ne ee w
os ra es gs o
l ma or ua aa lda mr po l e we l ni o
m fl el aar C
e f e Se hL u T
ER R
S B
/
l
_~
m
~
g95
- pm Q* a m'
l l
I E
L B
A L
RDA EI LTC EAR VRE EEM LNM EO WGC O
(
LE T LS LA AW 1
8
/
B GJ
31 operdtional practices, and institutional considerations. Fundamental to exercising positive control over the lifetime, and timing and location of disposal sites, is a projection of needed waste disposal capacity on a national and regional basis.
A number of "Selectihe" (addressing either the fuel cycle or non-fuel
._ _._ _. _ _. cyclewastestreamindividually)and"Comprehensihe"(addressinga-combination of both the fuel cycle and non-fuel cycle waste streams) forecasts have been developed. They vary considerably as to volume of wastes expected and basic assumptions used. Further. they differ re-garding the types and forms of wastes expected, assumptions regarding waste treatment systems to be used at various facilities, and the sources generating waste (i.e. power levels of reactors).
3.15electihe Projections Most low-level radioactive wastes are produced, as byproducts of the various phases and fueling requirements, in the operation of commercial nuclear power reactors. The fuel cycle waste stream has been the sub-l ject of much research and scrutiny by various researches. Estimates of waste generated has been primarily focused on high-level waste, with cursory attention on low-level waste. These " subset" investigations for low-level waste are generally based on "guestimates". Only one study was located that approached the subject in a systematic manner, with low-level waste as the main topic, and addressed site capacity forecasting needs:
l l
i L
32 Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF)
A Survey-and Evaluation of Handling and. Disposing of Solid Low-Level Nuclear Fuel Cycle Wastes l
October 1976 (Appendix A)
The AIF study based its forecasting conclusions On a combination of design and operating data, and a survey.
Although less well known, a significant portion of the low-level radio-active wastes disposed of in this country are oroducts of the non-fuel cycle waste stream. The source of these wastes are the possessors of some 16,000+ licenses. These licenses are a heterogeneous mixture of individuals and institutions in the commercial institutional, medical, and industrial sector.
l l
Albeit even with the large number of licenses, there has been almost no l
research regarding this type of waste. Just one two-part investigation l
l was located that assessed the subject:
1 T.J. Beck, et al.
l Institutional Radioactive Wastes -
1977: Final Report Radiation Safety Office l
University of Maryland at Baltimore l
Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Report: NUREG/CR-ll37 l
October 1979 (Appendix B) 1 The study conclusions and projections were formulated by using survey data, manipulated by accepted methodologies, in combination with characteristic correlation and behavior analysis. Results were calibrated against a comprehensive study result performed by the Environmental 1
33 Protection Agency (Appendix 0).
3.2Comorehensive Projections Comprehensive projections addressing both the fuel cycle and non-fuel cycle waste streams did not appear until 12 years after the first com-mercial low-level radioactive waste site opened in 1962.. Since that time only three studies have attempted to provide an overall assessment:
e The Teknekron Study sponsored by the fluclear Regulatory Commission (Appendix C)1 The Holcomb Studies sponsored by the,E mentalProtectionAgency(Apendix0)gvjron-e e
The NUS Study sponsored by the Department of Energy (Appendix E)5 The Teknekron Study was aborted before completion because of contract problems. A task report was completed outlining the computer model characteristics available for use in analysis of the fuel cycle and non-fuel cycle waste strecas.
The EPA studies began in 1974 and were updated in 1978 and 1980. The two updates were extensions of the original 1974 study based on acquir-ing additice21 data on waste received at the sites.
l l
The DOE studies by fiUS were measurement studies with no projections until the agency reevaluated the information for the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 6
Policy Act Reoort in response to the Public Law 96-573. This report in-cluded a projection based on the measurement study's conclusions.
i
34 3.3Model Evaluations An exanination of forecasting approaches used in making comprehensive projections for low-level radioactive waste burial site capacity, reveals that the trend is excusively an empirical relationship or " top down" path. The general thrust of the initial modeling effort is made by first determining the total low-level radioactive waste quantities buried at each site, and then segregating these figures into fuel cycle and non-fuel cycle waste stream categories. The primary data source is extrapolataa historical information from shipping / burial site inventories, obtainea from site operators or State Radiological Health Offices (through con-tract agreement). For the fuel cycle waste stream, secondary data is acquired from design and operating calculations, survey data, and electri-cal energy forecast demands. Due to the extreme lack of availability of secondary sources for the non-fuel cycle waste stream, little if any addi-tional information is acquired.
Once the data is gathered, the modeler organizes and tabulates it for use in the forecasting model by first creating a measurement model. To analy:e the data, extrapolation methodology techniques are then applied.
With this method, the basic strategy is to find time series data that are representative of the event to be forecast. The assumption made is
[
that future events will conform to these data. Sometimes the choice of data is obvious and other times the data are not so obvious.
Modelers obtain data from one or more of the following sources:
9 35
- 1) Historical Data: data for an event that is of interest accumulated over a period of time.
Accuracy is affected by two major conditions:
a) accuracy of the data, and b) the extent to which underlying conditions will change in the future. Measurement error has a large impact on projections. This measurement error is of major importance because real world data are often inaccurate.
- 2) Analogus Data: data that are from.similar' situation calculations used as primary data or factored into calculations.
- 3) Laboratory Simulated Data: data calculations obtained from simulated testing in a labora-tory environment.
- 4) Field Simulated Data: data calculations ob-tained from field testing.
Historical data are useful for extrapolation if they are timely and accurate, and if the underlying process is expected to be stable in the future. If historical data are not available, an analogous situation may be constructed for analysis.
If analogous data are not feasible, simulated data from laboratory or field tests are appropriate for estimating current statu or making projections - simulated data however may be seriously influenced by bias and therefore non-representative of actual situations.
Two major approaches are used in calibrating the data. The first approach is exponential smoothing. This smoothing draws upon the philosophy of decomposition whereby time series data are assumed to be made up of some basic components such as average, trend, periodicity, and error. Weight is placed on the most recent data. Weight on earlier periods drops off exponentially, so that the older the data, the less influence. Users of
i 36 exponential smoothing often iniest much time and energy in selecting the optimal smoothing factors.
i The second approach is to run a regression using time as the independent variable. This method weights all the historical data equally and pro-vides estimates of both current status and trend. The forecasting accur-acy of regression against time is generally acce~pted to be slightly in-i ferior to that of exponential smoothing.
Current burial site capacity modeling trends indicate modelers use an i
amalgamated forecast, for calculating projections based on extrapolation methodology and data source techniques to compute the calculations. To arri$e at a projection for fuel cycle wastes to the year 2000, annual waste volumes are plotted on a linear scale vs power generating capacity (in,MW(e)) for a specified date-span increment. Using the least-squares method of regression analysis, the calculations and plots are then pro-jected to give a forecast. To enhance the usability of the forecast, exponential smoothing is applied for variables that include operating 4
calculations from field data, design calculations from laboratory data, and electrical energy forecast demands. Causalrelationshipshahealso been hypothesized using license application data and U.S. population figures (NUS Study). Moreover, calibrations reflecting national, regional, or state profiles are often included for analysis on site capacity.
~
j Non-fuel cycle waste values are calculated on the assumption they will f
remain relatively constant through the year 2000. No smoothing is applied
~
1 l
when extending calculations over time.
i
37 3.4 Model Limitations Comparison of forecasting models U th the available "real world" data, disclosed ample evidence of the fundari, ental weaknesses and vulnerabilities inherent in the methods used, the reference system theory, and the low-leYelradioactihe~wastedata. With the exception of the mathematical modeling techniques, flaws can be attributed, in part to the historical development of waste forecasting, and to a greater extent, the complexity of the behavior of the reference system.
From a historical standpoint, forecasts concentrated on wastes to be generated from the fuel cycle waste stream. They were originally developed from design and minimal operating data (AIF Study). When the waste sites began to exhibit technological problems and close down, environmental con-cerns prompted a modeling shift to impacts of waste quantity and actihity buried at the sites (EPA Studies). Concentration still remained on the fuel cycle waste stream, in the belief that it was the more hazardous threat, and greater amounts would be generated (based on projected electric pcwer demands). Non-fuel cycle waste was assumed to have minimal immed-iate or long-term impacts.
With the closing of three of the six commercial burial sites and the development of transportation problems (packaging and contamination), a third modeling shift prompted focus on the quantities and activities of wastes shipped to the sites. Emphasis was also placed on state activities (NUS Study). Periodic embargos by the states housing the three open sites, and the national focus on the shortage of low-level radioactive waste
38 burial capacity, prompted a fourth shift focusing on the quantity, activity, and location of generated waste (00E response to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act). Continuing change in world energy resource allocation policies, the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident, chemical hazardous waste concerns, and shifts in nuclear power policies, added emphasis to this directional shift.
The first two modeling efforts concentrated on Descriptive Forecasting Models for the purpose of characterizing the important features of the existing burial sites, and to help in understanding the problems associ-ated with them. They were primarily developed to aid in experimentation and research.
The third modeling effort was not a Forecasting Model, but a Measurement Model.
It attempted to tabulate and quantify the waste buried at the commercial sites.
The fourth and latest modeling effort however was a major change in conceptual direction and effort.
It focused on both a Prescriptive Forecasting Model prescribing a solution to the problems, and a Normative Forecasting Model identifying feasible and desirable regional configurations of the problems, to serve as a goal o* standard.
The complexity of the waste generation processes has great influence on the availability of data. Consequently to accommodate for the lack of data, modelers have concentrated on optimization and simplification, in an effort to offer a rational approach. They make essential distinctions by
39 specifying desired relationships between manipulable means and obtainable objectihes. Their strength lies in the ability to make a little knowledge go a long way, by combining an understanding of the constraints of the situationwiththeabilitytoexploreanenvironmentconstructi0ely. Their weakness lies in the tendency to make quite arbitrary decisions, on the major factors and assumptions that support or will not support their model-ing method choices. Moreoher, in attempting to deal with these difficulties, modelersthemselhesactontheenvironment,thusbecomingpartoftheprob-lem with which they are attempting to cope.
A closer look at the technical complexity of the reference system readily gives rise to an understanding of the modeling problems encountered by modelers. For example, focus has been on wastes generated from nuclear power reactors rather than other entities in the nuclear industry, but not all contributions from the fuel cycle waste stream are included.
Generally wastes from such sources as uranium conversion, fuel fabrication facilities, and reprocessing are omitted. Design calculations are also simplified as well as other causal variable factors influencing production, e.g. load factors, startup difficulties, age, etc.
In addition, estimated or simplified data can be identified as having been used in design im-prohements, better performance of waste systems, solidification operations, incineration operations, packaging techniques, or burial of shield material.
In many cases the data required to factor in impacts of a causal variable are unavailable. Changes in regulations or operating restrictions may result in a significant impact that cannot be measured or factored into 4
.e
\\
l.
l
(
,~
t
/
V
,8 40 f
,.iii j,
?
i.
t
- l. y 4
1
+
g I
atorecdstEodel(i(e.solidificati'onof,licai4 waste,.
\\
n
/
^'
\\
/
,s
~ '
labddition, regulation juriscidion and agency gurpose play an extremely
- f 1
i e
i imo'o-hantroleinmodeling. The Nuclear Regulacory C'ommission has 3
\\
u.e o
+
licensin,g jurisdiction, and therefore the ability to! require licensees
(
s j-
- {
to report data, either directly'or indirectly *through the Agreement State Program. The Department of Energy h'as research and develophent responsi-(,
bility. ThesplitpersonalityofdatafunctionscaqQamperacquisition and influence modeling techniques.
i j
^
e s
s 1
4
/,
ModpJing techniques are alsc yulneraDie to the intluences anc iimitations
(,
I 1
T,of other forecasts that have an irmact on waste generation. Scstinotable f
sta 9
[ ',
' a're energy demand forecasts. They are cased on crar>y"f actors, including f.
s,
'co:isicerat.i,on of trends in economic conditions,/ population g(rowth, and f
r 1Y
/
L industriai, production.,'Present conditions,for projecting demands are less
)
i
)
,\\ r
\\ !/
t a
l, l thar,ai; deal.,Peeviously established
- trends-of-growth' indicators have been 1,
v 6ndcrmined by\\cnanges in world' energy resource allocation policies, a
. / '(.
s ie
')
3 e
'gineraVdecline in the demand for energy, and instability in the financial
?
t y e
i and capij.al structure. 'Proje'ctionfof nuclear power growth beyond the point
/
of present commitments is difficult because of theses uncertainties. Esti-f mates of energy demand therefore can cover a wide rangs'of conclusicns.
i y 1,
3.5Model AoDlications-
,I,
,'t s
/,
./
Po'dels are highly dependent.on.their manner of use and u'ndersfancing of l -f l
\\
! I the user. Therefore, both builders and 'usere of model5'must{ 5e careful s'
't to be very. explicit about 'the a'ssumptions and the. in,herent' liqitations q
Itjf the models.
Failure to'do so may result in a " meaningless forecasting
/
I
>ii
\\
l s
t,
)
l [.
J~
/
/
)
.i,,-
/
'a
.,, _ h~~ ;.
3 I~ed b,--
i f~
41 stastic" that is nothing more than an advocate in technological guise, used to legitimize assumptions that do not actually apply (particularly if a descriptive model projection or measurement statistic is applies to a prescriptive or normative projection problem.
It must be kept in mind that models are a technology based more on personal ingenuity and the way things appear to be, than on scientific discovery and objective truth. They permit an efficient means of testing the effects of various changes in assumptions and should be used as a framework to acnieve reasonacieness and cunsistency. Systematic modeling can help sort out the implications of "what-if" classss of surprises, and thus can help to understand the extent of uncertainty. They portray the possible, not necessarily the probable, and certainly not the inevitable.
No mocel exists which allows development of precise forecast projections.
Failure to apply forecast projections, within the boundaries of their limitations, will convert theory into action, increasing the uncertainty surrounding a problem rather than reducing it.
Substantial evidence can be identified to support a trend in this direction, for use of the pro-jections from EPA ana DOE modeling forecasts.
3.s.I. EPA Studies EPA studies were developed out of environmental concerns for the,.
2 of characterizing important features of the existing burial sites, and to l-help in understanding the problems associated with them.
The AIF study was the only other effort to look at the problem.
1 1
42 Concentration by EPA was on a Descriptive Forecasting Model with emphasis on the fuel cycle waste stream. Given that nearly all fuel cycle wastes, with the exception of effluents (less than If.) is shipped to a shallow-land burial site for disposal, it is the most hazardous, and large increases in the quantity were expected, the forecast model reference system was based on the theory that all low-level radioactise waste generated will be dis-posed of in shallow-land burial sites.
When the modeler turned to the non-fuel cycle waste stream for inclusion in the model, reference system calculations were based on the same theory due to the lack of quantitative data. Tabulations were confined to limited historical extrapolation of burial site records, and "guestimates" for per-centages of waste attributed to medical, industrial, and institutional sources (made by state radiological health offices in the states where the sites are located).
With a few isolated exceptions, references to EPA's fuel cycle waste stream projections are almost never used for any purpose other than research no-tations. However that is not the case for non-fuel cycle waste stream pro-jections, particularly the percentages attributed to medical, industrial, and institutional sources.
A fair number of references can be found within the public domain referring to the source percentages, giving the impression that they are based on a scientific finding. The most serious and far reaching use of the percentage data however is in the University of Maryland Study, Institutional Radio-active Wastes; the NUS State-By-State Measurement Model Study; and sub-l l
43' sequently incorporated in the DOE response to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (based on the fiUS Model). All three studies factored the EPA non-fuel cycle waste stream percentages into their assessments.
Use of the figures for any reason is highly questionable because:
- 1) The figures are subjective "questimates" obtained from state radiological health offices in the states where the sites are located, and
- 2) The reference system or universe theory used in the model was overly simolistic of the real world, due to the lack of available knowledge about the reference system's causal variables (Figure 4).
3.5.2 l1U5 Study / DOE Study The l1U5 Measurement tiodel was developed from concerns regarding packaging, transportation, and the growing interest with commercial shallow-land burial sites. The stuoy used the same data records (different source) as the EPA models. The modeler however factored in a number of subjective hypotheses among which included exponential smoothing of U.S. population figures and licensee data.
Its basic purpose was to measure the amount of ccmmercial low-level radioactive waste shipped for burial on a state-by-state basis.
With the passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Policy Act in December 1980.
the Department of Energy was mandated to assist the states in assuming responsibility for disposal capacity needed, for present and future low-level radioactive waste on a regional basis, and was request in addition, to include an inventory of the types and quantities of waste. DOE com-plied with the Low-level Radioactive Waste Po' icy Act Report: Resconse to public Law 96-573. The Forecasting Model in this report was based on the t:US State-By-State Assessment of Low-level Radioactive Waste Shioced
44 Figure 4 Coninercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Genertaion/ Burial Relationships
, - ~ ~
/
,f
/ f:
-A
\\
/
,h
\\
5 All Waste Generated
[
m i :
i
\\
f l;i Waste Disposed Of At iE
+1 Shallow-Land Facilities I
=r -I I
i.
jj :l Causal Variable:
g g
\\
U
- 1
/
\\
'4
//
e Rate of Generation
\\
'i -
))
/
\\
'i:.
/
\\
N=
-,:/,/
\\
~
s'
/
\\
p
\\ ~ ~.,__.
/
A. Forecast Model Steady-State Assumptions All Waste Generated
,-m
\\
Waste Disposed of At
',f
't Shallow-Land Facilities
\\
l
. ;^
Causal Variables:
l e Waste Stream Source e Rate of Generation e Disposal Method Selection e Waste Treatment B. Real World e Volume Reduction e Shielding / Packaging e Licensing / Regulatory JGB/81 Changes
-. _=.
45 to Commercial Burial Grounds,6 quantitative data and extrapolation methods.
It was to serve the purpose of both a Prescriptive Forecasting Model to prescribe a solution to the problem, and a Normative Forecasting Model to identify a feasible and desirable configuration of the reference system o
to serve as a goal or standard.
The problems to be solved were carefully and pr'ecisely defined by Congress:
- 1) How much low-level radioactive waste is presently generated (quantity and activity)?
- 2) How much low-level radioactive waste is anticipated to be generated in the future (quantity and activity)?
- 3) How much low-level radioactive waste generated is shipped for burial in commercial shallow-land burial sites?
- 4) How much low-level radioactive waste is anticipated to be shipped for burial in commercial shallow-land burial sites?
- 5) Based on the quantity of expected low-level radioactive waste generation, what is the regional distribution?
Albeit unintentionally, Congress was asking for an " Unknowable Statistic".
There are no aggregate data available on waste generation, only waste shipped for burial. All fuel cycle and non-fuel cycle waste stream low-level radioactive waste generated is not buried in commercial sites.
To gather and tabulate the data required, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would need to require statistical reporting, by its licensees, either direct-ly or indirectly through the Agreement State Program. At the present time regulations only require licensees to maintain records for inspection pur-poses. Licensees are not required to submit periodic waste generation data.
To meet the Congressional mandate, the Department of Energy turned to the
46 N,US Measurement Assessment of low-level radioactive waste shipped to commercial burial grounds for quantitative. data. Using an extrapolation methodology, DOE prepared forecast projections for the response to P.L.96-573. The accuracy of this forecast is seriously questionable because it:
- 1) Misrepresents the relationship of the reference system to the forecasting problem.
- 2) Factors in U.S. population figures and licensee statis-tics as a causal factor based on the opinion of the modeler.
- 3) Oversimplifies anticipated changes in the reference system.
- 4) Oversimplifies the complexity of the behavior of the re-ference system.
The understandability and utility of the projections moreover are open to great discussion.
Because of the questionable accuracy of the DOE projections, a number of states have prepared independent evaluations. Of those currently avail-able, the State of Kentucky found that NUS figures indicated an over assessment of 55% waste attributed to be generated in that state. Further review of the large discrepancy found that of the 3036.9 cubic feet over assessment, 1619 cubic feet did not even travel on Kentucky highways.7 The State of Texas also found that they generated 40% lower than NUS figures reflected, and the State of Minnesota' 60% lower than reflected.0 Potential state compact groups are just beginning to encounter the data problems. A recent example is the Coalition of Northeastern Governors' Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Working Group (COMEG). This group has analyzed the available data studies and found a dilemma in trying to re-concile differences to make policy decisions.9 Six of the nine states are non-Agreement States and have no jurisdictional ability to obtain licensee data for clarifying differences.
4 47 3.6 References 1.
Goellner, D., D. Vogt, and G. Kniazewycz, Radioactive Waste Manacement Study: Task 1: Review of Waste Projection Models, Final Report NUREG/CR-0032; May 1978; Teknekron, Inc. ; Wasn-ington, D.C.; Contract: NRC-02-7--160.
2.
O'Connell, M.F. and W.F. Holcomb, "A Summary of Low-Level Radio-active Wastes Buried at Commercial Sites Between 1962-1973, with Projections to the Year 2000", Radiation Data Reoorts, 15(11), December 1974.
3.
Holcomb, W.F., " A Summary of Shallow Land Burial of Radioactive Wastes at Commercial Sites Between 1962 and 1976, with Projections','
Nuclear Safety,19(1), January-February 1978.
4.
Holcomb, W.F., " Inventory (1962-1978) and Projections (to 2000) of Shallow Land Burial of Radioactive Wastes at Commercial Sites:
An Update", Nuclear Safety, 21(3), May-June 1980.
5.
Guilbeault, B.D., The 1979 State-by-State Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shioped to Commercial Burial Grounds, preparea by NUS Corporation for EG&G Icano, Inc., U.S. DOE Subcontract: K-5108, Task 23. Report NUS-3440, November 1980.
6.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act:
Response to Public Law 96-573, Report 00E/NE-0015, 1981.
7.
Osborne, Ray.
Survey of Kentucky Licensees' Manacement of Rad'o-active Wastes, A Report Prepareo Dy tne State of Kentucky Department Human Resources; Lexington, Kentucky,1981.
l-8.
State of Texas. Texas Energy and Natural Resources Advisory Council, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Energy.
Reoort on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Discosal, September 1980.
9.
"CONG's Initial Meeting Results in Membership Criteria, Guidelines for Future", Nuclear Waste News, 2(5), March 25, 1982.
o
48
(,o Common Data Bank Accelerating demands for low-level radioactive waste generating data and the lack of confidence with the currently available data have made it urgently essential, that positive efforts toward the development of im-proved assessment and forecasting methodologies, supported by an accurate, i
comprehensive data bank, be promoted. Whereas the waste management regu-lations will set forth performance criteria to be met by licensed facil-ities, the licensing methodologies and data bases will provide technical 4
staff with the necessary analytical and programmatic tools to evaluate proposed systems against the standards. Such a data bank by necessity 1
must provide directly acquired licensee data (generator), under uniform i
j.
reporting conditions, to a controlled responsibility center.
't The preparation of a data bank will likewise aid in providing information to help states in making waste management decisions, and individuals in all phases of the industry, understand the impact of waste generation on current waste management techniques, and for evaluation of alternatives to current waste management practices. For example, states and burial site contractors should be cognizant of the actual volumes and types of wastes expected to be generated within individual state borders and from what sources. Designers and engineers need pertinent information to provide adequate waste processing and handling systems, and radiologists i
need information to determine radiation exposure from handling waste.
4.1 Centralized Data Bank ihe need for a centralized data bank approach to handling low-level radio-i I
l
49 active waste information is a natural evolution of the maturing of the nuclear industry. An effective method of cataloging and assembling data bank information is to identify, classify, and organize the information into individual computerized data bases. Collectively the data bases would provide a low-level radioactive waste inventory data bank covering:
a) Waste Generation Inventories: type, source (fuel cycle, non-fuel cycle); amounts (curies, volumes, mass);
characteristics (physical form, chemical form, radio-nuclide concentration, biological context); properties (leach, thermal, structural, radiation, biodegradation reactivity); treatment; reduction; b) Waste Disposal Inventories: shallow-land burial, backyard burial, sewage, effluents, common trash; c) Transportation Inventories.
Such data storage and retrieval systems would have,the capability of pro-viding a meaningful, consistent,quantifiable inventory or operational data to permit enhanced:
a) Regulation and licensing Assessment e An accurate inventory of radionuclides and other related toxic material generated (i.e. impact to disposal).
e Identification of major generators of high specific activity waste or radionuclides of concern (assess that wastes are placed in a form and disposed of by a method which assures adequate containment),
Identification of generators of large volumes of waste.
e Identification of waste reduction practices, in-e cineration, compaction, other (i.e. impact to shallow-land burial site capacity).
50 e Identification of waste generators or shippers who consistently violate regulations or disposal site license conditions (i.e. increased inspection and enforcement actions).
b) Mathematical Modeling and Analytical Assessment e Projections of waste generated for:
e shallow-land burial e sewage disposal e effluent release e backyard burial e common trash e Use trends of a nuclide category: curie quantity, volumes, weight, form, decay, treatment, disposal, etc.
4.2Resconsibility Center Fundamental to the success of a data bank process is the need to centrally organize the data required, so that there will be an orderly flow of information on a continuing basis. A single, centralized responsibility center is the ideal mode of operation, to effectively maintain the data bank and to provide information in a timely and expeditious manner. By establishing a centralized responsibility center where all data is housed, the data base collection and reporting would be consolidated to:
a) Avoid duplication of effort.
b) Guarantee data integrity preservation.
c) Consistent data.
d) That undue burdens are not placed on the licensee or other data sources.
Present demand for radioactive waste data indicates that a responsibility l
51 center would have a ready clientele in federal government agencies, state regulatory bodies and state government agencies, burial ground operators, equipment developers, private industry, and educational institutions. The benefits of a centralized data bank are numerous and far reaching, thus justifying the cost and effort required for its establishment.
4.3 Current Imoroved Data Collection Effort Evolving out of tre Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulatory development program, and in response to the needs and requests excressed by Congress, the public, the states, the industry, and other federal agencies, are a number of efforts to move in the direction of improved data collection.
One effort now in progress is the development of contractual agreements to obtain copies of low-level radioactive waste disposal records directly from the site operators (i.e. Chem-Nuclear Corporation for the Barnwell, South Carolina site) for the 1980, 1981, and 1982 calendar year. The records will be analyzed and organized into data bases.
A second and more far reaching effort is the promulgation of rules and regulations governing licensing for land disposal of low-level radioactive waste (Proposed 10 CFR 61) directly establishing requirements for an improved manifest tracking system (10 CFR 20.311 Proposed) that addresses the needs for more complete information on the classification and character-istics of wastes, for improved accountability of wastes, and to provide a better data base of wastes shipped for shallow-land burial.
52 4.4 Data Collection Innovation Given the legislative mandates and constraints brought to bear on any efforts to collect low-level radioactive waste generating data from licensees, it would be prudent for the fluclear Regulatory Commission and other federal agencies to investigate innovative alternatives to the problem. One such innovation the tlRC could explore for example is the record keeping and reporting requirements, for the L'nited States Population Census taken every 10 years. The census is designed such that every househcid is required to supply basic information determined to be necessary for the statistical abstract data bases. Selected at random are a number of additional housenolds designed to supply answers for further survey inquiries..
The flRC has the regulatory and statutory authority to develop a similar system derived from generating licensees through recordkeeping and report +
ing requirements. The data acquired would provide a technical and statistical data information bank on low-level radioactive waste generation, while at the same time minimizing the burden to the licensees, if it were required at 3-year or 5-year intervals. Selected licensees (i.e. large volume generators) could be required to provide information at shorter intervals.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L.95-511) gives the tiRC the admin-istrative statutory authority to implement such an innovation. A primary emphasis of the Act is to eliminate duplication on the part of both the federal government and the private sector as well as the states. The
53 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has the responsibility for establishing a Federal Locator System (FILS) as the authoritative register for all information collection requirements.
It is to include:
e Directory of Information Sources Data Element Dictionary e
e Information Referral Service If it is found that two or more agencies need identical or similar data to carry out their jurisdictional functions or statutory mandates, a central collection agency will be designated as the appropriate entity to collect the data. Selection of the collection center responsibility falls on the shoulders of the agencies involved.
If an agreement cannot be reached, OMB has the authority to make the determination. Each agency is responsible for reviewing and ensuring its in~ formation systems do not overlap each other, or duplicate systems in other agencies.
In addition, each agency is also required to formulate plans for tabulating the infor-mation it collects or is available to it, in a manner which will en5ance its usefulness to other agencies and the public.
There presently is a duplication of information needs or requirements for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Transportation for low-level radioactive waste data. To satisfy these needs in a ceaningful and informative way, generating data obtained directly from the licensee is required. Transportation manifests, burial site records,
1 54 or state radiological health department records, are not acceptable substitutes for certain types of data needs. Only the Nuclear Regulatory
~
Commission directly, or through the Agreement States Program, has reporting requirement jurisdiction for the licensees. Thus efforts towards any in-novation (i.e. periodic census) must be initiated with the NRC.
1
't e
O I
I
(
l l
I l
55 q,o Evaluations and Conclusions Although shallow-land waste burial site demands have more visibly focused on the need for accurate data, the ever increasing use of nuclear energy and radioactive isotopes in medical and industrial application, have also demonstrated the need for a timely access to the most current information about radioactive waste management activities. To fill this accelerating data demand, there has been a common and understandable tendency to con-centrate on readily available shipping and shallow-land burial site data (i.e. state radiological office records, disposal site inventories, and shipping manifests), to provide both burial site impact projections and generation forecasts. Real time demands and statutory requirements have forced empirical relationships.to take precedent over a systematic scienti-fic methodology, and to establish the information data bases required for assessing low-level radioactive waste generation and its impacts on waste management activities.
A tacit finding of this study is that sufficient quantitative data are not currently available to support valid conclusions about the quantities or activity of low-level radioactive waste now generated or that may be generated in the future. Modeling efforts to construct a statistical basis for an examination of scientific relationships, cross-section trend ques-tions, or ultimately site capacity impacts, are highly suojective and difficult to evaluate. All projection conclusions based on such data are open to serious question. Any attempt to utilize the information for a
policy decision is analogous to tap dancing with flippers. Moreover,
56 i
by continuing to make do with inadequate information, statistical problems thus far encountered will be compounded and policy management activities i
l further handicapped.
Given this environment, the issues then are, what is the path of prudence, i
and what should be expected from institutions in light of this uncertainty.
I s.I moact to State Role Congress, through t'he passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1950, formally established disposal capacity as a state resoonsi-bility either individually or regicnally. To meet the responsibility of this mandate, states were confronted with three choices:
i I
- 1) Developing a state site within the State borders, or
- 2) Joining an interstate compact with other states in the region, or
- 3) Stopping the generation of low-level radioactive waste within its borders.
I The third option is the least desirable one, and more or less out of the question or unrealistic. Regardless of general opinions on nuclear power, significant quantities of low-level waste are generated in all 50 states by hospitals and clinics in therapeutic and diagnostic tech-niques,. universities in research and teaching, and various kinds of industries. For a state to stop producing these wastes, it would have to forego the benefits arising from medical, research, and industrial uses.
In the 24 states possessing nuclear power reactors, it would be l
shutting down operating electrical power generation.
l
_~
57 Each state therefore must make a feasibility determination regarding option one, operating a single-state facility, or option two, entering into a comphet or regional facility arrangement. To make such a deter-mination will require a major effort and commitment. There is no model plan available for establishing a new low-level radioactive waste facility, and existing sites were proposed and developed in an environmental, in-stitutional, political, social, economic, and technical arena greatly differing from that which exists today.
Moreover, the quest to establish additional disposal capacity has come at a time of heightened public concern about the construction of facilities designed to handle or process any wastes that could be termed hazardous.
This is further intensified by the Reagan Administration's budget cuts, and the massive impacts they are having on the state budgets and their e
ability to allocate priorities to increasingly diminishing resources. An error.in choice of option (single-state or regional compact) could have disastrous results that are irreversible and long lasting. Therefore, the final decision must be carefully reviewed and considered before a final choice is made.
The first stage in assessing the current state disposal requirement is to establish:
o Current quantities of waste generated and who the generators are; e
Anticipated quantities of waste to be generated and potential generators; e
i 58 Radionuclide content and waste types; e
Packaging and shielding requirements; e
Interim storage capabilities; e
Waste reduction and processing processes.
e The next step is to address specific issues impacting administration, organization, and resources regarding the state's environmental, institu-tional, political, social, economic, and technological concerns and responsibilities. The final stage is to make an option choice.
Fundamental to this whole process is knowing How much? Who? and Where?
The only currently available data are burial site and transportation site records found in the forecasting studies. They are not suitable to support the option decisions of a state, and all attempts to do so may have di-sastrous results. Given the nature of nuclear technology, state expertise in such matters, and state tendencies to defer to federal expertise, there is a serious potential for a trend in this direction.
5.2Imoact to Commission Role Congress, by statutory mandate, declared that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment in regard to the possession and use of i
radioactive materials. The Commission exercises its low-level radio-4 active waste management responsibilities through the regulation and t
~
j licensing process either directly or indirectly through the Agreement State Program. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 has i
, ~.. -.
---._n-- - - -, - - - -,, _
i 59 not pre-empted or diminished that responsibility, nor have efforts to enact regulatory reforms. Congress has on a number of occasions re-affirmed its support for " prompt and efficient" issuance of regulations for hazardous chemical wastes and radioactive wastes. Burdens to the licensee are not to displace health and safety issues.1 Increased responsibility for both the states and the Ccmmission prompted the undertaking of a number of studies looking at effective, radioactive waste management roles. Of notable mention is the General Accounting Office (GAO) report issued in March 1980.2 It concluded that effective waste management is the development of policies and practices used in nuclear science and technology for the control, measurement, handling, and processing of nuclear waste materials or waste material contaminated with radioactivity. Measurement includes the analytical and statistical methods required to account for the amounts of radioactive waste generated, handled, stored, or disposed of.
i If further determined that the Commission and the states knew who the shippers of low-level radioactive waste are, but not the generators, or:
e The amounts and types of waste currently generated, or e
A realistic estimate of the projected amounts and types of waste expected to be generated.
The General Accounting Office's determination was supported by the NRC's 3
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) in a recent report to the
60 Chairman addressing the 10 CFR 61 Proposed Rule for Licensing Requirements
[
for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.
The Committee indicated that the proposed rule " revealed certain deficiencies in data, particularly with respect to the compilation of detailed inventories on the quantities and specific radionuclide concentrations... such data is essential if the NRC staff is to have a clear understanding of current practices, and if they are to be able to ascertain the impact of various regulatory actions, particularly the influence of the establishment of "de minimus"* concen-trations for selected radionuclides in specified types of wastes. Such information is also essential in order to assess the impact of various restrictions of the types of wastes acceptable for disposal in a given site".
With a data capability impediment, the Commission's activity arena is
" reactionary" rather than " prepared" or " anticipatory".
This in turn places the Commission in a vulnerable posture, that gives rise to weak support for, or inability to perform:
i e evaluation of licensing regulatory management,
- In a recent rule change affecting "de minimus" concentrations of hydro-gen-3 and caroon-14, the exact volume of waste was unknown, the NRC there-fore prepared a cost / benefit statement based on a survey of large waste generating institutions, believed to account for 21% of biological wastes in the U.S., and the estimated volumes of scintillation counting media evidenced on the number of vials estimated to be manufactured per year in the U.S. (10 CFR 20.306).
e
61 i
e assessment of license applications, e
regulatory development justifications, o
waste generation assessments, e
waste projection assessments, and e
determination of adequate additional disposal cacacity and location of new shallow-land burial sites.
5.3 Reccmmended Commission Activity
[
Embodied in the statutory mandates of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 4
the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, and the recently
,f passed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 is the recognition that there will always be a federal presence in matters that affect
}
radioactive materials.
In addition, there is the recognition that states need to take greater responsibility in matters regarding radioactive materials (Agreement State Program and disposal capacity responsibility for low-level waste). Recognition for greater state responsibility however, in no way negates or pre-empts a strong federal presence.
All major shifts in radioactive materials responsibility concerning state / federal relationships, necessitate by their nature, an evolution of new and often innovative roles. Shifts from federal to state levels of 4
responsibility always place a greater burden on the Commission, to recog-nize the unique transititonal needs of the states and to provide develop-mental aid.
l +
The necessity for the Commission to take an active role with the transi-l 1
1,,.-
62 tional needs of the states is more than evident, with the shift in re-sponsibility brought about by the passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980.
In upholding the framework of that Act, a prudent role for the Commission is to support states in planning for low-level radioactive waste management and in implementing those plans through a regulation and licensing process.
8ecause jurisdictional regulatory responsibility for maintaining waste management licensing records lies with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a key support function germane to that role is to provide an accurate census of waste generation, to aid in establishing a basisfor sound waste management planning for both the states and the Commission. The following recommendations are set forth in support of carrying out such a support function:
- 1) Build the Commission's long-term capability through a series of analytical and technical data bank building activities.
- a. Sensitivity Assessment Activities:
e Determine the current automated reporting capabilities of material and facility licensees.
e Determine the current automated reporting capabilities of state radiological health offices in Agreement and Non-Agreement States.
e Determine the census reporting impact to licensees generating.large volumes cr large amounts of radioactivity for the fuel and non-fuel cycle waste streams.
e Determine the census reporting impact to
(
licensees generating small volumes or small l
l amounts of radioactivity for the fuel cycle l
and non-fuel cycle waste streams.
l l
l l
63 e
- b. Census Activities:
e Acquire a low-level radioactive waste census of all material and facility licensee generation data to establish a " Base Year" Census.
e Acquire a low-level radioactive waste census of large generator data (volume and activity) to establish a " Yearly" Census, o Acquire a low-level radioactive waste census of all. material and facility licensee generation data every three (or five) years, to establish a series of time periods for " Cross-Study" Census and comparative trend modeling.
- 2) Establish a Central Collection Center responsibility for the Comission with inter-agency and intra-agency participation and support.
- a. Establish comon data base needs for administrative and technical functions that include:
e Waste Generation Inventories: type, source (fuel cycle, non-fuel cycle), amounts (curies, volumes, mass), characteristics (physical form, chemical form, radionuclide concentration, bio-logical context), properties (leach, thermal, structural, radiation,biodegration, reactivity),
treatment / reduction; e Waste Disposal Inventories: shallow-land burial, backyard burial, sewage, effluents, comon trash; e Transportation Inventories.
- b. Establish a basis for shared inter-agency financial responsibility.
- 3) Design (in incremental stages) an automated Comon Data Bank System based on inter-agency and intra-agency requirerents.
e
64 References 5,4 1.
Danielson, George, Opening remarks before the House Judiciary e
Committee for mark up of Bill H.R.746 on Regularory Reform, October 16, 1981.
2.
Comotroller General of the United States, U.S. General Accounting Office.
Recor to the Connress of the United States: The Problem of Discos 1no or :duciear Low-Level waste: anere uo v.e Go from mere?
Report: iMD-c0-od. Maren 31, 19s0.
3.
Letter frcm J. Carson Mark, Chairman, ACRS, to Chairman flun:io J.
Palladino, Chairman, fluclear Regulatory Commission, Septemoer 16, 1981.
e e
e
65 APPENDIX A
~
A Survey and Evaluation of Handling and Disposing of Solid Low-Level Nuclear Fuel Cycle Wastes The !!US Corporation was conunissioned in 1975 by the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) to perform a study to identify the types and quantities of solid radioactive wastes for each portion of the' nuclear fuel cycle.
Information for the study was based on actual operational data and facility designs. The sources, types, and amounts of solid radioactive waste were identified, and the cumulative volume was projected to the year 2000.
To obtain the data (Table A-I through A-VII) needed for this study, questionnaires were developed and sent to eight fuel fabrication facili-
~
ties, thirty-nine reactor sites, and six' commercial waste disposal sites.
The questionnaires were designed to document infomation on radioactive waste system equipment and operation, methods of packaging, personnel ex-posures associated with radioactive waste processing and handling, annual waste volume generation, and waste disposal methods.
In addition, visits were made to several power reactors, two of the six burial sites, and one of the interim transuranic storage areas, to review present methods used to process and handle waste.
Five architect-engineering firms were inter-viewed on designs for present and future radioactive waste systems. Where data was not made available by the burial facilities, federal and state regulatory agencies with authority over those sites were contacted.
Additional infomation was obtained from government reports, published
66 v
TABLE A-I SUMMAR Y OF LWR R AOWASTE VOLUMES FROM SEMIANNU6L REPORTS Maat es As==e4 Voevmes of paaweste Sh coed. Celke Feer
\\
Sote 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975#
1 7800 3.400 9 600 15 000 20 000 17 800 18 500 2
3.800 4 800 3 800 4 500 7 800 4300 19 0001'*'
3 500 700 1.500 800 3.400 4 000 2.400 2.800 4
1.100 900 900 600 3.300 6 900 15.700 9.900 5
2.500 900 900 1.500 29 000 400 1.400 6
400 0
9.400 2.400 2.100 3.100 t800 7
400 2.900 2,100 3.700 8.700 5600 7.200 15.500 8
500 600 700 0
900 9.000 1.500 100 Tota 18 11,000 14200 21.000 28 500 73.200 51 600 57.500 9
7 700 to 900 26 600 29 400 42.700 t9 200 10 3.t 00 I2.900 15 100 19 200 t5 900 8 000 11 1800 24 800 12 900 7.000 9700 12 13200 19.700 18.500 40 000 43.000 t3 600 Tote gt2 25 800 68.300 73.1JO 95 600 111.300 13 900 2500 10 300 13 000 4 800 14 6.000 8600 8600 29 400 36:100 15 to 9'JO 6.300 7.400 9 400 4800 16 2 700 6 800 to 400 4 700 5.600 17 2.100 36.900 36 200 40 200 225,00 tom 1317 23.500 59.100 72900 96 700 t8 17.000 36 200 37 600 13 600 19 300 4 500 13 900 14 000 20 100 8200 15 900 15 500 21 0
2 400 5 600 6.700 22 5.000 6.600 7 000 23 5 600 12.900 44 100 18.500 24 2.400 7.700 14 300 3 500 Totes 18 24 30 400 78.500 133.400 25 9.300 32 100 24 000 26 20 300 58 600 29 000 27 1.600 11400 12 300 28 1.100 18 000 11.300 Tote 25 28 32.300 120 100 29 14.100 30 0
600 31 4 400 32 1I 300 5.200 33 7100 5 300 34 13400 5.300 35 4 800 2 300 Tots 23 35 55.100 Tote t 38 17.000 s4 00 46.800 120 300 2".5 000 330 400 574 100 F t' fYe 'UWe 98 76 10 8 14 5 17 6 16 7 23 1 33 8 e
NOTE S sen vo#umes toe 1975.noune Jaa -Jurw in.praeces ansv Ca me eee eoe. eesciar piants sam 40* o'***a *eine
.,,oe in.t oe,,oa.
Ibi Volume en pareetneses estim tors from pertid flata a
~
- Source: AIF Study 1
67 i t-
.i= i
.sA e.
.s.a.s.aa.le-a.al
. gen
... a s.i..s a.s a.a.I
. la!s.
se w
e
=
..a...
. :rg a n.
- 22:.
2 4ers
- 8 fe-~
a
. Se:-
'I j.:
!.f g *s e. 9 2 20 s.T:2 5...~ 8.-.2 - 8 8 9I:,...
......... ~.. e.r. 4"6 ". 8.e a$ I M..
a.-
e - g s :~3.: 8" a...I...I.8 8 7
.S..
B -
......s.a.d J J w.
3...
...a..
t
.s
- i. { k::..- :
3eng-
- :: 3, s.ss:.-xens 0
t ag z
a 5
1:
2:5
~ E::.
o I
'I 33i-13 3:.3 W2h EIk! ? "6.Fme!!.53 f II 2?si.S'!. 56 N 2
3 1
4583 56-56.s
.....a.a.8.a b o.e....a.e.n.a
.a..d.
4.~..
=.
l,JJu e
.g a.
[2 w
2,$* ~=
ia :
- } 32:2 34*38 :
2.
2.a*
I U
1 b
4s 0
I e
E 36-4{.."....55 eT
...y.)
R -
w $ g{
m'
.i. L.3.:.8.a :.-.3...I.E.I.8.a. 3 5.a.a.si i.a.$.I 2
jaw 4t i<
.o m O
v z
g uj 5g 5
==:-.-
~
a s-: 2 :e~=-
23 I 3
m z z 4 H
34 4 5 {[ J'. ;..,~ ~..I n s fre;, 3.5$
IIt
.s.i.s.e.8 8 2 3,*. = 8.
.s.3 2 3 e.s...
3
- " '], d e w g3
]
Io
'3 g
gf
~ 1
. 3 ;g;~ g..
ji 3.a.. =a
>t E
<.3.
z A
I{I a
av 2v i
2s) 51 23
- 4f.,,,,, g ; e,
, ; ggg mz s-t a.s.a s
.e.a
.s.s.i.s.s e !l.
, JJw J42gj g
3 4
- 3
]I! I 2 2a~a a a *
- R aat et
- J D[4444 x
t
.....i. s:::
m g
4.
[I.e555 5
~5
}
..ee U'1 5
5
.La.
w I
b d
5 mese-.
~
c)v
=e b
1j B
2:===
e===
a====
- a2:====
o m
it
,w.___----
- r
-- p.
- ~ -.- - - - - -
p e.-
- c.,
o p,
t e
.sm
~
j s
.f e,
3
.s
!~
- /i
]_
- %,,,[ [ Y g q.$-
N'~
N-1 14 7, 7' 3 g
d j
' s g%
w d
(> g
- 9. %
x %g
\\
3 m.
s e
n
/
P.
o
$ yj r
q j
-p f-s' p %
m g,s.
.g
~
w '
) %.
'l
{ -*
v
\\
Y, s
g s.
c
+
i S
t
(
wh, t
- s e * +.
,e h
y.
^
' -w
~
y
.N ty 4. _*
$! TABLE A-III T
(
a
. g
,w,,. -
s 4,--
3
.g.
s g
3 s
s
' \\.[
N g
OPER ATING 8vvH ANN 11AL SOll6. 44STE VOLUMES 4
t k
s-s-
,. m.s..y, 3 s.- -
a h.
S C
C..
m t,
a-e land,. V TPCS, CPn.
+
3 RADW CHIM 98'8. IN
.tCS ' j.4 6*8, Cr"5 naDw To #
Tesd
<6 i
RA0W f o.d T.sd
' 3-s s
s o.
ni
.ai nu
.. m.r,
-q. l., s., p.s.
1
,i
.n s.
- P%,p*.* p*s
.o - -n.o to no' o
n.o i s ee v.
~o
.i N.,,icu.i. -...c
.g.
c 4....
.2
.n.
n
.n.
.e
.s.0 wu %.,> %(. N i
is a.
O.
.s
.,A-6, o,
n.
n au 2s 6.*
- w. r n.o, a
- s...% n.
4 is
- s..,.. ;
n.o.
.N,w 4
no
.eru.
w o
.o su
.i n.
.us Nin.
.. ' u.
n.
nt
,a o1
. ;3.o.
s no
.>o
.o
=o. h, o
.N o.w 3s.
.n a.y,n
~.o u., 2 e.
w q
4
- r v'- a.
- * *. - - ~ -
.o
=.o - u n.o..a..-vt u
.o
. N
'T n.
n n
a n
- 2. n n.
.o
.o b. Au.
u-o.
wo.
e.
n n
n su n.e o
no w o
.e
- 2. -
'.1sN o
u
- 2..
m.
v n.o.
n e
e o
a.
as o
.e s
is 2 '$
up 3
2 sa.,.,il. ~,
,4
%J + s o,a x(i ps - no n.c
.a 4
s.s
~m n -o e r;
.4 n
o es c (-
s
,t-
+N
's
. f,.
7}p
%( 7 l; %
A 4
y M
, r* ; '
7 y
j
- e. - T a
. p. m.
4
\\'.
q,,_ ~
,Nf 1
Og h>
OPERAireG PWR ANNUAL 50 LID WASTE VOLUMES h.
(f4 cA
-e
- g
- (
l a
t
.. g 7
L v -
(ig(
Pt 5 d.8esk emd. f a'in.W.h.
De.ne.hsee Ree.a. es'Abene/,e C.eee.=8.e f sys fe
.b t
4
.d.',..
es o.
si.
c4 se vi'ain.-
\\
RADW CH(,*g4
'e Tes T ee.t DCS SfPCS RADW Tee.1 Tea.s 1
Pt
't I g0 the ' 39 7 04 0'
0 0'
G4 03 250
\\"
^
k' P2 iJ 0
0 0
29 0
0
- 2 9% 19 10 6750
'a s 0
15. \\ 29 0 03 03 0
02 04 g 06 5150
~~
\\"4 2 P3 P4 0
42 78 0a 03 0
0 04 06 4 450
. N PS 9, 29 0
29 64 09 W3 80 22, 24,.g 02 5 700
- b
.y o
P6,.
t0 0
\\'8 f18 1
33
'hp
', N O ND IIL, II 3*4 p' -
Q
%N j
41,.,T*
- g's,D
75
- .4.
03 e2 5 ell >
~ \\ 'p[* '.,
y P8
'wo 0%
di2 VN b.
,5.0, g2F " e ho 1
N ft.
9.
4MD(
N.D NO 05-I O
1f8
- 27 6
. f.6. Sc' Ot 05 0 7 y; ( d
'N' %
'*J f% '
.r
[
08 P9 23 2 4,
4 5
"" P t 3 f.I O 1
mfi e
N 'D 05
- 6 i h e 600 g3
- g I
pit i
N Of #
24 2 h 28
/n N'u 11 7 316 is s I so.
w' 0 2 Nel
' e 6.000 e
.,., k g
,,5*
(
n2 no N, o o,
=t N.o wo wo i
I, V (
rr i93 03
'pt 0
03 03 -
N i>,
No
,y Pts sp 0
. wr as 20 200 5
Pie is 0
33 33 wo reo4 Neo 02 02
-84 s_
- 2.000 L
j
\\
N,.
- a. s 3-No.es
.N w~
c\\*%*v pr t
- s. '-.
--c-
.w s
t i
i eutm 2 CH M daneses Che <
s.
\\
s g,. q f.
1 3 ncs drapi.i n eea Ci.
s.
_ p.- A %
, r
,s"
+
4 se Pcs drom.isp.ai r i roua ci a..p s,u.a.
e %.
+
S CPS denmes Ceewsons.se Polish.ng ie.ma 7; g,i -
\\
t' N
e si'mn h.
w - n csv. ni. m u
- 7. N/D denoses the. no M...v.s ees.oet.d a-s t
i 4
W
\\.
Source: AIFJtudy,}-
,, y, 4.
.1
+
[g
+ c \\
t 3
h 1
-g*
'g
~
'N s
, y s
(%
4 g
1 I
t
69
~.
d I -
2
- ?
? f 3.2. $ f. 2,9 *4*-:
. ter-
~
t u
ee-eeease._
e e g==;
e-o if,.
e &
6 ~
o
.e l
.f a
a a ***
- at
- -a-*
2 3
3 C.
- 33. f2s:3. 3 ;;;
e 2
2
,ee
~
e 3 3 2 2 :1 0 2 I * * : : s ' e 3 : 3 3 I.E. * * ; 3 =:* *
- 1., e. e~h4...se.
, w
~~ n f
- l a *,
3
..ea;*
- 2*T**t!****T'a****
3 e1 a
q
. 3.- :"3:.3: ;;4.
Es3s e,
e' sts,33e:rta 4
- -222*fa
- a0***o***
2***T*-**aj
~2 en 4
g : * *, r 1 s y s: n i u n.
- .* 2. a e t
-a e
.c f
n
- e.. s.
4 e
e.
l w
a ;8 2
. e -
...e
... e.
qae-g e....g o;e g e e;;g e s ee e ~es e s
e-O 2
=
w i i
..2.* R f t 2 3 1:2 2.o;;;.... age.e..2
- ? Of.
- *. -e-
=
e l 3 e w
5 0
2 4
l
- j *t] R.$ 7. f. ' S. ! ?. * * * *e*
0,2 U
'"g*
=e l. **
u y z 4
w-o I
a y
LhJ cu 2: { *. 3..
J
=, w
!l, eegg.
e.grgege;e....
e e-...
4
=ge....
e m
Os s
.}.1*113,f.d.253. 34Ai.22 i
.8 O c, s
e.
e
,e--e
- E C 04
--e 2%
l.
"aga* *
...e,_
4 c, 3;3*g :ae e Zw l
w w*
l oo.. g a...... e..... ~
- w -
as-
- : e:etfor.
t' e.2
-EA1 e R E.: $.8 C
$3 o
g o.
j, 'g gre e.
3-e e
O ua
,i ws se.-
14
==
e-e g e e
,jJ 2
=
1g
=
1:.
II fj!
f
=ee"
- e
. =,
e -
- b I e
d 2 422 *
{ig e
a : -
!}s l3
- =
c.e e
e
- q o
i,r e -* -
II 3
-![
w
. je kf I
!l J
4 **
.!)
LA.
!, ' I
}l g
(
. s a
a,
g;
- ee y a 21; ee
,{J c.
gft
- j 58 I I
Y i
I V
e I
b
- 3
.t o
ja
- ** * * ** *
- T :::
- f 2: s t R. ' c 4:2 R a :::
- s t s
2 m
5
e e
t TABIF A V i
SUMMARY
DF DESIGN BASIS SOLID R ADWASTE VOL UMES f OH SCl4EDUL ED LWRs Ps.as htWe Tepe Sahd. sed Lai d De===as.em a f ee=/Dem s. sh. doe Compueed fosal Sehd Weste Genseeeed Wasse Geneeseed Swed Genesgeod Sweed geneessed IBweed n'ame e. 'itaw.
n' n'MW. eSweed n'
n MWe n 'MW.
n
'MW.
n'
- e. '
n'MW. n'MWe BWH Poe, 0.2 2 400 0m 5 450 23 8.9u0 08 40 ISO 16 7 t 000 49 000 20 3 2=.nw.
890 D8 2950 37 172
%0 07 iB IJuo 24 54 E500 6 Fue 83 26 3 Shu.chen 819 D8 4 350 53 t900 23 5,950 72 2 200 to 400 if 6 R.eer Benis t.2 6 had D8 9.300 49 59 700 04 06 5 000 27 46 3 000 18 000 96 32 6 Clw. sun 5.2 19so D8 8.h4 46 96 8 75 04 09 I t.100 58 11 0 3.700 24375 32 8 234-Doi gses Puent t.2 2.3*4 D8 15.250 65 16 0 7.750 33 36 423 0006 (9 Si Giaeus Guet 1.2 2 500 D te e4 800 56 80 2 650 03 600 J2 att 3504 e6 la ti unsant t 821 f/D 4 300 52 78 1,200 95 IS 3 350 41 48 8508 (10 8B H. ash 2 7% fl0 3 0ts0 38 600 to 10 46 200 20 4 (20 0006 125 21 TufALS 14.301 67.400 8 575 91 600 Fdeve/Dem.n Seussge -
Sehehteed i enesed Demmershese Resen Careredes idoes Compacted leaal Sehe Wasse Genesased Sin ned pneeesed Bees.ed pneessed Bise ed Weite Geenes seed 8.se.ed fe" es 'MWe es 'MWe te It *MWe fe 'MWe te is *MWe is*mtWe fa' fe' St'MWs fe'MWe PWit Ca yuel H. ore 858 D8 12uG t4 49 N 03 05 300 04 04 41 7504 12 Il 15 81
$4=sei Is.
3 2 2 5n0 D8 1000 04 07 2.750 ti 26 3ho 04 01 3 000 7050 28 46 8vsun t.2 2.240 N.wie 32.700 14 6 21 9 feu0 02 06 8 30u 06 06 2.200 36 700 16 4 24 0 k.
4.2 2 41G DB 13.000 54 2 000 08 8000 04 04 6 000 22 0u0 9I E astey 1.2 1 720 Newe O C00 06 II t. Loo 09 5 0uo 4 7 60G>
14 46 Pety m 2 8.lelo hie 2 700 23 41 750 06 1o bug 04 08 2.400 6 850 58 79 heto Anna 9 14 7 -D
- 2. lou 22 30 5 #5 06 06 2 50u 27 27 2 50:1 7675 82 90 Camnatie Pe.A t.the fD 1350 ti 20 t 2uu IO 80 900 43 3501 (2 96 IOIALS 92 138 f 4.450 7 625 710n 19 500 feuer iI v4e.es ce paenehews are t.aws em.ntomsd.rse d. eta basene waew ediom.s.un emas not wakuk.s n p.e PSAH cu 6 san
- 2) Iysser (il (J.ene GWIurst 80 Un8'ese83 0 OI EO*t808these Geese 8ett'nt metti et.0% fed 60 del D 8 e
- e. e. d.
d.e..e.,d. -. e se b.e e e, e...e.e.
e ee al.,ee e
. e,s
.mer.,
e D ees e..
..e
.. - e
- Source: AIF Study e
O
71 TABLE A-VI-
SUMMARY
OF ANNUAL 8WR R ADWASTE VOLUMES BY TYPE o
SWR Solid Restoeste Teos Cantaminseed Parameese Lieusd Rosen Savdge 88 Treen Total waste 6
Ossesseng mants
- 1. FdverrOemin menisima 3
- a. Generated Waste. tt MWe/vt 0.6 1.0 12 9 36 18 1
- b. 8vrise/ Generated'88 1.8 1.9 1.9 10 1.3
- s. Soisdified Weste t:2MWeive'88 1.8 19 25.0 38 31 8
- d. Percent of toimies 3%
6%
71 %
20%
- e. Sources of wastee88 Chemical 100%
RCS 22 %
SFPCS 10%
~*
CPS 62%
Raosasse 100%
16%
- 2. Deen eed Resia Piants'e' a Generated Waste.tt'NWerve 91 14 6.8 124 29 7 D. BuriedeGenerstede*8 25 1.1 1.3 t.0 1.5
- c. Solidatied Wasse. ft8 MWetyr 17 3 2.7 13.2 12 9 45 6
- d. Percent of totasies 31*.
5%
23%
41%
- e. Sources of waste "
Chemicae 78*.
RCS 30% '-
4%
SFPCS 4%
1%
CPS 47%
0%
Rad.aste 22%
19%
95%
Fusuee manes I. Faree,Demen manes 4SARisais
- a. Geasemd Wasie. ft'MWerve 45 1.2 12 2 f.7 19 6
- s. 8vreed/ Generated'*8 c Sosetied Waste. ft'MWervri
7.7 2.4 23.7
~ f.7 35 5
- d. Percene et Totas'**
23 %
6%
62%
9%
- 2. Dees 8-j Rewn Plants ISARss'**
- a. Geneeered Waste. it'MWerve 49 05 53 17 12.4
- b. Suried.Geaerstedi8' I?47 1628 1.126 IO c Sossetied Wate. f t'MWeave'*8 94 10 10 3 8.7 22 4
- d. Poecent of Totas'**
39 %
4%
43%
14 %
l.
- 3. Fdier/ Demon mants (E RDA No. 43)ma j
- a. Gensemd Wnte. 't'MWs ve 02 02 56 33 92
- n. BuriedeGensemo
- c. Solidshed Wasse, it'/MWeeve'*8 92 0.4 10 9 33 14 8
- d. Percent ce Total
- t%
2%
61 %
36%
4 Deep Bed Resen Planes tf RDA76 4 3)198
- a. Generated Waste. ft*/MWeeve 99 08 36 33 17 6
- m. 8eriodsGeeeraservee
- c. So#etied Wate. ft' pawer r*8 18 8 I16 70 33 30.7 v
- d. Percent of Totaines 56%
5%
20%
19%
NOTES foi SMw eeeees so twecosi estree cuesan and ooan**** reva wunae-ins Fester /Demen Ptents are tnose that use heternoemmermiters in the Connensate Pohsnee Svuems.
(cf Sosefeed waste is an estimated Waiwe ossed on average vosumes increase eeoarted by opeessing piants teactueng inseienge.
Boesed<aeneested en tne estio cet weste oos ee actuadv burierJ (including shieengt so the ente oeames tol w
l 9P'Iseated at coerating plants.
[
tel Percent of Totas re ers to.we evpes as genevnted armor to sohdification e
(11 Soweces of waste are gi.en for fee feitowing systems an addosson to the Chemical and Rad *asse Svstems Reactor Cleanwa System tRCSI. Soent Fue# Pool Cleanus 5, stern (SF PC$l. Condensed Pobaning System ICPSI.
fel Deep Bed Resen Plants are mese that wie coes bed demmee misses in ene Condensare Potoneg System.
- -Source: AIF Study t
1
72 o
TABLE A-VII
SUMMARY
OF ANNUAL PWR RADWASTE VOLUMES 8Y TYPE Pan see.d n -
7,oe Para se.org -
Centam,natee L.me.e h
Fdee,s from To.at masse Osseeenie mesns
- 1. Maass sn CPS **8
- s. Geammee wasie le wweave 12 8 04 02 74 20 8 8
- m. Sw.ess,Genere,e.sm*
22 13 t7
- c. Smet.ee waste, ubtene/ve***
28 4 07 02 74 36 7
- e. Perceae of Teess'8' 42*.
2%
1%
2%
e sowcee se was.e.*s amie.coe e Ac.e 50% 40%
4C3 40%
SFPCS 10%
CPS N.D mes.es.e SWm
- 2. maaen emous CP$'"
a Generasee W.ste n* mwe've 43 18 05 60 15 9 e 8vriee<Geneve.ess 2.t 12 14 c See.i.e.ee masse M'MmeNe*8 18 4 20 05 40 26 9 e 8eeceae o,, Tois'*'
52*.
7**
T.
2'-
e Sowceso watoaa wmee, Bore Acd8 65%/35%
RCS 52%
SFPCS 10%
GR$
41)
Rae.este 38 %
F.swee m nn a
k I
m aes m CPt'e8P'taa..
a a Genermee weises. 't' 44m.ve 25 08 07 18 58 a SwesegeGenees wP*'
1536 1527
- s. Smas... eve w te. te ' Neeve'o*
as 55 16 09 18 98 e P eene et foeavd8 en 14 %
12%
J 1 *.
- 2. m aes ene out CP5"'tPSARgl a
- a. Generseed waste H'.Mwewe A4 04 07 17 I12 h Swe64eaerate.e*'
- O NIO NtD N/D NO e 5n..n # s wave e ' Uwe ve+"'
18 4 04 07 17, 21 0 v
e Perceae ce Totae88 3 Pim,se.ien Deein See CPS'88 'E MDA 76 4.11 a Geaavec mese. ve
- hve II.2 82 02 27 15 3 e 5 t.e4eaevase+*'
N-D
- e'D ND ND N 'O e Seah..ee waste ted 98we.we **
'24 5 24 02 27 29 8
- e. Feeceas o# foems***
73"A l'.
1%
It'a m.aes sa F stee.Dem a CP5'** vf RDA 76431 4
Genreased Wasee M* MWee e 08 07 25**
21 77 e
v re 5..rwe Genve e v'**
ND N 'O NO ND ND e Sne. e.rvs wave fe mv we****
I8 84 30 27 12 3 e Precent of TotaH*'
IO*a 9".
a5%
35*.
Nota s i,.
m a.e n
e C
.e P
, s
, ~,,..-
,.a....
..n a
,e u
so.
e., W
.s.,,e
.e. e
_eee eo e
e.,e
,,,,s C.hg.3.hg gn.e.etr.t.gt,
-.G
.c e..o
..e.
,....e4,-..
ms..e..a.e,..~,......
5.s,.
.Cs, s...+., a, s..
.s PCs t C.
,a P.
, s,,,-.uu..
A reene 5.,*m ennea susRe urEggsymg
... m.
cps.
~. c
, s,.
a o
e
..e no-a-to, t.
m.
n, e.
- Source: AIF Study 4
e 7
1
}
k i
4
,,,7.m--,,,,,.
mm---.-
,- - ~..,., -. - -,.,, -. -,,. - -. - -
,.-n r-
73 technical reports, and reactor plant dockets.
A. Fuel Cycle Wastes The study concentrated on summarizing the amount of wastes expected to be produced and buried from light water reactor facilities to the year 2000 under varying conditions (e.g. alternative processing methods).
The forecasters expected that during this century no large (1000 MWe or larger) plants would be decommissioned. Some smaller (50-500 MWe) reactors may be decommissioned, but this waste would only slightly affect the waste volume buried for any one particular year of decom-missioning. For the study, it was assumed that one plant is decom-missioned in each 5-year period from 1985 to 2000, and that 540,000 3
ft of radioactive waste is generated during each decommissioning.
B. Other FueT Cycle Wastes Uranium fuel fabrication wastes were calculated beginning one year before startup of a power reactor and continuing throughout the life of the facility. Wastes were assumed to be accumulated and shipped on an annual basis, starting the year the reactor begins operation.
l It was further assumed that there was no backlog. The fabrication load was based on the fresh fuel fabrication load projected by the i
Department of Energy:
3 a)
UO2 fabrication averages 9.2 ft /MTM (equivalent to 275-350 ft3 per 1000 MWe LWR) b)
M0x fabrication averages 10.3 ft3 (equivalent to 300-400 ft3 per 1000 MWe LWR) y n
74 Spent fuel reprocessing wastes were projected on anticipated volumes based on the Department of Energy's " moderate-low" growth case for commercial nuclear power.
It was expected that of the total amount of radioactive waste generated, the annual spent fuel from a 1000 MWe LRW is 3100 to 3300 ft.3 Of this total, approximately 2250 ft.3 I
is assumed to be non-transuranic contaminated waste, which can be delivered to a commercial burial site for disposal.
l Wastes from the fuel cycle that were not included in the analysis
]
i were:
1
- 1) High Temoerature Gas Cooled Reactor Wastes (HTGR) i There was only one HIGR reactor operating and no new HTGR reactors under construction. Waste from the one operatoring reactor was estimated to account for less than 6% of the total installed nuclear capacity and negligible, and therefore not included in the projections.
- 2) Fast Breeder Reactor Wastes gy Except for oemonstration facilities, breeder wastes were considered not to be significant before the end of the century, and would account for less than 3% of the installed capacity, and therefore not in-cluded in the projections.
C. Non-Fuel Cycle Waste l
Burial site records were used to prepare non-fuel cycle estimates for forecasting. Forecasters compiled the data from 1969 to 1974 inventor-i
~
0 3
ies, and estimated that approximately 1 x 10 ft. was disposed of annually at commercial shallow-land burial sites.
It was then postu-4 lated that this value would remain relatively constant through the year 2000.
i i
i
75 D. Regional Waste From the available information, AIR determined that approximately 70%
of the burial site acreage was located at eastern sites, 30% in the west, and that projected growth rates for nuclear power indicated that 90% of the total would be located in the eastern half of the United States.
Therefore, more waste will be generated near eastern burial sites, and those sites will be filled before the western sites. Ninety-three percent of the expansion acreage is in the west, therefore expansion of the total number of possible acreage would not alleviate the problems anticipated in the waste. A likely result is that eastern nuclear power plants will ship their waste to non-eastern sites, and increased transportation costs will be incurred. The ratio of east to west is approximately 90%
generation in the east to a 10% generation in the west. Regional boundaries were not delinated in this study.
E. Forecasting Methodology Projection Elements Table A-VIII provides an analysis of the low-level radioactive waste pro-jection elements found in this study.
F. Forecasting Methodology Assumptions By nature, employing a combination of statistical, engineering, and design methodologies to formulate shallow-land burial site capacity projections necessitates utilizing a number of assumptions to smooth out irregularties and weaknesses. The following major assumptions were used to arrive at the study's conclusions:
76 I
1 l
1 e
e TABLE A-VIII trwtfrft saamarttyt waser peMC'f% fif*V975
)
19c6 air 'tus,'
I Basic AeereaCn:
e nettoaal e Regtocal e 1ste Capattty/ttfe lateltne Data
- e Iervey Quetttenna ret e tuClear eeuer Plants e Burial Sites e Fmi f aeriCation f attitttes e Field Utttts
. Archttett legenetetag Design Seettf tCattons e Federal Goverweat Aeoerts e DeCaet Files Time nortsent e 1968-197a Inventary fetals e January-June 1975 Inventory Totals e Pro,ections to year 2000 Dy tacrosents of $ years e Progettlens of site CasaCety/
Infe ey teCrements of $ yearg SCesartet Stulttele e Msgm Greuth/ Low sraete e Steady. State no easte treatment er alternettve 4t10e544 eted e matte treatment er alternattwe 41590143 sted eithebt eaCLfitt191 e easte treament er alteemative 6150elal slee witR sackfittt#9 hatte CharettertSttCS e fect of deste (50118. Itaute-Cheettel, reste. Sludge, filter, receaste) e volume t t36 f
e actietty (Cl/ft) e Source:
e fuel Cycle e hos. fuel Cycle Battonal Analysis:
e Projected tweelatt.e Volumes e Proietted Cumulattie Acres G Geestreg CasseerCtal Sertal
$tte ACreate e Projectee avClear poner plant GreertR Regional Analysts:
e fee geogreenic regloes bases en eelt/ ment easte generatton dist10A met # 80 EDettf tC tempertes e Projettes percentages State AnalyttS:
JGB/81 st IC i..u,te,ai,o,u..
A %.
1 4 c..t...,4,-
,a u..,, t.,
ac1 t o gpat tee c* *al o g t w-t e e s
a
- seg, c
ALGher s o.
e-O
77 All reactors eventually reach a." steady-state" e
level of waste disposal.. This value was obtained by assuming a 10-year leveling-off period and the waste build-up follows an exponential function.
The resulting curves gave estimates of 55 ft /yr/MW(e) 3 for boiling water reactor's (BWR), and 40 ft /yr/MW(e) 3 for pressure water reactors (PWR).
e The 8 reactors nn line prior to 1970 do not use the latest processes to treat waste, but were assumed not to have a great impact due to size,'etc.
Major abnormal occurrences experienced by reactors e
(e.g. condenser leakage, steam generator leakage, fuel leaks, waste system malfunctions) were assumed to be an accepted input to the waste streams and were included in the study.
Values used were considered to be representative e
of current technology (demonstrated and used in operating reactors vs design).
Annual waste value figures reported to the NRC on a e
semi-annual basis, and data obtained in the AIF survey was correct with little deviation.
Data on the usable shallow-land burial site acreage e
and the amount of land that has been filled is valid and correct.
Sources that were assumed to be negligible and e
not included were: high-temperature gas cooled reactor wastes and fast breeder reactor waste.
Government installation and operations waste (e.g.
o government hospitals, research facilities) was assumed to remain constant.
One reactor would be decommissioned during each 5-year e
period from 1985 to 2000 and 540,000 ft3 of waste will be generated per reactor.
Non-fuel cycle waste volumes as reflected in disposal e
site records will remain constant through the year 2000.
Trench dimensions do not vary significantly from e
site-to-site.
l l
78 4
e Sites are geologically suitable for the purpose of shallow-land burial.
9 e
Sites will remain in full operation until filled to capacity.
e All packaging is uniform, full and to specifications, e
All packages are buried uniformly.
e There will be no changes to waste burial practices.
o Capacity of the site will remain constant with no increase or decrease.
e There will be no changes to the site license requirements.
e There will be no changes to regulations or public laws.
G. Forecasting Methodology Conclusions The study concludes that existing burial sites (based on a moderate growth rate) will be filled by 1988, 1992 if alternative volume reduction methods are initiated in future reactor plants, and 2000 if alternative methods are initiated and backfitted to existing plants (Table A-IX, Figure A-1 and A-2).
Possibly as early as 1980 waste volumes will exceed handling capabilities, and that as eastern sites fill up, radioactive wastes generated in the east will have to be shipped long distances to western sites.
~
In regard to light water reactors (LWR) specifically, the study concluded that LWR's will generate 89% of the total volume of wastes through 1990, and that 95% of the waste shipped from LWR's is low specific activity waste (1-1/2 - 3 times higher than design values indicated). One per cent of the cumulative waste buried in commercial sites will come from fuel fabrication and reprocessing facilities.
Further, that waste volume could
79 TABLE A-IX PRESENT COMMERCIAL BURIAL SITE CAPACITY EA moves tehouetsen Dete123 Presone Weste Asternese,e Meenede Ahenetree Mennese Genereteen Rose Rene Gesefenee Rate Buries SiaollI Ceesseg ete Nue.
Le Nue.
Me Nee.
Le Nus, Mt Nos.
Le Nos.
Sees Leestoon (Aeres) te10* ft-1 Gremem Ges=ue Growen Growen Growen Gremeva e
Esseern 234 64 4 1986 1987 1988 1989 1994 1997 Woewn 124 34.1 190s
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000 Compones 398 98 5 1988 1990 1992 1994 1999 2(mo.
IUNurneer of mores presonety legenese end owsepee for en alow lane hunal of essegues resseactwe sneers.
e (237 esse,m.no one eensuet en este:
for kastern Snes: 90% et the seeste se geneestes and curies e une feet.
eer t'esseern Setes: 10% of sne meste es somerstee one series en ene West.
%r the Cesnesnes; the assassistion e mese that eene genereses en the [est godt he enascos te the Western htee to 9800 884 estes et en seuel rete.
PROJECTED ACREAGE REQUIRED FOR WASTE DISPOSAL 1
Comenstree se Land Res ree (Aered Wome veneme g,,,
Year a e 10eff'l 7 eta 190%I tim MIGH NUCLEAR GROW 7M RA7E At present eneste generetsen rate:
1980 21 76 68 6
1985 62 225 202 23 1990 138 502 452 50 1995 265 96e 068 96 2000 446 1.622 1.460 162 e
se wee of essernstese snevnees watneut necefen ng:
1980 21 76 68 8
1985 50 182 164 18 1990 87 316 284 22 1995 131 476 428 48 2000 183 665 598 66 Dy use of esternetsee meinece of future maante ane hacefetient esseteng psente.
1980 19 69 62 7
1985 27 135 122 13 1990 53 193 174 19 1995 73 284 256 28 2000 110 400 360 40 LOW NUCLE AR GROW 7M R A7E At present meste generetsen rere-1980 20 73 66 7
1985 54 196 177 19 1990 106 385 347 36 1995 177 644 580 64 2000 275 1.000 900 100 By woe of esternet=e methees emaneue escot.nes 1980 20 73 66 7
19%5 46 167 150 17 1990 78 284 256 28 1995 113 411 370 41 2000 152 553 498 55 0v se es anernetne artness in forwee amenes one hacefeet.ng es.steg psente-1980 18 65 59 6
1985 34 124 112 12 1990 48 175 158 17 1995 66 240 216 24 2000 88 320 288 32
- Source: AIF Study
30 4
4 5
FIGURE A-1
- e i
500 PROJECTED WASTE VOLUMES
/
i
/
/
/
AT PRESENT WASTE
/
GENER ATION R ATES
.l S
e i"
200 5
I j
t y
ai
/
i
/
{ 200
/g/
USI OF ALTERNATsvt METHOOS WITHOU T 8ACM FITTING j
l
/
I
/
/
/
I USE 07 ALTERNATavE METHOOS l'
WITH sACKFITTING 100
=
ii I
l ji'li i
i
,i;ii I
}
9 I
I I
o 1975 1900 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR a
1 j
Source: AIF Study J
4 J,
4 i.
4
81 FIGURE A-2 e
NUCLE AR POWER PLANT GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR LIGHT WATER RE ACTORS ILWRl TOTAL LWR
=
0 600 PWR S
\\
2
==
9 400 HIGH GROWTH e,
2 j
aWR
\\
h 200 g
u 8s<y n
e E
1974 1980 1990 2000 YE AR IN WHICH INSTALLEO CAPACITY IS ATTAINFD 53 2 600 c
So TO1AL LWR
- 400
=
c E
1974 1980 1990 2000 YE AR IN WHICH INSTALLEO CAPACITY 15 ATTAINE D
- Source: AIF Study
4 82 be reduced by a factor of 2.5 - 8.0 using currently available, economically feasible reduction processes. The study also recommended that a compre-hensive program be undertaken to minimize volumes of waste, that economic alternatives to present radioactive wastes reduction methods be developed, and the onsite storage and disposal of LWR waste be considered.
9 S
l 83 APPE!! DIX B
~
Institutional Radoactive Wastes - 1977 The lluclear Regulatory comission contracted with the University of l'.aryland to conduct a selective study of institutional radioactive wastes in 1975, and a follow-up survey in 1977.
The primary objective of the study was to characterize, as much as possible, the radioactive wastes shipped for commercial burial, and to obtain some insight into the relationship between use and waste production.
Six hundred and fifty-nine questionnaires were mailed and final analysis was based on 340 coded responses.
To obtain response rates for extra-polation, respondents were broken down by entity combination and compared to the same breakdown of total population. Because of the frequent con-solidation of responses and the nature of the data, certain simplifying assumptions were used in actual analysis.
Data were manipulated by the use of a packaged computer program: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Limitations in data were supplemented by subjecting the information to general characteristic correlation and behavorial analysis. Suggested aggregate conclusions were calibrated against the estimates found in the EPA study: A Sumary of Low-level Radioactive Waste Buried at Commercial Sites Between 1962-1973, with Projections to the Year 2000.+
e
- EPA used State. P.adiological Health Offices non-fuel cycle estimates for calculating the percentages of waste volumes produced for institutional, medical and industrial waste.
84 Conclusions reached in the survey study indicated that the survey population of large medical and academic licensees shipped an estimated 3
7,771m of low-level radioactive waste for burial in 1977. Approximately 7% of the waste volume was ascribed to purely medical sources, 79% to sources conducting biological research and 14% to other academic sources.
The estimated total activity shipped by the popdlation in 1977 was 1,688 3
3 Approximately 540 Ci of H was shipped as Ci, of which 815 was H
depleted tritium targets for neutron generators. ituch of the rest was in the form of labeled compounds or labeling reagents used in biological research.
It was further found that the fastest growing waste form pro-duced by the population is waste liquid scintillation vials which have undergone a 60% increase in volume since 1975.
It was further found that the waste volume produced by the population appears to be increasing linearly, at approximately the same rate as low-level radioactive waste in general.
5 l
85 APPENDIX C 1
~
Teknekron Radioactive Waste Manacement Study The Nuclear Regulatory Commission contracted with Teknekron, Inc. of Washington, D.C. to provide a modularized, integrated computer model for projecting the quantities, physical characteris, tics, and associated storage / disposal costs of both fuel cycle and nonfuel~ cycle commercial radioactive wastes.
The projections were to be made on an annual basis with national and regional forecasts to the year 2000.
The preferred approach was not to build a new model, but rather to modify and enhance an existing computer program. The final computer model design was to emphasize flexibility so that new waste treatment and storage technologies could be considered, revised regional definitions could be employed, and other parameters designed so that variations could be exercised without requiring program modifications.
Task 1 of the project consisted of a literature search to identify docu-mentation on existing models (nonproprietary) that have been used for projections of radioactive waste quantities and characteristics, and to become faniliar with existing projection methodologies that could be r
considered as possible starting points.
Six fuel cycle models with characteristics that broadly satisfied NRC's requirements were identified as candidates for e amination: NUFUEL, ENFORM, ORSAC, KNIKPLAN, FLYER, and ALPS.
Each was reviewed in considerable de-tail using available documents; the individuals responsible for the
86 most recent versions were also contacted directly. A Reference Table Summary of the information obtained during the documentation review was prepared to identify the capability and limitation parameters of each mode.
Models for non-fuel cycle wastes (medical, academic, research) were found to be virtually nonexistant. Teknekron anticipated that a pro-cedure involving extrapolation of past experience in the generation and storage of radioactive wastes would be adopted to yield a projection.
The Task 1 Final Report, as a result of this survey, recommended that NUFUEL be used as a starting point for the development of the NRC llaste i
Projection Model.
The recommendation was based on the acceptance of I
NUFUEL as a fuel cycle projection model, its capabilities to analyze
~
fuel cycle flows on a regional basis, its modular design, and other favorable attributes.
Subsequently, contract problems developed and Teknekron, Inc. never l
completed developing a computer model for NRC.
i l
l l
l
87 APPENDIX D Environmental Protection Agency Studies In 1971 the Environmental Protection Agency contracted with the state radiological health office, in each of the six states containing low-level radioactive waste disposal sites for commercial waste, to provide them with site inventory data.
The inventory data was to include type and quantities of byproduct material, source material, special nuclear material, and liquid waste, buried from the time the site began operation.
The data submitted by the states was taken from periodic reports prepared and submitted by the companies operating the burial sites to meet state reporting requirements. The companies tabulated the waste burial data l
from shipping records prepared by the facilities shipping waste to the burial site.
Information supplied enabled EPA to construct a year-by-1 year annual and cumulative total inventory comparison in addition to a site-by-site comparison (Tables D-I through D-V show EPA's comparison data.
EPA began the initial contractual arrangement as part of its program to
'~
formulate federal radiation protection guidance, general environmental standards, and environmental regulations. As part of the technical basis for the supporting documentation, inventory data and projections were needed to indicate the sources and quantities of buried radioactive materials, so the potential impact of shallow land burial disposal l
could be assessed.
The first forecast was issued in 1974 using inventory data between 1962 r
~
88 TABLE D-TA 3
EPA O(V[LQpMitTAL INV[NTORY CATA FOR LASTE VOLU'(5 f el turtal Site national ha tt onal South annual cumul a tive Yeae ' t entucky nevaas C arolina 111 t not s wee vorn kasatagten total total 1962 1,86 1 1,861 1.861 1963 2,206 3,512 522 6.240 8.101 1964 3.872
' 2.836 6,388 13.096 21.197 1965 5.751 1.988 4,717 668 13.124 34.321 1966 5.556 3,533 4.697 2,402 16.188 50.509 IMF 7,820 3.206 2.527 4,946 870 19.369 69.8'8 IM8 8.177 3,576 2.713 4,505 669 19.640 89,518 1M9 10,353 4.2R2 2.012 4.274 438 21.359 110.877 1970 12.520 4,131 2.825 5,096 423 24.995 135,872 1971 13.171 3.584 1,171 4.430 6.362 584 29.302 165,174 1972 15,577 4.301 3,757 5,956 7,054 654 37,299 2C2,473 1973 10.072 4,076 15.839 8,524 7.497 1.033 47,041 249.514 1974 4,897 4.103 18.244 12.373 8,574 1.411 53,602 303,166 1975 17.109 4.943
. 18.072 14,116 1,88 s(c) 1.500 57.629 360.745 1976 13,783 3.864 40,227 13,480 Closee 2.867 74,221 434.966 1977 423(a) 4,742 46,563 17.643 Closee 2.718 72.089 507,055 197a Closed 8.82 7 61.566 102tbl Closee 7.422 77.917 584,972 Total 135,287 67.365 205,439 86,701 66,521 23,659 584,972 Weste factitty operatcr reports submitted to State Raetation of fices bases on shipping recores of factitues sntoping raetoactive easte to Casumercial low-level weste Durtal sites.
a.
8vrtal was suspendee on Dec. 27, 1977.
b.
Surtal was suspenees on Aer.
8, 1978.
- c. Surtal was suspended on Mar. 11. 1975.
TABLE D-IIA (PA CEVELCPMNIAL INV(hT099 CATA FOR ST.pa000C7 ei4Ttet Al Tel Surtal lite Na tional hattonal annual cumul att v e South Year rentucky hevada Ca rolina 111 t net s hew fort basatagten total total 1962 1963 22.556 5.690 1,372 29,618 29,618 i
l 1964 147,218 6,477 11.355 165,050 194.668 1965 63,828 6.377 21.515 144 91,86a 286,532 l
1966 52.737 11.974 al.056 1,006 106.773 393,305 1967 23.272 10,894 3.850 51,230 5.378 94.624 487.929 1968 45.h?8 6,808 2.381 51.675 10.330 116.772 604.701 1969 31,028 9.761 2,192 23.264 55,964 122,209 726.910 1970 56.969 12,304 5.427 36.291 52,620 163.811 890,721 1971 710,147 4,316 4,151 7,895 42.458 23.916 79a.683 1.663.604 1972 217,350 5.228 997 4.857 61.208 31,809 321.449 2.0C5,053 1973 123.779 5.704 42.500 2,834 170,552 57.037 ac2,406 2.407.459 l
1974 143,656 23.904 329.043 3.229 55,529 12.773 See,134 2.975,593 1975 289.751 18.388 17.428 6,103 10,273 tc) 113.341 455,284 3.430,677 1976 211,356 4,493 90,204 7,744 Closed 1C4.3C6 418.1C3 3,848,963 1977 167,C63 (al 22,816 390.J65 11.147 Closee 7,465 6v6,856 4.547.863 1978 Closee 5.685 652.061 2.547 (b) Clasee 235.548 895,841 5,443,677 Tota) 2,406,788 160,819 1,576,749 60,2C6 577,778 7 1.837 5,443,677 l
eletontwo-238 was subtracted frca f t9eres en tne colen. he fore retorts Pu.238 as byproouct matertal testead of spectal nuclear matertel. =nereas the strer states report Pu-238 as special nuclear matertal.
"vaste f actitty operator reports subetttee to State asetation of fices cased on snicain9 'recorps if f actitties satootn9 raetoactive weste to Cornercial low-level weste turtal sites.
a.
Burial -as susseaded on Dec. 27. 1977.
t.
Burtal was suspensed on Aar, 8, 1978.
c.
6ertal was suspenere on Nar. 11. 1975.
l A
l Table concilations # rom EPA data.
l L
89 A
~
TABLE D-III (PA OtytLOMEutAL tuvtisf0RT CATA FOR SOURCf MAYf atal ikg)
Surtal Site mattonal hattonal
['
South annual cumula tive Year s entucky neveea Carolina 111 t not s new fort vasnington total total 1962 296 296 296 1943 5.210 472 7.582 13.264 13.560 1964 5.594 331 10.068 15,993 29.553 1965 568 236 22.220 1
23.025 52.578 196e 690 91 38.325 253 39.359 91,937 1967 5.677 346 3,930 20.275 1
30,229 122.166 1968 6.247 1,043 8.705 6.461 3
22.459 144.625 1969 2,554 290 6.334 80.014 89 59.281 233.9C4 1970 7.214 323
. 2.004 31,720 31 41.296 275.2C2 1971 5,735 428 12,546 212 51.455 607 70.983 346.185 1972 8.254 9.342 1.606 3.596 72.54 3 1,110 98.455 444.640 1973 9,340 11.460 45.305 2.409 44.107 2.245 114.866 559.506 1974 13.117 9.717 26.961 13,914 61.703 21 5 176,752 861.690 20 125.432 604.938 1975 82.521 1.438 40,375 35.950 16,253 (b) 1976 75,944 5.000 24.395 3.854 Closee 5.011 114.204 975,894 1977 297 tal 10.634 166.965 184,814 Closee 2.753 365,463 1.341.357 1978 Closed 77.647 804,670 2.121 (c) Closee 5.264 889.702 2.231.059 fot41 228,970 129,094 1.122.823 267.843 462.726 19.603 2.231.059
- uaste factitty operator reports sutetttee to State Raetation offices based on snioning recores
's of f astlettes snipoint rectoactive waste to Commercial low-level easte turtal sites.
a, Surial was suspeneee os Dec. 27, 1977.
b.
Surtal was suspendee on Aor.
- 8. 1978.
- c. turtal as suspenoee on Mac. 11, 1975.
e l
i TABLE D-IVA fpA OtytLOPMENTAL inytt10AY CATA FOR 58tCI AL NUCLEAR **TERIAL (O 8vetal 5tte National sational South annual cumulative
'eae sentucey nevada C a -Si t na !11 t no t s Rev fore wa sn t n9 ton total total 1962 319 3g, 339 1963 959 41.304 952 43.215 43.534 1964 11.770 172.030 3.273 187 C73 230.607 1965 4,261 334,752 2.4 3
34.459 572.CE6 4,9,33 1966 7.462 5,872 9
g,ggg gg,ygg
$9 g,g g,
1967 14,842 22.644 1.238 3.446 42.170 633.987 1968 17.771 8,602 1,754 2.045 41 30.172 664.159 1962 31.506 5.005 3.84 a 1.20 1 32 47.6a 7 711.846 1970 47.562 7,708 5.649 8.273 200 69.392 181,239 1971 12.770 757 13.220 9.934 4.916 15 101.512 e82.75J 1972 11.443 21.177 44,718 5,898 7.321 832 153.389 1.C36.137 1973 e6.249 15.164 99.800 6.126 7.710 6.554 101.607 1.217.746 1974 23.850 16.954 110.444 4,14e 2.986 5.264 167.662 1.38 5.4C8 1975 25.690 29,275 16.983 5.285 1,240 (c) 14,978 157,451 1.542.859 1976 27,474 2.c96 122.261 1.736 Close4 24.375 177.947 1.720,8C6 1977 27.878 (4) 4,597 183.251 5,310 Closee 25,937 246.973 1,967.779 1970 Closee 7,673 220,900 2.134 46) Closee 18.312 249.019 2.216.796 Total 431,487 695.939 473.577 57.053 56,795 101.c47 2.216.799
- Plutonium-238 =es aeded to tne fl9ures succitee ey te= fort State.
1 I
- haste factitty operator reports subattted to State Aastation offices Dates on shipping receres of f actlittes satoptag raetoactive maste to Comercial low-leve 6.aste turtal sites.
4.
Surtal mas suspenace on Dec. 27. 1977 Cu tal mas sospended on Apr.
- 4. 1978.
b.
e l
c.
Bertal =as sussenate on fiar. II.1975.
ATable compilations from EPA data.
i 90 and 1973. A second forecast was issued in 1978 as an update using inventory data between 1962 and 1976, and a third update was issued in June 1980 using inventory data between 1962 and 1978.
The first two forecasts (1974,1978) were somewhat similar in outlook although they differed in actual forecast concl,usions. The closure of three of the six sites, and changes in site operations and regulations dramatically impacted the 1980 forecast update. Moreover, less opti-mistic projections for the development of the nuclear power industry led to decreased volume predictions, and necessitated further revisions in the available burial capacity forecasts.
A. Fuel ' Cycle Waste The 1974 forecast for fuel cycle waste represented the estimated amount anticipated, based on extrapolated data from the national annual volume buried at commercial sites between 1963 and 1973, rather than on nuclear power growth projections and extrapolated historical data. After this report was issued EPA developed a new basis for projection the expected volume of fuel cycle waste.
For this basis the annual waste volumes from reactor operations were plotted on a linear scale vs the power-generating capacity (in 11W(e))
l of nuclear power plants for a given span of time. A line was fitted using the least-squares technique. This line then described the relationship between waste volume and power-plant capacity based on historical infor-
~
mation. The linear description oversimplified many of the factors in-fluencing waste production (e.g., type of light-water reactor (LWR),
91 load factors, startup difficulties, and backfitting of gaseous and liquid radwaste systems), however EPA felt it provided a valid basis for forecasting. Assuming that a linear fit was adequate for the pur-pose of prediction, annual volumes of reactor waste were estimated as i
a function of installed generating capacity:
Reactor Wastes = 0.48 m3 x cummula'tive MW (e)
MW(e) e YR B. Other Fuel Cycle Waste To determine the contribution from other fuel cycle wastes (uranium con-version and fuel fabrication), EPA took the estimate for all fuel cycle wastes, and subtracted the preliminary reactor operating data for waste shipped to commercial facilities.
It was then assumed that the difference between these two figures constituted the other fuel cycle wastes.
The uncertainties surrounding reprocessing prevented developing any basis for waste volume projections.
Therefore this aspect was not factored in to the forecast.
C. Non-fuel Cycle Waste During the time period EPA made their projections, information describing the volume and curi activity from non-fuel sources was not compiled in a single document or reference source.
As a result, the agency requested the State Radiological Health Office in each state to determine the percentages of uncompacted waste from non-fuel cycle sources. These figures are as follows :
t I
92 1979-1980 1931-1990 1991-2000 44%
27%
14%
It was assumed that the waste volume from the non-fuel cycle source represented a constant addition to the waste generated by the fuel cycle source, and a basis for forecasting.
Of the total waste volume, it was further estimated that approximately 30% was produced by sources related to medicine or medical sources, and 10% was generated by universities and industries.
D. Regional Waste In 1974, the location of the six commercially operated burial sites for low-level waste enabled EPA to develop geographic regions as a projection factor for forecasting. While the original investment decisions on these sites were not based on any formal plan, the resulting distribution of facilities approximated a regional system of low-level waste disposal sites:
West Valley, New York Northeastern Region flaxey Flats, Kentucky Middle Atlantic Region Barnwell, South Carolina Southern Region Sheffield, Illinois Midwestern Region J
Beatty, Nevada Southwestern Region Richland, Washington Northwestern Region This provided an easy incentive to begin relating data to generation by region, available capacity, and operational life of the site.
93 The EPA 1974 forecast was the first attempt to relate national projection figures to the regional needs of the continental United States. Forecasts were based on burial record data for both non-fuel cycle and fuel cycle wastes, and on the electric power projections for future fuel cycle wastes.
To arrive at a forecast, EPA made the following assumptions:
a) The continental U.S. was divided into six geographic regions based on the location of the six commercial sites. The boundaries are hypothetical and the calculation and assumptions made did not ha've any political or regulatory significance.
b)
It was assumed that the nuclear facilities within the region would send their radioactive waste to the regional burial grounds, c)
It was also assumed that the nuclear plants planned beyond 1985 Atomic Energy Commission projections would not significantly affect the relative regional power generating capacities.
d)
In allocating the national annual volume of waste, the nuclear power electrical capacity within the region was used as the basis'for the regional share of fuel cycle wastes.
e) Equal geographical distribution was assumed for non-fuel cycle wastes.
l f) Existing sites would not be enlarged.
g) No new sites would be established.
In 1975 the first of three site closings took place.*
This action nega-
- -Burial was suspenoed at West Valley, Ngw York on March 11, 1975 due to 0 from two trench caps. Burial seeping water containing tritium and SR was suspended at Maxey Flats, Kentucky on December 27, 1977 due to leakage in trenches that resulted in onsite migration of burial material. Burial was suspended at Sheffield, Illinois on April 8, 1979 due to filling of available capacity.
94 tively impacted further regional forecasting by EPA.
Figure D-1 illus-trates the EPA geographic regional distribution, and Table D-V presents EPA's regional forecast to the year 2000.
E. Forecasting Methodology Projection Elements Table D-VI provides an analysis of the basic low-level radioactive waste projection elements found in all three EPA studies. The general approach and method were found to be consistent throughout the original study and the two subsequent updates. EPA currently has no plans and has made no budget allocations for a third update.*
F. Forecasting Methodology Assumptions Although there have been previous speculation on radioactive waste to be generated, with regard to selective aspects of the problem, EPA was the first to correlate fuel cycle and non-fuel cycle radioactive waste infor-mation to the available capacity of the commercial waste sites.
Operating data as well as burial volume data had an impact on the basic assumptions used in calculating the forecasts.
For example, the assumption used for a standard burial trench capacity in the 1974 and 1978 studies, s.
and the 1980 study remained the same for trench size, but differed in total
-burial volume projections. A standard trench was assumed to be 300 feet
- W.H. Holcomb, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal tele-communication with J.G. Braun, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management, fiarch 10, 1991.
9.f
- 1
95 FIGURE D-1 (FA Cf 0l;R APuf 0 Of 0f 0st$ F00 (Ow.([.;[L sa0f 01CTfvf wA$7f Di$90$A*
c d)
) (
.c
[/
. af,q.
f
/
98 e lets S le tty
'j
.j -
)
g8
/
n= ell L
northeastern Region: best Valley, N.Y.
usedle Atlantic 8eg'on: Meney Flats, sy Southern a gion: Sarna.r11, 5.0.
e Mta=4 stern Eegion: Seeffield, !!).
Southwestern aegiont gee: y, ne,.
e Nortn=estern Regton: (Manf ore) Ett
- ls74 4tuov TABLE D-V*
EP4 19?a E5ffuerto c;pertAffvf vetuwf 0F wastf etwf patte tw tacw sFCTCn TwoouGw Twt vlee f wnicafED l
l l
l Aegion Volume
- 1973" 1975' 1980" 1990 2000 b
b hortheastern (best Valley, N.Y. )
- 2. 0
- 2. 9
- 6. 4 37.4 211.4 Mtoole Atlantic (Masey Flats, Ky)
- 3. 4 4.9
- 7. 9 27.9 134.9 Southern (Sarnwell, 5.C. )
.8 1.1 5.1 41.1 2a9.1 mio=estern (Snef f tela. Ill. )
- 1. 0 14
- 4. 9 39.5 238.5 i
l Soutn*, stern (8eatty, hev. )
- 1. 5 2.1 41 16.1 72.1 1
moetn=esteen (Richland, wa)
.5
.7
- 2. 7 13.7 59.7 mational Cum lative Total 9.2 13.1 31.1 175.7 965.7 u
8volume is measurea in 10* cuoic feet 00ttainee f rom eurf el site snicotag sata
- alculated using the partitiontag of easte based soon cumulattwe volume uo to 1973 C
Source: EPA Studies i
1 1
1
ry.
f;
.gr y 1
s1.
e m.
7, 1
t t
,'t
/'
s
. ' >iau\\
- p,
,s 96 F
e y<,
61 s
3:.
L.
-s
~
f
?.* ~.
TABLI 0-VI l z
e t e j
j
(
t, l
.j/'
/
,j tow.ityrt er;4r' d wi'; *eNttf Ps Etf=*%t!
! i y ar,f l)s >
~
'y
\\
/
t 19?e hoo'
'9" Ney" N
19'9 %M t
f e mat teaal e hat toaal e' an,teaa.l teelt 8 4f eca;
/g e site canit,ntfe e site conn,aife e u.e i j
,' fe $tte coactt,r' 9u 'j,, p tueltne tue uste f act16t, reverts sA-tites sa I wete f actitt, reeerts sweatstes ta neste 4estitt, eneets s.t.sttee to
.s.ie s 8 e,te.t te o.f f ices news sa. sate.s, tat - -
y e-ero,os,e.O'f tces,nues sa base., gig it'te eastet. tea e.f fices uwe en. san,s. sag w,4 e,ee, f onn n s ies state testatten
., f nno supina ama roree,funu ost a
.ute to tne sta summert'ei hv tal sites uste to t*e taree seerattag ceaport tel e
' a the tane seerst tag cr=+rt 61 een,, e-u, siai.s, mest veile,,
s.et es f asst,, a1catene, geramallt saa the " sit.es,
- ts' 16eets, eteniene, serawia
~
tsmeffiele. ne,ey Flat t ree, oewe c-mes.i ytn oaeff seis.
own tererciai ytn tsneff tees.
tar.
g fini,.nt u ne,3 ame eine. mi ve".>
f tee nortamt e 1962.ls73 lanator, Tetals e 19'his76 levertory 16tels e 1962 1978 la eater, fatets
~
o Pnjectica te,eer 7t00 6, f-em. nee to,eer 2000 6, se 2000 m, e
r, Projectica to V9 s.
ca u o 10,em e
.acrews o ic,em sacre u o 0 reirs i'
s PrwJecnen of stre seeecit,lltfe rejectsee of site teoastt,/ttfe _
e Projettlea of site careett,tI9fe e
f atte (otta cualtf ustWsl llagte tettn eveltf ttettees)
Y Sce9erter Stasie
- r, of.nu i,,eici, ame,
/e 1,ee o.. e it,e, u, ome.
' U.e.ue,-te,inio
,,ee.f.eue,it,,emi, some, t
a oo.,io a.oeso e (=pu dunes
/
- f. a woon a.ueo imio a. ->
i e
r-of wp:te :seite, tinto.e em,of =pte (wital f
os e
e
^
i ui e in
.e us e to 3 e
,i^
e a pepeate pgege essaggfeeste.
s ersertete meesgrements/seste.
e s
r e agereertete Messerseatst 4ette e
e f.
a.ctte'ty (certes, gre.s. tbs, sals) acttest, (certes, grams, its, gals e
attlett, Icartes. greas, lbs, gals)
J e
p f o c,oe.
s.m,,e
. s.me e
f-m,.e e
o e.oe.
ei c,oe e
j e.
a.a i c,oe e
..s.o c,oe ea.s.o c.oe
~ o aw m, au's 4e e amet,sts; o
e - a.o-e end teos e
,o.n.o e m i,stos e
c-.un.e..i. saa uios
.e.si.ae e unis e c uen.e -w one utos e
e c Hostes saavel volume e erejectee saa al votre
/
e p.emtes enanal volume
/e
- 'rojected cumulattee volse v
P e ereJectee trulettee selv e a
e pes}ectee capolettre w=W e
,. f *
$le geesteetti regle.ns te ee se tetterattaa of 197a Ste.er esta tenne t aegtenal ana',ysts; e
imatea of sto co. amo torto sites, enn nyeetatutti bonnertes regole.or, solstica'e sectat one neartae as sitatf tt ece e PrsJectee volwas
/
^
o Projectes eerseatete of nuclear electrte power casettt, as ease for t
feel g,oe westes e (awal geogreeastel ststr%tten y
_/
essmee tw men.fwel arr.1 settes
/
m sine o,stu esae r
i
/
i
<f l -
r e
"jf
/
1 JGB/81 s
a 4
g
~
'..r.o connell wid w.r. t.elCO e, LO ten) aseiuctt.e.aises 3.rted aw.erclei $itu set un 1962 it73,.itn projecttens t0 ene var 2000*, seesttoa cota aae e, ports,15(12), p0. 759 767 Deceamer 1974. #
/
h.f. n01C0%, "A $w v ary of Shal10. Land ter'ai of andtoactive bastes at C0merctal $ttes Between 1962 and 1976 sith Projections *, nuclear a
S af et y, 19(1), pg. $0 59, Jan ary.FeDrurer$ 3978.
u g
E '.F. Stelcomb, " Inventory (1962 1978) and Projections (to 2000) of Shallow Land Bertal of andt0 active bestes at CO unerttal $ttes: An Updata",
h esclear Safety, 21(3), pp. 380 388, Pay 4une 1980. '
luetal w8s shspenced at $heffield On A0rtl S. h?9 due 10 fillteg Of evallasle caCattty. Surtal mas suspen004 at Masey flats on Dece+0er 27, g
1977 due to lessage in trencMes tnat reselted on-stte setgration of Dartal aisterial, Surtal was tussended at west Valley On t'arCb 11, 1975 dse to see0tng water cantaining trittum and $A f rom two trencil caps.
' annual total v01eries of fuel Cycle wastes are salCulated by using 4 Itst Of nwClear e'effric power plaats in egeration, unoer Construction and,ernaetted ton Greer) for any sinn yew.
etailed infor*tation COnterstas non. fuel Cycle 10welevel raf teattlee easte is unavailable at tot time Ove te reporting methods used for ants 9tf.) Inanif ests and setsehefitly f 0r $tte latent 0ry.
97 long (91m) x 40 fSet wide (12.2m) x 20 feet deep (6.2m), 240,000 feet 3 3
(6800m ) with 20 feet (6.im) of spacing between trenches. The burial volume projections were:
3 a) 1974 and 1973 Volume Projection: 143,000 ft per trench assuming that the top meter of the trench depth will not be used and that a 30% void space will exist for each trench.
b) 1980 Volume Projection: 3460m3 per trench assuming that the top meter of the trench will not be used and a 40% void space will exist fore each trench.
The adjusted data projections in the 1980 report were based on the State of Nevada's Division of Health technical recommendation that trench void space be increased by 10% with a 60% utilization factor rather than a 70% utilization factor.
Because information was basically empirical in nature, a number of general suppositions were necessary to speculate on expected impacts. Those assumpticr.s were as follows:
l e
A " steady-state environment" will continue to prevail.
l l
e Sites are geologically suitable for the purpose of shal1ow-land burial.
e Sites will remain in full operation until filled to capacity.
e All packaging is uniform, full and to specification.
e All packages are buried uniformly.
I e
There will be no changes to waste burial practices.
e Capacity of the site will remain constant with no increase or decrease.
l l
l l
i
98 e
Operational life of the site will not increase or decrease for any reason.
e Size of the site will not increase or decrease.
e No additional sites will be created.*
e Waste receipt is recorded as originating from the state in which it was generated.
e There will be no changes in waste generation characteristics.
e Uniform record keeping is practiced at all sites, e
Inventory records are valid and accurate.
e Planned nuclear electric power plant projections will not significantly affect the relative regional power capacity.
I e
Fuel cycle wastes are from once-through cycle with the annual waste volumes from reactor operation plotted on a linear scale vs the power-generating capacity.
e Waste has not undergone volume reduction (compaction /
incineration).
s There will be no changes to the site license requirements, e
There will be no changes to regulations or public laws.
G. EPA Forecasting Methodology Conclusions The 1974 report served as a vehicle to:
a) present accumulated inventory data for radioactive I
- Until mid-1979 the NRC viewpoint on licensing new sites was that it would be unadvisable for any new shallow-land burial facilities to be licensed unless an " urgent need" was identified - NRC Task Force Report on Review of the Federal / State Program for Regulation of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds, Report NUREG-0217, Marcn 1977.
The temporary closure of burial sites by the Governor of Washington and Nevada, and the limiting of waste volume accepted by the Governor of South Carolina and the Governor of Washington (South Carolina's limit on waste receipts will be reduced to 100,0003 a month by October 1981) necessitated a change in the NRC viewpoint.
i
99 waste buried at commercial facilities; b) point out some of the more obvious trends; and c) focus attention on the possible magnitude of future low-level radioactive waste disposal problems associated with commercial shallow-
~
burial sites.
The 1978 and 1980 reports updated the inventory data for radioactive waste buried at commercial facilities, and adjusted future site capacity impact estimates. Table D-VII presents a site capacity comparison of prediction data, and Table 0-VIII presents a comparison breakdown of fuel cycle and non-fuel cycle wastes for annual volumes.
Originally it was believed that the total annual volume of radioactive waste received at commercial burial sites was growing at an exponential rate.
EPA devised an exponential projection to the year 2000 by drawing a straight line through the data points representing the early years of commercial waste burial.
Figure D-2 is a graphic comparison of the 1974, 1977, and 1979 exponential data forecasts. This comparison pointedly illustrates the considerable decline in radioactive waste predicted.
Interpretation of inventory data, and the assumptions, estimates, and projections, made about existing burial facilities by EPA indicated that for:
a) 1974 1)
The volume and quantity of low-level waste was growing rapidly.
e
s e
a 4
TABLE D-VII EPA PROJECTED CAPAClilES of EXI5i!NG LOW-tEVEL WASTE COMMERCIAL BURI AL SIIES
- Possible Numer of Total Burial Date Current Burial Site Size (ha)
Standard Trenches capacity 0 0* m )
Capacity Exhausted 3
a c
d d
Year of forecast:
1974 j977 3979 3974 3977 g979 3974 gg77 3979 3974 3977 3977 Wes't Valley, N.Y.
22 8.9 8.9 50 50 0
7.2x10s 0.20 Closed 1981 N/P N/P h
I 2.20' Closed 1998 N/P N/P Haxey Flats, Ky.
330 102.0 102.0 750 580 0
1.1x108 Barnwell, S.C.
270 113.0 110.0 614 604 604 8.8x10' 2.40 2.40 1993 N/P N/P I
Sheffield Ill.
22
- 8. 9 8.9 50 50 0
7.2x108 0.20 Closed 1981 N/P N/P Beatty, Nev.
80 32.0 32.0 182 179 179 2.6x10' O.74 0.60 1992 N/P N/P Richland, Wa.
100 43.0 40.0 227 223 223 3.2x10' O.91 0.91 1994 N/P N/P 6.70 3.93 (4.60)9
'5fre is by, Acre lhese numbers may differ from site plot plans in which trenches may not be of the standard type
' Current burial capacity as of 1974 Adjusted year projections were not provided
' Reflects the possibility that the site may have a 50% lower capacity than first projected I lhe Nevada Division of Health recommends a utilization factor of 0.6, which reduces the 0.74 to 0.47 9the figure is a revised total reflecting the reduced capacity estimates for Hauey flats and Beatty h8urial was suspended on March II,1975 due to seeping water containing tritium and SR from two trench caps IBurial was suspended on December 27, 1977 due to leakage in trenches that resulted in on-site migration of burial material 38urial was suspended on April 8,1979 due to filling of available capacity
- Table compilations from EPA data.
~oO
g a
4 g.
d' 101 I
5 N
9 9
j t
4 g
8 2
I
?
t Z
3 3
~
+
2 8
g e
o 2
i
=
a l
2 i
kE) kEl i
s g
=
= =
3 3
O e
2 5
G g
E s.- an-e g
23 a.21 5
0
= = = :
e.=
3 3
E 3
3
~>
b h
3 3
I
-=
E g e:
= 3_ =9:3 9:
-a e
I e
a e
b j
1 3
Ma I
4 7
m 3.
sa 2
e 3
0 t
3 3
s c.
o a
N 2
w fl e
d d
E o
5 L.
o y
3 I
8 :
S e
f o.
e g
u o
o o
sa m
W C.
E I
w g
o h
~
U
~
e t
e c
b "
en
.s g,
e
>=
l e
<s l
1 l
h
102 FIGURE D-2 7
10 I
i i
l i
I i i
0 10 1974 1977 5
10 3979 4
10 3
I I I
I I I
I l 10 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
{pa retCA$7t3 TOTAt AVf 04Gt ANWA( Vry ter CF (OW.((V(L WA$7t (106 +2rv H
- Veer of Forecast 1976 1980 1981 - 1990 1991 20C0 a
1974 3.600 14.500 79.C00 l
1977 0.102 0.410 2.!40 l
l 1979 0.ca9 0.i47 0.rsi n,,,,,
.,e iO 7 2nr 5
a
- Table compilations from EPA data.
l
103 2)
If no changes to present practices or trends occur, two sites will be closed by 1985 ('<lest Valley, Sheffield) and all six sites by 1998.
If the sites were filled on the basis of load shifting to the other burial sites as each site reached its capacity, then the last closure would be 1992.
b) 1978 1)
The volume and quantity of, low-level waste was growing rapidly.
2)
If no changes to present practices or trends occur, the last site will be filled by 1992.
c) 1980 1)
The volume and quantity of low-level waste is continuing to increase each year.
2)
The rate of waste generation appears to be slowing down.
3)
If no changes to present practices or trends occur, the last site will be filled by mid-1990's -
uncertainties surrounding the burial sites limit this projection and all commercial sites could be filled by mid-1980's.
Other trends and observations made by EPA were:
a) Relating radioactivity buried is difficult since the activity concentrations in the waste depends upon the originating source and use of radicactive material at the source.
b) Sites were initially established to receive non-fuel cycle wastes (medical, research, industrial) and have been increasingly used for a growing nuclear electric l
power industry.
t
/
c) Growth of the nuclear electric power industry will continue to dramatically increase fuel cycle wastes until they surpass non-fuel cycle wastes by large percentages (1980 - 56%, 2000 - 86%).
L l
i-l
B 104 d) Nuclear electric power growth can be correlated and reflected in the rate of fuel cycle low-level waste growth increases at the burial sites, e) As a consequence of recalculated nuclear electric power generating projections, waste volume projections through the year 2000 have been slowing down, f) Changes in licensing requirements and regulations signi-ficantTy impact inventories (1972 requirement for solidification of liquid waste prior to shipment and 1974 exclusion of TRU wastes if it exceeds 10 nCf/g).
g) A redistribution of wastes has resulted from the closing of three commercial burial sites.
h)
If operational problems occur 'at a burial site, little flexibility exists for managing low-level waste for the next 10-20 years, therefore new burial sites must be established soon to insure health, safety, and environ-mental protection.
i) The life of the burial sites can be extended by reducing the volume of estimated wastes through volume reduction (compaction, incineration) - if compaction is practiced (possible reduction of 3 to 5) the last site will be filled by the year 2000.
j) A more detailed analysis of low-level waste is needed to:
e identify suitable new sites; improve low-level radioactive waste volume projections; e
determine accurate capacity of burial sites; and e
e characterize waste: generated by decommissioning of nuclear facilities.
l k) Projections need to be revised in the near future because of:
uncertainties in uranium conversion, fuel cycle e
fabrication and fuel reprocessing; and continued decrease and rescheduling in the rate of e
the nuclear electric power industry.
t
105 APPENDIX E
~
NUS State-by-State Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shioped to Commercial Burial Grounds In 1978 and 1979 the trend toward declining burial space with increasing waste volume; combined with the problems of establishing new burial grounds; and the temporary closing of two of th'e three open sites and reduced volume at the third; denonstrated a need to better characterize commercial low-level radioactive waste. The Department of Energy recog-4 nizing the need for better characterization, contracted with the NUS Corporation, to provide a state-by-state assessment of radioactive waste shipped to commercial burial grounds report.
NUS first obtained site inventory data directly from the commercial burial site operators.
The commercial burial site companies in turn had tabulated the waste burial data from shipping records by the facili-ties shipping waste to the burial sites.
NUS, in addition, also obtained existing published data (e.g. NRC & DOE records and reports), and reports that could be interpolated from a national to a state basis (i.e. Institutional Radioactive Mastes, NRC Report NUREG/CR-0028, University of tiaryland, Radiation Safety Office; October 1979).
They were used as part of the basis for the assessment.
Because the aforementioned data sources did not fully characterize the waste volumes, waste volumes classified as industrial source needed to be apportioned for each state. To calculate this, the remaining volume was spread over the United States, in proportion to the population s-
106 for the Agreement States, and by ratio of the number of state licensees to the total NRC industrial licensees for the non-Agreement States.
A preliminary report was issued in 1979 and a full update assessment report in November 1980. The final report provided a national profile, a site profile, and profiles by category: government, fuel cycle, non-fuel cycle with an institutional and industrial breakdown for all 50 states.
A. Fuel Cycle Waste To assess the amount of fuel cycle waste, NUS obtained summary infor-mation on commercial nuclear powerplant wastes from semiannual reports submitted to NRC. 1979 calendar year data was used where available.
When reported data was not available, NUS communicated directly with the utility. Where the data reported by utilities provided only the overall quantity and radioactivity, tables were devised to provide the f
breakdown. These tables were based on the average waste generation rates established in the report: Waste Inventory Report for Reactor and Fuel-Fabrication Facility Waste.
l l
B. Non-Fuel Cycle Waste l
When this report was compiled, there were no quantitative reports in the public domain on the specific volumes and activities from the industrial and institutional sectors.
The public record data for commercial nuclear power plants and for a major portion of the government waste allowed NUS to compile by differences the institutional and industrial volume and
\\
radioactivity.
Factored into the final estimates were data extrapolation l
from secondary sources.
l l
t f
I
107 C. Government Uaste The DOE SWIMS Report (Solid Waste Information itanagement System -
l.
Actual Solid Wastes Generated for Fiscal -Year 1979) summarizes the quantities of reported solid radioactive wastes generated by government installations. NUS extracted data on low-level radioactive waste sent to commercial burial grounds and excluded all o,ther information.
Data included records from the U.S. Navy nuclear-powered ships and their-support facilities, but excluded data from other military departments (e.g. Army and Air Force). Waste from these other military commands does not constitute a significant volume of waste and therefore.10S included the information in the industrial and institutional sector of the report.
D. State-by-State Waste NUS obtained the volume and curie values given for each state directly from the commercial burial site operators. The total for each state was the sum of the volume and radioactivity by burial site. The report noted that
(.
for some states, the amount of waste which is in the institutional /in-l l
dustrial category may not represent the actual volume generated by firms in that state. Burial ground records list volumes from broker companies by the state of the home office (broker companies collect material from several states and repackage or consolidate shipments under one radioactive shipping record).
E. Assessment Methodology Elements Table E-I provides an analysis of the low-level radioactive waste assess-
108 ment elements found in the 1980 report. NUS currently is prer ring a 1981 report to be released later this year.*
F. Assessment Methodology Conclusions Table E-II presents the NUS assessment conclusions. The report presents as a hypothetical scenario of possible low-level commercial radioactive waste distribution disposed of by shallow land burial.
It is valid only to the extent the reader supports the author's methodology, and to the extent the reader understands the limitations built into the data.
It in no way projects a forecast for future waste or impact to site capacity.
- Edward Jennrich, EG&G, Idahl, personal telecommunication with J.G. Braun, Division of Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 17, 1981.
k_
4 109 TABLE E-I Low-LDTL RADreactfW wasTr aStr55=ew? tLrvreTS 1900 *nts Studv' ante appresent e wettenal e
e Statedy-State o site Distrabuttea Seeoline Detas e meste Festlity Deeeres (8arnme11 Beatty. Rashland) e NRC Licensing Statisties e Nuelear Power seasters e Rasseettsve materials e
U.S. Pepslation Reeerde utlitary seeter soste Reports e
(navy only)
Time nortsens e left laventary fetals e 1979 Estimated Statributions e 1970 & 1979 Total haste telee Campartsen by State Scenarter Single oute charuteristics
. r.r. of 9ste <nlid;
. Volume se )
e Seuree e Non-Fuel Cycle e Fse! Cyele e Radteactartty leil metaenal analysis e 1979 fetal volume 1979 fetal Pereentages by Seusse e
1979 Seuree Totalg e
non-ruel Cgele o
e Fuel Cycle e 1979 on-Line muelser Power Peseters Regional Anasysts:
Nere State analysis e !adividual State analysis e
e fetal State Volume te3) et Comersaal Feetlittes e fetal State Pereentages Total summer of on-Lane Causeretal e
Power Reseters Total Fuel Cple eastes e
i e Volume te3) e medieactivsty (til Total pen-Feel Cyste wastes e
e fetal Nwater of Industrsal Licenses fetal nunner vf institutional lisen-e sees 3
e Estamated Total State volume (s )
e I
Esttaated Total State Rasseactivity dell Total Mtsster of Csvement/wilitary e
e tsevvr mastes free the state total Volume ladl of State eastes e
Otseeses et at a Commeretal Site fata! Nadaeactavity f es s of State e
Dastes Osseesec of at a Commeresal i
sa te e 1979 waste 0:str:Dutten Ccesartson for all 50 States i
3 1979 weste telee in ) Cameersson for all i
e 50 States JGB/81 e uit,eauit.....
- s. i ee s St.te.v-s.ste a. sees.ent e, t t.
i 8edteacetve asete Ems vec to comercia4 Eura =
.roure s neport hUS.
3440, ae.eeeer itav, e reparee ey E5 Corporassen ser LG & G Idaho.
Ine.. U.S.CCE Suncontracts at 5108. Task 23.
"petailed information eeneernarts non-fuel syele low-level radionettve seste as unavastasie et this taae due to reportirg setneds used fer shapping sansfests and sussequettly for site anventory.
- annual total volumes ef fuel eyele eastes are calculsted by ustr.4 a list of nuclear electras power plants an operation, under eenstruction, and projected ten order) l
110 TABLE E-II
- e Stat.-8,-5 tat. Ass.ss..,1979 t
-t...i is..
ct.....si. Dis sai at C-,c,4i..c m ein Ois..sai.,.t*
C-rciai
..rc.ata0.*
..r,e. t.
a stit ti ai' G... -,s a..'.s C-re.i.
,a i.
, iiit..s 8, 5. orc.
8,
- aciiii, io.striai m i s t.r, n..,1
...< tors er e:
4r
!] ::ze er
- d E
r)= :-
er
- }
2 u
1::
e e:
z, t,
1:-
I is 35 il ;r:( Et I E Et i i
k-Ili!
i
-1 E
1 e.
3 a
3
~
L s
=
~
=
~
4 t W 5ta.
Aieeene ( AL]"'I 3,672 9,543
< It s 994 CE 1001 ct at 115 233 <
1 3,975 0
0 0
4 3,688 5,568 Aiasta ( AE]
1 <
1 1005 05 CE 121 01 881 7
20 <
1 <
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 Artmena (A2) 54 61 1005 05 QE 21 645 35 98 173 54 61 0
0 0
0 0
0 Artensas ( A8]A,8 265 180 < 1%
- 995 CS 97%
3 13 162 138 <
1 163 0
0 0
2
'279 17 Californts LCA)C 4.342 83.281 305 63 64%
< 15 685 33 687 1,324 1,315 31.385 5 2,751 48,000 3
276 3,444 Cole,reco (C0]
225 25 1005 CE 01 3
885 lot 70 364 225 25 0
0 0
1 0
0 Coanecticut [CT]^
3,970 2,764 53 925 31 981 CE 3
53 151 203 <
1 3
135 7
3 3,632 3,241 Deie ar. (DE) 120 <
1 100%
CE CE 1005 05 0%
'l 27 120 <
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 Fiertas (FL]
2,592 88,345 let 861 05
> 995 CS < 15 281 411 352 86,605 0
0 0
4 2,240 1,7a0 Georgia (GA]
1,261 820 23 782 CE 10G3 C1 ct 241 248 283 eso 0
0 0
2 978 34 0 me.ait (NI]
83 10 31%
CE 69%
12 50 26 8-1 57 2
0 0
0 leone (!O]
7 8
1005 C1 CE 3
CE 995 22 90 7
8 0
0 0
0 0
0 tiitneis (It]D 6.758 9.044 475 363 175 73 91 IM 250 436 3,173 1,131 2 1.154 120 7
2,431 7,793 Indiana (!D) 27 1
1002 CS C1 CE 405 6CE 113 168 27 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
+
lo.a (10]
961 1,216 44 8N 13%
961 05 45 51 38 38 69 1
125 400 1
798 802 tensas (RS) 10 3
1005 01 05 ft 91%
CE 125 187 10 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
teatucky (tY1 194 37 10C5 05 C5 495 1%
505 93 152 194 37 0
0 0
0 0
0 Lowlstana [LA) 19 1
1005 C5 05 973 05 N
280 290 19 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
meine (ME]
, 416 555 13 885 CE 1001 01 01 34 47 52 <
1 0
0 0
1 364 2,771 maryiand (te]D 978 2.271 565 est at 901 < 1%
91 96 215 546 1,091 0
0 0
2 432 1,174 Passachusetts (MA]O 4,860 138,146 335 675 OS 83% < it 161 143 263 1,597 115,829 0
0 0
2 3,263 22.317 picni en [MI]"
2,150 875 25%
751 CE 751 IN 71 175 326 537 <
1 0
0 0
4 1,613 1,006 t
minnesota [ set]
1.441 13,315 set 165 C5 431 35 54%
74 130 1,232 -
97 0
0 0
3 229 13,218 Mississ topi-(M5]
68 54 59%
OS 41%
28 1
0 0
0 missovet (MO) 329 304 10C1 CE 05 425 175 41%
122 160 329 304 0
0 0
0 0
0 montana (MT]
3 32 1005 CS OS 57%
C1 331 25 49 3
32 0
0 0
0 0
0 meeraska [h8)"'I 801 140
< 1% a 995 01 325 66%
3 36 69 <
1 12 0
0 0
2 809 128 meveaa (wv]
4 62 1005 Os C1 31 971 CE 28 60 4
62 0
0 0
0 0
0 me. MenosMre [hMJ 77 3
1001 Ct CE 10C%
Ct CE 31 42 0
0-1 85 3
0 0
0 0
ne. Jersey 3,008 7,450 43 6CT 01 841 C2 161 134 394 1,191 6,0M 0
0 e
2 1,817 1,870 me. Mee tco (Na]"
80 1
263 01 74%
< 1%
38%
62%
42 123 21 <
1 1
59 4
0 0
0 he. Vera [nv]D 9.572 78,961 61%
32%
71 75%
135 13 584 584 5.869 72,104 2
674 1,630 6
3,029 5,227 me*th Caroline thC]"I 5,304 4,504 42%
Set et 971 C1 M
179 245 2.211 1
0 0
0 2
3.093 5.372 hertn Oakota (NO) 2 <
1 1005 C5 01 945 CI 61 30, 61 2 <
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 oms (OM] -
1,905 5.632 en 14%
43%
981 It it 208 422 825 5,607 1
820 22 1
260 3
Okianoma (CR) 21 2C6 10C1 Ct CS 51 95% < 12 68 157 21 266 0
0 0
0 0
0 Gregoa (C8]
1.219 337 48E 52%
Ct M
CE 1004 60 160 582 6
0' 0
0 1
637 331 Penas,i, ante (Pa]A,C 6,825 11.837 331 505 171 871 < 1%
IM 253 481 2,283 1
1 1,149 4,360 7
3,353 8.357 these Islaed [81) 463 1
10 3 CS C2 1CCS C1 Ct 17 12 463 1
0 0
0 0
.C 0
Sout9 Carolica (SC) 8,089 2,764 69%
30%
11 a 995 Ct < 11 67 133 5,537 104 1
85 5
4 2.467 2,6 '5 South Cenota (50]
1 <
1 10C4 CS C1 100%
C1 C1 18 24 <
1 <
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 7eaaess e (it]
1,131 56 10C2 CS 0%
951 < 11 3
187 270 1.131 56 0
0 0
0 0
0 t
I
- US State-o,-5tm assess.ent.f 1979 to u.ei nac. active usu Diso.so ai c-rciai f no toes' < Cot.:
111 Diso.sai.f at*
Com.enisi eenentage' ementa,e*
insuivuon.i' G.ver ent and'd C-rciai no er' f acoiues sy 5-re.
e, fumsy and industriai amtary navy) seutors
- me r
r cy g:
1:
!]
- f E:
-r t,
E :d:::
- )
- 3..
g:
1:
e:
e, 1-b 15 il "r
II I5 Il ;l E* I E 5" I E
E E
E
,a 1
- I e.
s s
a
=
t-41 P
"e s
ao
- Stat, t
Teaas[TX]
543 410 2005 C1 01 385 43 < 1%
605 982 543 410 0
0 0
0 0
0 Utah [UT]
106 9
54%
45%
17 83 104 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
hreont [YT]A 370 918 27%
7N C1 1005 0%
CE 15 24 100 <
1 0
0 0
1 270 9';
virginia [y]
4,230 9.314 255 725 ' 31 991 C5 lt 93 104 1,091 4,004 2
104 9
3 3,035 1,301 hashington [hA) 779 278 895 CE 11%
< 3 C5 e 995 119 238 694 275 1
85 3
0 0
0 best vtegtnia [W) 40 41 1005 C1 05 945 C5 63 40 120 40 41 0
0 0
0 0
0 wisconsin [Wl]
a07 3,058 ft 91%
OE 971 01 N
to 166 42 1,359 0
0 0
4 445 1.699 Wycetag [WY]
< 1 <
1 1005 05 05 1001 05 05 17 59 <
1 <
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 Ofstrtet of Columota 33 333 1005 05 05 1005 CE CE 28 62 33 333 0
0 0
0 0
0 U.S. Totals 79,914 477,437 41%
505 95 791 85 135 b,415 10,961 32,835 126,466 21 7,311 54,566 72 39.768 93,405
- Table compilations from NUS data.
sm:
87abte c=nauens constructed free [aus Cmorattoa) the 1979 State-ev-state aiseisee t of to-**vei f adioactive Wastes $hicDe@ to Coseercial Bu ial Orou os, Giovemoer) 195G.
r n
05ased on commercial burial ground f acility records for 1979:
Chee-nuclear, lac., recoros of waste receicts by state for 1979 for Barn-ell, South Carolina.
Nuclear Engineering Co.. records for matte recetSts by state for 1979 for Beatty, Nevada, and lichland, wasnington, a
C9ased on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmissica (NRC) records for 1979.
8uuS cotained a signiff cant portion of this data by estracolation or estimation from secondary sources.
This was necessitated by the lack of a ova 11tattve reoort in the public domain on the volumes and activettes from industrial and institutional sources (tne unovanttfled 1979 portion of the lo -level =aste volume amounts to 41% by volume and 795 by activity). For tnese wastes not fully charactertred by such reports, the remaining volume was spread over the nation genera 11y in proportion to the population of agregeent States and non-Agreseent States to the national pooulation. fke waste was then further sooortioned to each state on the basis of the ratte of state population to total Agreement State population f or the Agreement States and by the ratto of the nuncer of state licavisees to the total NRC industrial licensees for the non-Agreement States.
l
' Data from the Arury and Air f orte commands do not constitute a signiff cant volume of radioactivity source and are not reported separately unoer *Gewernment and Pottery". Data is taciuoed uncee this section of the report.
'Only U.S. navy data included, see footnote "e" also.
P. D. f tce and G. L. Sjoblos, f avi*eaaaatsi " easter *ao sad Discesal of andteactive vastes fece U.S. haval Nuclear Powered Ships and TPetr Suspart Facilities,1973 Eeoort hi aa-1, Nuciear Fower GIrectorate, naval Sea Systees Comand, U.S. Decartment of the navy, hashington, D.C., naren 1980.
8u.5. Deoartment of Energy, solte Waste Taformation m asoseeat Systees (Swtws). actual solid wastes e
Gee ated r e eiscal wea Isa, run cate Guzusa.
o "NUS Summary information on commercial nuclear pe=+r plant wastes was octained f ree semi annual reports suositted to the neC in accordance witn att segulatory Guice 1.21.
bnere reported data =as not available,
. intereation =as cbtained by commuascation otta the utility.
t
- Title 10, Part 50 Cone of f enerai e,oulat'ons, "Comestic Liceasing of Production and Utillration f acilities*, paragraon be.soa.
U.S. huCle,es e,gulatory Commission, Measurinq, Ivahattan, ed Bettertine RMioactivity ar Re in Solld Wastes
-d e*ies e con ov. atertais
,a ~io,o aseos me,ts t r.
-.a te. ao,,o w.a r s
M-* r aets Aeguiatory 6,ide 1.41, hevision i. June.3/s.
i i
e
- 0if ferences in cogmerctal power reac' tor records and cem ercial burial ground records eay tre attributed to a) rounding by toth the reactor f acittty operator and burial grour4 f acility ocerator, or b) there say have j
teen aste that as in transit at tne end of the year.
BCurie value (C1) in institutional / industrial sector recceds say reflect the f act there -ere ciner sources of =aste fees the state. Propriety record ageeesents cronibit a f urther creasewn of availante data.
lQuid Co88*rCtal power pla91 waste shipped out*of
- state for processing FIV not De reflected in figures.
l Uf or saae states, tre munt of.aite.hien is in the ins'tutional/indatrial catevey *ay not reores at the actkal tolume geatrated by f tres in Barial gecund recoros Inst volu**s f ree erceer I
cmo,es D, ve state of sne ne. eme,that state.
mi.cames.eica coneet eate iai me se.erai states ed reDaChaQe er Consolidate snig,sents under one radioaCttee salsping record).
112 Selec'ted References ls Congressional and Presidential Documents U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations.
Low-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal. Report No. 94-1320.
95th Cong.
June 30,1976.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations.
Hearings on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal. 95th Cong.
February 23, March 12, and April 6,1976.
U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production, Committee on Science and Technology. Hearings on Low-Level Waste Disposal.
96th Cong.,1 st Sess., November 7, 1979.
U.S. Congress, Joint Atomic Energy Committee. Hearings.
94th Cong.,
2nd Sess., May 1976.
U.S. President, 1977-1981 (Carter).
Executive Order 12192 Establishing the State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management.
February 12, 1980.
U.S. President, 1977-1981 (Carter). White House Memorandum Establishing Interagency Nuclear Waste Task Force. March 13,1978.
U.S. President, 1977-1981 (Carter). White House Memorandum to the Con-gress of the United States Establishing a Comprehensive Nat-ional Waste Management Program.
February 12, 1980.
Reports Allied General Nuclear Services. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Closing Alternatives, April 1976.
Anderson, R.L. et al.
Institutional Radioactive Wastes,1975. NRC Report NUREG/CR-0028. A Report Prepared by the University of Maryland I
Radiation Safety Office. ~ 0ctober 1978.
Beck, T.J. et al.
Institutional Radioactives Wastes,1977 Final Report.
NRC Report NUREG/CR-ll37.
A Report Prepared by the University of Maryland Radiation Safety Office, n.d.
l l
l
113 Slomeke, J.O., C.W. Kee, and J.P. Nichol s.
Projections of Radioactive Wastes to be Generated by the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry.
AEC Report ORNL-TM-3965.
A Report Prepared by Oakriege National Laboratory, February 1974.
Comptroller General of the United States.
U.S. General Accounting Office.
Report to Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States: Imorovements Needed in tne Land Discosal c
of Racioactive Wastes - A Problem of Centuries. Report RE D-76-54 January 12, 1976 Comptroller General of the United States.
U.S. General Accounting Office.
Report to the United States Congress: The Problem
- of Disposing of Nuclear Low-Level Waste - Where Do We Go From riere ?.
Repnrt EMD-80-68. Maren 31, 1980.
Cooley, Leland R., Margaret R. McCampbell, and Joseph D. Thompson.
Current Practice of Inceneration of Low-Level Institutional Waste.
Report EGG-2076.
February 1981.
Duguid, J.0.
Assessment of DOE Low-Level Radioactive Discosal Storage Activities.
Report BMI-1984 Novemoer 30, 1977.
Garrett, P.M.
An Evaluation of Low-level Radioactive Burial Ground Cacacities at the Major DOE Reservations.
Report ORNL/NFW-79/17.
January 26, 1979.
Goellner, D., D. Vogt, and G. Kniazewycz.
Radioactive Waste Management Study: Task 1 : Review of Waste Projection Models, Final Recort.
Report NUREG/CR-0032.
A Report Prepared oy TeKnekron INc.,
May 1978.
Guil beault, B.D.
The 1979 State-by-State Assessment of Low-level Radio-active Waste Shicoed to Commercial Burial Grounds.
Report NUS-3440. A Report Preparea oy NUS Corporation. November 1981.
Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management.
Report to the l
President by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Ma na gement.
U.S. Department of Energy Report TID-29442.
Maren 1979.
Kee, C.W., A.G. Croff, and J.0. Blomeke.
Vodated Projections of Radio-active Waste to be Generated by the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry.
Report ORNL-TM-5427.
Novemoer 1975.
Mullarkey, T.B. et al.
A Survey and Evaluation of Handling and Disposing of Solid Low-Level r4uclear ruel Cycle Wastes.
Report AIF/fiE5P-00o. a neport. Preparea by tne fiU5 Corporation for the Atomic Industrial Forum's National Environmental Studies Project,1976.
114 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
The Shallow Land Burial of low-level Radioactivity Contaminated Solid Waste. A Report.
1976.
Phillips, J. et al.
A Waste Inventory Report for Reactors and Fuel Fabrication Facility wastes. Report OWNI-20, NUS-3314.
Marcn 1979.
State of Kentucky, Department of Human Resources. Survey of Kentucky Licensees' Managment of Radioactive 'faste. A Report. 1981.
State of Illinois, Illinois Commission on Atomic Energy, Ad Hoc Com-mittee on Low-level Radioactive Waste.
Preliminary Study on the Disposal of Low-level Radioactive Waste Generatec in Illinois.
A Report. April 1980.
State of North Carolina, Governor's Task Force on Waste Management.
Low-level Radioactive Waste Management in North Carolina.
A Report.
Septemoer 30, 1980.
State of Tennessee, Department of Public Health. A Report to the Governor on Management of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Ootions for Tennessee.
A Report. Novemoer 1981.
State of Texas, Texas Energy and Natural Resources Advisory Council, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Energy.
Report on Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal.
A Report. September 1980.
State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste.
Interin Recort to the President.
A Report.
February 24, 1981.
State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste.
Recommendations on National Radioactive Waste Management Policies. A Report.
August 1, 1981.
1 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Planning and Analysis.
Nuclear Power Growth 1974-2000.
Report WASH-il39(74)
Feoruary 1974 U.S. Department of Energy.
Draft Environmental Imoact Statement:
Management of Commercially Generated Waste, Vol.1 &2.
Report DOE /EIS-0046-0.
april 1979.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act:
Response to Public Law 96-573.
Report 00E/NE-0015.1981.
l' U. S. Department of Energy. The National Plan for Radioactive Waste l
Management: Working Draft 4, vol. 6 & 2.
Report.
vanua ry 1966 l
115 U.S. Department of Energy.
Report of Task Force for Review of Nuclear Waste Management.
Report DOE /ER-004/D.
February 1978.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Spent Fuel and Waste InventoHes and Pro-jections.
Report OR0-778. August 1980.
I 1
U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, Division of t
Environmental Impact Studies.
Generic Waste Panagement Con-cepts for Six LER Fuel Cycles.
Report ANL/EIS-11. April 1979.
U.S. Department of Energy, Battalle Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
Alternatives for Managing Waste from Reactors and Post-Fission Operations in the LWR Fuel Cycle, Vol. 1. Report ERDA-76-43.
May 1976.
U.S. Department of Energy, Battalle Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
Nuclear Energy Center Site Survey Fuel Cycle Studies.
l Report BriWL-B-456. May 1976.
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration.
Alternatives for Manaaing Wastes from Reactors and Post-Fission Operations in tne Fuel Cycle, Vol, l.
Report ERDA-76-43. May 1976.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Evaluation of Alternative Methods for Discosal of Low-level Radioactive Waste. Report tiUREG/CR-0680.
July 1979.
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1979 Annual Report.
Report NUREG-0690. 1979.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC. Task Force Reoort on Review of l
the Federal / State Proaram for Reaulation of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds.
Report NUREG-0217.
January 1977.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
Draft Environmental Imoact Statement on 10 CFR 61 " Licensing Recuirements for Land Discosal of Radio-active Waste", Vol 14 Report NUREG-0782. Septemoer 1981.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Low-level i
Radioactive Waste Management Procram.
Report NUREG-0240.
Septemoer 1977.
e U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
The Final GAO cecort Entitled "The Arnblem o
ne ni e n e a i - o f Norlaar l ow-Level Waste r Where Do We Go From uara".
Report (Commission Paper) SECY-80-259.
1980.
l i
l i
l
l 116 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
Regulation of Naturally Occurring and Accele-rator-Produced Radioactive Materials: A Task Force Review.
Report NUREG-0301.
June 1977.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of fuel Cycle and Material Safety.
Essays on Issues Relevant to the Reculation of Radioactive Waste Management.
Report NUREG-0412. April 1978.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety.
Proposed Goals for Radioactive Waste' Management. Report NUREG-0300. April 1977.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary, Historical Office. An Outline History of Nuclear Regulation and Licensing 1946-1979.
Staff Report. April 1979.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of State Programs.
Means for Imoroving State Participation in the Siting, Licensino and Development of Federal Nuclear Waste Facilities: A Report to Congress.
Report NUREG-0539.
Maren 1979.
s U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of State Programs. The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Agreement States:
Licensing Statistics and Otner Data.
Re port.
January 1979--
Decemoer 1979.
Proceedinas Blomeke, J.0. and C.W. Kee.
Projections of Waste to be Generated.
Proceedings of an International Symposium on Management of Waste from LWR Fuel Cycle.
CON F-76-0701.
- Denver, Colorsdo.
July 1976.
Lyons, William C.
Storage and Discosal of Nuclear Wastes: Prosoects for the next 25 years.
Proceedings of the 13th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Vol. II. San Diego, Cali fornia.
August 20-25, 1978.
State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management.
Docket Book:
Sixth Meeting. June 8,1981.
e
---3
,-----.m..
117 Periodicals
" EPA Has Been Hit With A Barrage of Complaints", Hazardous Waste News, Vol. 3, No. 4 (January 26, 1981).
s Fenimore, J.W. " Land Burial of Solid Radioactive Waste During a 10-Year Period", Health Physics, Vol.10, pp. 229-236.
Gat Uri, and J.D. Thomas.
" Radioactive Waste Inventory at the Maxey Flats Nuclear Waste Burial Site", Health Physics, Vol. 30 pp. 281-289 (March 1976).
Holcomb, William F. " Inventory (1962-1978) and Projections (to 2000) of Shallow-Land Burial of Radioactive Waste at Commercial Sites: An Update", Nuclear Sa fety, Vol. 21, No.
3,. pp. 380-388 (May-June 1980).
i Nuclear Waste News. August 13, 1981.
Holcomb, William F.
"A Summary of Shallow-Land Burial of Radioactive Wastes at Commercial Sites Between 1962-1976, with Projections",
Nuclear Safety, Vol.19, No.1, pp. 50-59 (January-February 1978).
Ibbott, Geoffreys, et al.
" Record-Keeping In a Radiat, ion Safety Office by Timesharing Digital Computer", Health Physics, Vol. 21, pp. 581-584 (October 1971).
Mann, B.J., S.M. Goldberg, and W.D. Hendricks.
" Low-Level Solid Radio-active Waste in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle", Trans American Nuclear Society, Vol. 22, p. 347 (1975).
O' Connell, M.R. and W.F. Holcomb.
"A Summary of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Buried at Commercial Sites Between 1962-1973, with Projections to the Year 2000", Radiation Data Report, Vol.15, No.12, pp. 759-767 (December 1974).
Other Sources Beane, Marjorie, Director of the Nuclear Energy Education Program, League of Women Voters, personal telecommnication with J.G. Braun, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Divison of Waste Management, April 20, 1981, o
i
m
/
118 Gronameier, Lee, State of Washington Radiological Health Office, personal telecommunication with J.G. Braun, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management, April 8, 1981.
Holcomb, William F., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal telecommunication with J.G. Braun, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management, March 10, 1981.
Jenrich, Edward, EG&G, personal telecommunication with J.G. Braun U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission, Division of Waste Management, April 17, 1981.
Shealy, Hayward, State of South Carolina Radiological Health Office, personal telecommunication with J.G. Braun, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management, April 8, 1981.
Thomas, J.D. Evaluation of the Maxey Flats Radioactive Waste Disposal Site. Unpuolisneo Master Thesis, University of Kentucxy, WM.
Vaden, John, State of Nevada Radiological Health Office, personal telecommunication with J.G. Braun, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management, April 8, 1981.
.}
l l J i
._