Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing

Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

November 1989

NTIS order #PB90-159534
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-600772

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)
Foreword

Almost 5 years have passed since the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments

Act was enacted. The law establishes milestones and deadlines for States to develop disposal

facilities for their low-level radioactive waste (LLW). Partnerships between States, called

compacts, are encouraged to develop these facilities because of the small national volume of

LLW. While most States and compacts are on track for developing facilities for most of their

LLW, few States are far along in developing disposal capacity for mixtures of low-level and

hazardous waste—so-called “mixed LLW. ”

OTA’s study on managing LLW, including mixed LLW, was undertaken at the request

of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Committee asked OTA to

analyze States’ progress in developing disposal facilities for LLW and mixed LLW and to

evaluate any existing problems in managing mixed LLW.

This report provides an overview of progress made by nine compacts and the remaining

unaffiliated States in developing disposal facilities. Disposal costs have more than tripled

while LLW volumes have dropped by more than half over the last decade. Since many costs

associated with developing and operating a disposal facility are fixed, unit disposal costs will

increase substantially as new facilities open. This may lead States to consider the economics

of cooperative arrangements, which would permit them to trade waste services and construct

fewer full-service disposal facilities.

A small percent of LLW is labeled mixed LLW because it also contains components

classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Jurisdiction over

mixed LLW disposal falls jointly to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the

Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately, some regulations aimed at mixed LLW are

unattainable, inconsistent, or duplicative. Unless current regulations are revised, generators

of mixed LLW (e.g., industries, hospitals, nuclear power plants, and laboratories) are left with

three options: stop producing the waste (which can mean going out of business), illegally store

the waste, or illegally dispose of the waste. Our report presents options on, how this dilemma

may be addressed.

Substantial assistance was received from many organizations and individuals during the

course of this study. We would like to express our thanks to our advisory panel, contractors,

workshop participants, and reviewers who provided advice and information throughout the

course of this study. As with all OTA studies, OTA remains solely responsible for the contents

of this report.

JOHN H. GIBBONS
Partnerships Under Pressure:

Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Review Panel

Mary R. English, Chairperson

Energy, Environment, and Resources Center

University of Tennessee

Ruben Alvarado

Texas Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Authority

Tom Baer

US Ecology, Inc.

Leland Cooley

Radiation Safety Office

University of Maryland

Norman Dudey

Quadrex Recycling Center

David Ebenhack Carolyn Kobrynski

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. New York State Low-Level

Lynne Fairobent Radioactive Waste Disposal

Nuclear Management and Advisory Committee

Resources Council Dan Reicher

Brian Farrell Natural Resources Defense

Edison Electric Institute Council

John Hsu Jay Ringenberg

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Nebraska Department of

Co. (Inc.) Environmental Control

Contributors

Bud Arrowsmith

Scientific Ecology Group, Inc.

David Bennett

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Waterways Experiment Station

Robert Blickwedehl

Dames & Moore

Francis Bowie

District of Columbia Department of Consumer

and Regulatory Affairs

Elaine Carlin

Northwest Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact

Commission

Philip Garon

U.S. Department of Energy

Ronald Gingerich

Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service

Gregg Larson

Midwest Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Compact Commission

Terry Lash

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

Paul Mayo

New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Siting Commission

William Newberry

U.S. Department of Energy

Alan Pastemak

California Radioactive Materials

Management Forum

Samual Penza

New Jersey Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Facility Siting Board

Robert Poling

Congressional Research Service

Stephen Roop

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental

Affairs

Matthew Scott

Maine Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority

Leonard Slosky

Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Compact Commission

Kathryn Visocki

Southeast Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact

Commission

Don Womeldorf

California Department of Health Services

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the review panel members.

The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the

report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
OTA Project Staff-Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources

Robert Niblock, Program Manager

Oceans and Environment

Gretchen H. McCabe, Project Director

William Barnard, Senior Analyst

Andrew MacDonald, Analyst

Administrative Staff

Kathleen A. Beil

Sally W. Van Aller

Contractors

Afton Associates, Inc.

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp.
Workshop on Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste

December 15 & 16, 1988

Ruben Alvarado

Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Authority

Leland Cooley

Radiation Safety Office

University of Maryland

Robert Dodge

Reynolds Electric Engineering Corp.

William Dornsife

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Resources

Norman Dudey

Quadrex Recycling Center

Larry Evans

Duke Power Co.

Glen Galen

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John Greeves

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

John Hsu

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (Inc.)

Timothy Johnson

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Daniel Martin

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Alessi Otte

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Dan Reicher

Natural Resources Defense Council

Jay Ringenberg

Nebraska Department of Environmental Control

Betty Shackleford

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John Tekin

Radiac Corp.

George Vander Velde

Chemical Waste Management, Inc.

Steve Weil

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Tom Zidow

Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Workshop on Recoverability of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

in Salt Lake City, Utah

March 6, 1989

Robert Baird John Musacchio

Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp. Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.

Barry Boyer Michael Sabbe

State University of New York at Buffalo Bechtel National, Inc.

Edward Jennrich Art Sutherland

Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp. Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp.
Contents

Page

Chapter l. Overview, Findings, and policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2. Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter 3. Overview of Federal Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Chapter 4. Understanding Low-Level Radioactive Waste—Its Characteristics,

Volumes. and Health Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Chapter 5. Current and Emerging Low-Level Radioactive Waste Minimization

and Treatment Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Chapter 6. Disposal Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Appendix A. Volumes of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Shipped for Disposal by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Appendix B. Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

vii
Chapter 1

Overview, Findings, and

Policy Options
CONTENTS

Page

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Compliance With the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Shrinking Volume Means Rising Disposal Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Management Problems for Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Goals for Congressional Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Understanding Low-Level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 7

What Is Low-Level Radioactive Waste? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

How Much Waste Is Generated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

How Do the Risks of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compare

With Other Waste Types? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Who Regulates Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Majob Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Management Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Goal 1: Encourage Cooperation Among States and Compacts To Ensure

Disposal Capacity Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Goal 2: Resolve Regulatory Problems Concerning Mixed Low-Level

Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Chapter 1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figures

Figure Page

1-1. Status of Compact Regions and Unaffiliated States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1-2. A Spectrum of Policy Options for Mixed Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Tables

Table Page

1-1. Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Volumes

Shipped for Disposal in 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 8

1-2. Waste Comparisons for 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chapter 1

Overview, Findings, and Policy Options

OVERVIEW

What happens to commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW)? Where do nuclear power

plant workers discard their contaminated work

uniforms, rags they used to clean instruments,

and their old equipment? What happens to used

organic solvents that are handled in radiopharmaceutical manufacturing? Where do hospital

workers send obsolete instrumentation used to

diagnose and treat cancer patients?

Since 1978, these and all other commercial

LLW generated in the United States have been

buried in three States—Washington, South Carolina, and Nevada. None of the other 47 States

has an active disposal site. This situation

prompted Congress to pass the Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 19801

, which

requires every State to become responsible for

disposing of the commercial LLW generated

within its borders. Due to high disposal costs

and small volumes of commercial LLW, States

are encouraged to develop multi-State agreements in which one State hosts a disposal

facility for all partners to the agreement. A

partnership among States is called a compact.

By December 31, 1985, these new facilities

were to be operational, but the deadline was not

met. The three States with sites threatened to

shut the doors of their facilities to all States that

were not members of their compacts. This

prompted Congress to pass the Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act

(LLRWPAA) during the final days of 1985.2

The LLRWPAA establishes a new deadline—

December 31, 1992—after which operating

facilities will be closed to out-of-region waste.

By this date, States will have to develop new

disposal sites or otherwise be able to manage

their own waste. To enforce this deadline the

LLRWPAA set interim milestones, penalties for

unmet milestones, and volume restrictions and

surcharges on LLW shipped to the three operating disposal facilities. These mandates will

remain in effect until the December 31, 1992

deadline.

Compliance With the Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985

It is not clear whether every State will be

able to comply with the LLRWPAA. About a

dozen LLW disposal facilities are now slated for

development (see figure 1-1 ), but it is questionable whether every State will belong to a compact

or will be able to manage its own waste when it

loses access to the three operating sites on

January 1, 1993. A reduced number of facilities

could easily handle the Nation’s LLW.

States and compacts may try cooperative

agreements to manage their LLW. Such an

agreement could involve one State or compact

paying another State or compact to take its waste

or involve States and compacts trading waste

types or waste services. It is hard to predict how

successful such cooperative agreements will be.

Shrinking Volume Means Rising

Disposal Costs

One factor that has made the development of

multiple disposal sites difficult is the increase in

unit disposal costs resulting from shrinking

LLW volumes. Nationwide, LLW volumes

have declined by about half in the last 9 years

and could decline by another half again by 1993.

The incentive for these reductions has been and

will largely be surcharges added to disposal

costs.

Volume is a major determinant of unit

disposal cost. Smaller volumes mean higher

costs per unit because many of the costs of

developing and maintaining LLW disposal sites

are fixed. With the Nation shifting from having

three disposal sites to having a dozen or more,

unit disposal costs will probably rise dramatically.

Jfib]ic ~W 9(5-573, k. 22, 1980.

z~blic ~W99-240, J~. 15, 1986.

-3-
4 . Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial L.ow-Level Radioactive Waste
Chapter l-Overview, Findings, and Policy Options ● 5

Management Problems for Mixed

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

An issue of immediate concern in managing LLW is the regulation of mixed LLW—

waste that is both radioactive, as defined in

the LLRWPAA, and hazardous, as defined

by the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA).3 This waste is regulated by both

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Some specific regulations cannot be met, some

regulations may be in conflict and inconsistent,

and other regulations overlap and are duplicative.

Although mixed LLW comprises less than 10

percent of all LLW, it has been identified by

States as their major concern in managing LLW.

No disposal facility for mixed LLW has been

available since 1985. Also, no offsite storage or

treatment facility is available. Since mixed

LLW is a subset of LLW, States will have to be

able to manage their mixed LLW if they are to

meet the milestones of the LLRWPAA. Most

LLW generators are using all available management techniques to alter their practices in order

to generate either exclusively radioactive waste

or exclusively hazardous waste. By doing so,

disposal of the waste is possible. Yet, the

generation of some mixed LLWs is unavoidable.

Ad hoc surveys indicate that the cumulative

onsite storage of mixed LLW is holding steady

for the majority of generators, even though none

is allowed to be disposed and new mixed LLW

is being generated. This situation raises the

question: where is mixed LLW going? Generators may be finding ways to treat some of their

stored mixed LLW so that it is no longer a mixed

LLW. However, it is also possible that some

mixed LLW is slipping through waste brokers

and processors, and is illegally entering nonqualified disposal facilities.

A primary problem is that some EPA regulations that apply to mixed LLW cannot be met

(i.e., its land disposal restriction regulations).

Many of the hazardous constituents in mixed

LLW are banned from land disposal until they

meet specific treatment standards. However, no

offsite treatment facilities have been developed.

Two examples of mixed LLWs for which no

treatment capacity is available are organic

chemicals and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) solvents and sludges used in cleaning clothing,

tools, and equipment. Furthermore, EPA developed its treatment standards based on hazardous

waste only, not radioactive waste; therefore

some of the standards are inadequate, inappropriate, or both. The NRC, EPA, and the Department of Energy (DOE) may wish to consider

providing grant monies for researching treatment options and developing treatment facilities

for these problem wastes.

A generator of mixed LLW for which no

treatment capacity is available has no viable

legal option for managing its waste. Even

storage is illegal because of storage prohibitions. Generators, therefore, can stop producing

the waste (which can mean going out of

business); they can illegally store the waste; or

they can illegally dispose of the waste.

EPA and NRC will have to decide how

generators are to manage mixed LLW, given

the absence of treatment facilities (in some

cases the absence of an appropriate treatment technology), and the prohibition on

storage. One option would be for EPA to relax

its storage prohibition on wastes for which no

treatment capacity and/or no disposal capacity is

available. In turn, generators would have an

intermediate legal option until treatment capacity and disposal capacity are developed and

available. EPA could rescind this provision if a

generator failed to demonstrate good faith effort

in developing these capacities.

Goals for Congressional Consideration

To address the questions of whether States

will comply with the LLRWPAA and how the

problems pertaining to mixed LLW regulation

s~b]ic Law 94-573, OCt. 21, 1976
6 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

can be resolved, Congress may want to consider

two goals:

. to encourage States and compacts to cooperate among themselves so that all States

can safely manage their LLW after December 31, 1992; and

. to resolve regulatory problems concerning

mixed LLW.

There are several policy options that Congress

may wish to consider to reach these goals.

Policy Options

Goal 1: Encourage Cooperation Among States

and Compacts to Ensure Disposal Capacity

Availability

1.

2.

3.

Amend the LLRWPAA to force States and

compacts to consolidate their disposal facility

development efforts

Pros:

Cons:

Economies of scale would be gained.

It was never an intention of Congress

to prescribe a certain number of facilities.

Setting limits on the number of facilities would usurp State rights.

Political climate within new host

States would be damaged and their

progress stalled.

Hold a congressional oversight hearing to

encourage States to reduce the number of

disposal sites

Pros: It would provide a forum for encouraging cooperative agreements.

Cons: Delicate negotiations amongst States

and/or compacts would be disrupted

and agreements in progress could be

potentially killed.

Take no Federal action, but individual Members of Congress would track the progress of

their States

Pros: This option conforms with the original

intent of Congress and the States.

Members of Congress could discuss

the issue with their governors and

facilitate negotiations.

Cons: There is no guarantee that agreements

would be reached.

Goal 2: Resolve Regulatory Problems

Concerning Mixed LLW

1.

2.

3.

4.

Give sole regulatory jurisdiction to one agency

(legislation necessary)

Pros: Facilities would be operated momeconomically and efficiently.

Cons: One agency may not be able to carry

out adequately the basic mission of the

other agency’s regulations—their regulatory approaches are very different

(similar concerns at the State level). If

the NRC is granted sole jurisdiction,

EPA may lose regulatory authority

over DOE defense sites.

Maintain current dual regulatory jurisdiction

(joint guidance necessary)

Pros: Each agency would be able to uphold

its regulatory approach.

Cons: Given the slow progress made by the

two agencies thus far to resolve their

differences, this option would not be

timely.

Give one agency the regulatory lead with

concurrence required by the other agency

(joint rulemaking necessary)

Pros: Facilities would be operated more economically and efficiently, but to a lesser

degree than Option 1.

Cons: The lead agency may not be able to

carry out adequately the basic mission

of the other agency’s regulations, as

under Option 1.

Establish an active interagency task force

with congressional oversight

(joint rulemaking/joint guidance necessary)

Pros: Compromises between the two agencies could be resolved more quickly

than under Option 2. Congress, in its

oversight role, could forward a tight

schedule for resolving the problem of

unattainable regulations, the possible

conflicts and inconsistencies, and the

areas where the agencies’ regulations

overlap and are duplicative. If legislation is needed, Congress will be better

informed after the task force has investigated these issues.
Chapter 1--Overview, Findings, and Policy Options ● 7

Cons: As with other options, the question

remains whether the issues will be

resolved fast enough.

UNDERSTANDING LOW-LEVEL

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

What Is Low-Level Radioactive Waste?

Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) is defined in the LLRWPA of 1980 and its 1985

amendments by what it is not, rather than by

what it is. LLW includes all radioactive waste

that is not classified as spent fuel from

commercial nuclear power plants, defense

high-level radioactive waste from producing

weapons, or uranium mill tailings (see box

4-A in ch. 4). About 97 percent of all commercial LLW produces relatively low levels of

radiation and heat; it requires no radiation

shielding to protect workers or the surrounding

community; and the radiation decays within less

than 100 years to levels that the NRC finds not

to pose an unacceptable risk to public health

(Class A LLW). The remaining 3 percent of

LLW requires shielding and can remain harmful

for 300 to 500 years (Class B and Class C LLW).

A small percentage of LLW is Greater-ThanClass C (GTCC) waste and is the responsibility

of the Federal Government to dispose. Isolation

of GTCC waste needs to be for a few hundred to

a few thousand years (8).

From 3 to 10 percent of all LLW is also

considered mixed LLW because it contains both

radioactive and hazardous constituents. Mixed

LLW may be generated in several ways. For

example, medical diagnostic procedures use

scintillation fluids that contain small amounts of

radioactivity in toxic organic solvents (e.g.,

xylene and toluene). These solvents generally

pose a greater chemical hazard than radioactive

hazard. Another example might be a rag containing a solvent used by a power plant worker to

clean a radioactively contaminated water pump.

If the solvent is listed by EPA as hazardous and

the pump is slightly radioactive, the rag would

be a mixed LLW.

The principal generators of commercial LLW,

including mixed LLW, are nuclear power plants,

industries, and academic and medical institutions. (See table 4-1.)

How Much Waste Is Generated?

No one knows how much commercial LLW,

including mixed LLW, is generated in the

United States; no comprehensive national survey has ever been conducted. Instead, records

are kept of the LLW volumes shipped for

disposal. Not all LLW generated, however, is

disposed; extensive waste minimization practices and treatment practices result in a significant reduction in waste volumes. Table 1-1 lists

the LLW volumes shipped by the nine compact

regions and the seven unaffiliated States (plus

the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) in

1988; the total volume was about 1,440,000

cubic feet. Since no disposal sites exist for

mixed LLW, these shipment figures include no

mixed LLW. However, based on State and

industry ad hoc surveys, it is estimated that

mixed LLW would increase the national volume

of nonmixed LLW by 3 to 10 percent.

The 1,440,000 cubic feet of commercial LLW

shipped to disposal sites in 1988 would fill 390

tractor trailers, which if the trailers were lined up

end-to-end would stretch over 3 miles.4 For

comparison, in 1988, hazardous waste, as regulated under RCRA and compacted (as is LLW)

for disposal, would fill enough tractor trailers to

stretch almost 1 l/z times around the globe at the

Equator (32,000 miles).5 In contrast, radioactive

spent fuel from operating commercial reactors

accumulated in 1988, all of which is in storage,

would only fill about half of a trailer.6

QTh15 ~~09 using ~Wtor trai]ers demonstrates volumes only, not actual transporta~lon scenarios, since tractor trallcr WCI@t lifni~ would

prohibit the transport of such heavy loads.

5A ~1~ me ~revlou~ ~~ow, trwtor tr~lcrs MC U=d t. demonstra[c VOIWC (not transpoflation scen~os) because Of weight limitations. Unlike

LLW, about% percent of RCRA hazardous waste is managed on site, with 4 percent shipped to commercial landfills.

~is analogy is also only used to demonstrate volume, not transportation scenarios, due to Uactor trmler weight limitations. In addition, the heat

associated with spent fuel would require much more space on a truck per umt of spent fuel.
8 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Table l-l-Commercial LLW Volumes Shipped for

Disposal in 1988a

LLW volumes

(cubic feet)

Compacts b

Southeast (NC, GA, FL, TN, AL,

SC, MS, VA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appalachian (PA, WV, MD, DE) . . . . . . . . . . .

Northwest (WA, ID, OR, UT, AK, Hl, MT) . . .

Central Midwest (IL, KY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Southwestern (CA, SD, ND, AZ) . . . . . . . . . .

Midwest (Ml, Wl, IN, 1A, OH, MN, MO) . . . . .

Northeast (CT, NJ) ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Central Interstate (NE, AR, LA, KS, OK) . . . .

Rocky Mountain (CO, NV, NM, WY) . . . . . . .

Unaffiliated StatesC

New Yorkc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusettsc 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texasc 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ,

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mainec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshired 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

522,000

172,000

129,000

128,000

102,000

96,000

78,000

71,000

4,000

65,000

47,000

9,000

7,000

6,000

1,000

<1,000

<1,000

<1,000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,440,000

ar.Jo mixed LLVV IS included, since none was shipped for dqmsal after

1985.

bl+ost States that are operating, or scheduled to operate, a disposal facllltY

are hsted first,

%fnaffihated States that are planning to develop a disposal facdtty.

dLLWVOIumeS Ml Increa onm the Seabrook power plan! IS Operational

SOURCE: Data taken from tables prepared by EG&G Idaho in May 1989

for the U.S. Department of Energy, DRAFT Integrated Data

Base for 1989: Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories,

Projections, and Characteristics, DOE/RW-006, Rev 5, 1989.

A rough comparison by total weight indicates

that in 1988 hazardous waste weighed 270

million tons, LLW weighed 36,000 tons, and

spent fuel weighed 620 tons. Volume and

weight figures are summarized in table 1-2, but

it is important to note that they do not convey the

relative health and environmental risks associated with each waste type.

Table 1-2—Waste Comparisonsa for 1988

Volume Weight

Waste type (cubic feet) (tons)

Hazardous wasteb . . . . . . 13,000,000,000 270,000,000

LLWC 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,440,000 36,000

Spent fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,800 620

aThese comparisons do not Illustrate the relatwe risks associated with each

waste type, only the volume and weight of each.

bAbout 96 percent of this waste IS managed onstte, with 4 pOr~nt shipped

to commercd Iandfdls

cCommerc!al, nonmlxed LLW, As with hazardous waste, a very high

percentage of utility LLW IS treated onslte, greatly reducing that shipped

for disposal,

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989,

How Do the Risks of LLW Compare

With Other Waste Types?

Regarding wastes (e.g., radioactive waste,

hazardous waste) generated in our society, spent

fuel from nuclear reactors and high-level waste

from producing nuclear weapons most likely

present the greatest risk to human health and the

environment. EPA has determined that spent

fuel and high-level waste must remain contained

for at least 10,000 years.7 The average concentration of spent fuel radioactivity is around

200,000 curies per cubic foot (8).

In contrast, the NRC has determined that

LLW must remain contained for 100 to 500

years after site closure8

, while its average

concentration of radioactivity is 0.1 curies per

cubic foot (8). A containment period similar to

the NRC periods does not exist for EPAregulated hazardous waste packaging. The EPA

does, however, require that no migration of

hazardous constituents occur during the postclosure care period. This period is 30 years, but

it can be shortened or extended depending on

results from site monitoring. Unlike-radioactive

TmlS lo,~.yew st~@d Wm pm of a larger set of standards, some of which were remanded by the First Circuit CourI of Appeals in Boston m

July 1987. The 10,000-year standard was not specifically remanded, however, EPA decided 10 reanalyze it and plans to promulgate a new set of

standards.

ENRC LLW ~w]atlons we based on the subility of the waste and on the stability of the disposal site to protect a disposal silc inadvertent

intruder from receiving excess radiation exposure. The regulations estabhsh three classes of LLW: Class A waste (the least radioacuve), Class B,

and Class C (the most radioactive). Concentration limits for radionuclides are set for the different classes of LLW. These limits are based on the

relationship between a few factors: the half-lives of the radionuclides in the waste, the types of radiation emitted, and potential pathways to human

exposure. During an institutional control period that follows site closure and lasts up to 100 years, the site is monitored and maintained. The NRC

sets the concentration of radionuclides in Class A waste so that during the institutional control period, the radionuchdcs WI]] decay to levels that the

NRC determines will not pose an unacceptable risk to public health and safety, therefore, will not harm a hypothetical intruder digging into the waste

after this period. Chss B and Class C waste must be packaged in containers that will retain their structural integrity for 300 years, due to the allowed

concentration of radionuclides in them, In addition, Class C waste must be deeply buried or have an intruder barrier, such as a concrete cover, to divert

intruders for up to 500 years (10 CFR Part 61; see ch. 3).
Chapter l-Overview, Findings, and Policy Options ● 9

waste, however, the toxicity of some hazardous

waste does not significantly decrease with time.

It is very difficult to compare the risks

from LLW to risks from hazardous waste. In

many cases these two wastes behave inconsistently in the environment and their health effects

may be uncertain. Furthermore, research in risk

analysis has been conducted by different experts

and little has been done to compare the findings.

Mixed LLW further complicates the issue. Both

the hazardous constituent and the radioactive

constituent in a mixed LLW can vary greatly in

the level of toxicity. Research has done little to

analyze the potential synergistic effects of the

constituents of mixed LLW on the environment and on humans (see ch. 4).

Similarities can also be noted between

these waste types. With spent fuel, LLW,

mixed LLW, and hazardous waste, the focus

is on isolating them to minimize migration of

their radioactive and/or hazardous constituents, thereby minimizing the risk of environmental contamination and human exposure.

Furthermore, the duration of hazard associated

with spent fuel and with some LLW, including

mixed LLW, and hazardous waste is high (e.g.,

Class C nonmixed LLW, hazardous waste such

as synthetic organics and heavy metals, and

r-nixed LLW that is a combination of these two

wastes). Likewise, the duration of hazard can be

low for both LLW, including mixed LLW, and

hazardous waste (e.g., Class A nonmixed LLW,

hazardous waste that is biodegradable, and

mixed LLW that is a combination of these two

wastes). Health effects from LLW, including

mixed LLW, and hazardous waste are all

difficult to estimate for low exposures and

absorbed doses.

Who Regulates Commercial LLW?

The NRC, under the Atomic Energy Act

(AEA) of 19549

, as amended,

regulates the management of all

commercial LLW unless a State

has obtained Agreement State

status under Section 274 of the

AEA. 10

The EPA or an authorized State agency

regulates mixed LLW in cono

respect to the radioactive constituents, while the EPA or a State agency with

mixed waste authorization would regulate the

facility with respect to the hazardous constituents.

The NRC and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have a Memoran-

&~

lating safety in transporting all

hazardous materials, including radioactive materials, and the NRC is responsible for regulating safety in receipt, possession, use, and

transfer of these materials.11 The NRC also

reviews and approves or rejects package designs

for high concentration low-level radioactive

materials. The term radioactive materials is

defined to include radioactive wastes.

968 Stat. 919, 1954

l~o ~ome an A~~men[ State, a State must demonstrate to the \-RC that the State regulations are compatible (In some cases. an Awwmcnt

State may establish regulations that are more restncuvc than the NRC’S rehmlatlons. ) If th)s IS demonstrated, the State may regulate the usc of

radioactive materials, except those used in the operation of nuclear power plants, wh}ch arc still IIccnsed and inspected by the NRC. There are 29 States

that have received Agreement State status, A State can also recclvc Iml]tcd Agreement State sta[us. For example, a State may choose to regulate LLW

disposal facilities but not treatment facilities. In S[ates that have Agreement Slate status for LLW disposal, the dqmsal facili~y would be regulated

by that State’s regulatory authority (e.g., the Department of Environmental Control, Department of Environmental Resources).

1 IRefcr 1049 cmPaIIS 100-199 and 10 CFR Part 71 for more detail on the MOU.
10 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

MAJOR FINDINGS

Management Trends

Increased Use of Waste Minimization

and Treatment Techniques

To reduce waste volume, costs, and risks,

LLW generators employ a wide range of techniques to minimize and treat waste. Since 1980,

these techniques have been major factors responsible for cutting LLW volumes by 55

percent.

Waste minimization techniques include material substitution, i.e., the use, whenever possible,

of nonradioactive material rather than radioactive material, and operational practices that

prevent materials from becoming contaminated.

One industry representative believes that these

minimization techniques have been used to the

fullest extent practicable and that they will not

increase the decline in waste volumes significantly. 12

Treatment techniques,13 as discussed in this

report, generally focus on: 1 ) reducing the

volume of LLW that must be shipped for

disposal (e.g., waste sorting practices, decontamination, storage for decay practices, compaction, shredding, or incineration); and on 2)

stabilizing wastes.

Once a waste is generated, decontamination and incineration appear to offer the

greatest potential for reducing waste volumes. A commercial incinerator is scheduled to

open in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in February

1990; it will bum dry activated LLW which

accounts for 50 percent of the nuclear power

industry’s LLW.

In addition to reducing volumes and thereby

disposal costs, treatment techniques can improve the stability of the waste form and,

thereby, the performance of a disposal facility. Specifically, a well-compacted, stabilized

waste form can greatly reduce the threat of waste

packages settling, a disposal unit cap failing,

water infiltrating the waste, and radionuclides

migrating offsite.

Treatment is a critical step in managing mixed

LLW. Since no offsite treatment or storage

facilities are available for mixed LLW, generators try to the extent practicable to alter

their practices in order to generate either

exclusively radioactive waste or exclusively

hazardous waste, for which management

options are available. Despite their efforts,

mixed LLW is still generated, containing hazardous constituents that EPA bans from disposal

until a particular treatment standard is met.

Since no commercial treatment facility exists for

these mixed LLWs, generators store them onsite. However, storage prohibitions apply to

these wastes. This quandry concerning mixed

waste treatment and storage is more thoroughly

discussed below under “What Additional Concerns Apply to Mixed LLW?”

Support for New Disposal Technologies

More stabilized waste forms and more

elaborate disposal technologies at future disposal sites will likely avoid the disposal

problems (e.g., water infiltration into buried

waste) that occurred at the three former

commercial disposal sites—Maxey Flats, KY;

Sheffield, IL; and West Wiley, NY—all of

which are now closed. At these sites waste

packages were buried in excavated trenches—a

technology called shallow-land burial. A variety

of problems (see ch. 6), several of which related

to poor operational practices rather than the

disposal technology, resulted in radionuclides

leaching from waste packages and migrating

from the trench. According to NRC and State

officials, the low concentration of radionuclides

at each of the three sites’ boundaries did not and

does not pose an undue health risk to nearby

12JohII HSU, D@mI MN, made this comment at the OTA Review Panel meeting, Washington, DC, Aug. 18, 1989.

lqThi5 bro~ E of tie [erm ‘‘Uea~ent” vties from EPA’s definition. EPA does not support that the practices listed would necessarily b

considered treatment for the hazardous constituents in mixed LLW but does contend that the practices may aid in the overall proper management of

LLW, including mixed LLW.
Chapter 1-Overview, Findings, and Policy Options ● 11

residents. Dose models calculate the dose to be

below NRC-permissible levels.

Several alternative disposal technologies (see

ch1. 6) have been designed and are expected to

be constructed in the next 3 to 5 years in several

regions of the United States, particularly in

humid regions. The main objectives of these

new designs are to minimize water infiltration

into buried LLW and to minimize subsequent

migration of radionuclides via groundwater

(10).

None of these new designs has been commercially built in the United States, but some have

been demonstrated at DOE defense sites and

some have been constructed and operated in

Europe. Although there is limited U.S. data on

the long-term performance of these technologies, it appears that no significant technical

advancements are necessary for these technologies to be developed commercially.

Continuing long-term demonstration projects to test disposal facility caps may help in

minimizing water infiltration, since the cap is

the major barrier between the waste and

precipitation. By including a monitoring point

in the lower portion of the multilayered cap of

the facility, site operators could detect water

infiltration before the water comes in contact

with the waste. A mechanism for collecting

water and draining the water off of the cap could

be included in the design.

Site-specific designs, appropriate construction, and comprehensive short- and longterm management of a LLW disposal facility

are just as important as the particular disposal technology chosen. More elaborate designs, if poorly constructed or managed, may

not provide more long-term waste isolation than

a less elaborate facility that is well-constructed

and well-managed. Quality control is critical to

reducing human error and improving the shortand long-term performance of the site.

Increased Public Involvement

In most States designated to host a new LLW

disposal facility, local citizens and public

interest groups have taken an active role in

shaping the State’s LLW disposal legislation

and regulations; this role is likely to grow

stronger in the future.

An overriding concern of these individuals

and groups is whether they can trust the disposal

site operator. The public is frequently confronted with news stories of waste disposal

problems, including water contamination at

hazardous waste landfills, illegal dump sites,

and Federal facilities (e.g., DOE weapons complexes). As a result, some citizens and public

interest groups take a strong ‘‘not-in-mybackyard’ stance when it comes to siting a

waste disposal facility.

Some citizens and public interest groups

want more access to the decisionmaker (i.e.,

an official that will decide where the facility

will be located and how it will be designed).

Recognizing this desire, the host States that are

far along in developing a disposal facility have

extensive public participation programs (see ch.

2). The environmental groups and citizen advisory committees in these States have largely

influenced the overall LLW disposal site devel14 For example, in some States opment process.

these groups have helped to determine the

weighting factors for screening prospective

regions within the State.15

Some public interest groups and citizen

advisory committees have also contributed to

the States’ analyses of disposal technologies

and disposal site requirements. These groups’

disposal requirements are generally more conservative and more prescriptive than the standard conceptual designs. Also, their requirements often go beyond disposal facility features

to include components of a comprehensive

disposal system. For example, some public

interest groups in Pennsylvania have argued that

I@ce ~ dl=~ ~lte is chosen, new lm~ public interest groups may become involved because they will then sw themselves m st~eholde~

in the process.

15A State is ~run~ [. identify regions [ha[ ~fl & excluded from fufier consideration m a dispo~] site ~a~ they do 1101 IIltX!t Cefidt’1Crikfiii.
11 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

a facility should have ‘‘a zero release capacity”

goal, i.e., that if any radioactivity above background level is detected offsite, the disposal

facility operator must take action to identify and

abate the release. This goal is much more

stringent than the NRC regulation that the

annual dose to a member of the public not

exceed 25 millirems16 of radiation to the whole

body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25

millirems to any other organ (10 CFR Part 61).

Furthermore, this requirement must be met

during the operational and long-term care period. Long-term care is defined in Pennsylvania

as the ‘‘hazardous life’ of the waste.17 According to NRC regulations, the site operator must

have its site secured and monitored after its

operating period, but custodial institutional

controls may not be relied on for more than 100

years (10 CFR Part 61).18 However, due to the

hazardous life of some radioactive waste and the

hazardous life of mixed LLW, Pennsylvania is

requiring as a precaution along-term care period

that would extend much longer than 100 years.

Certain public interest groups in some States

have required that the disposal facility operator

be more aggressive in ensuring that the package

manifest19 accurately describes the contents of

the package. States, in turn, are investigating

methods of physically sampling and testing the

waste without unacceptably exposing the worker.

Some host States are giving more control over

their disposal facility to the host community.

For example, the host community selects local

inspectors to oversee the site. These inspectors

have the power to shut down the facility if

practices are out of compliance. In most States,

the host community will also receive grants to

conduct an independent assessment of the site.

Host States have created compensation packages for local host communities. These packages include assistance to local citizens, including financial incentives. Grants and scholarships

are also available in some States to buy school

equipment and to support science students.

Finally, some host States guarantee local citizens’ property values.

The role that public interest groups and

citizen advisory committees have played to

determine acceptable disposal designs, to

develop a comprehensive disposal system,

and to assure local control and compensation

for local host communities could be precedentsetting with respect to other waste disposal

facilities (e.g., those operated by DOE).

Major Issues

Will States Comply With the LLRWPAA?

About a dozen LLW disposal facilities are

slated for development (see figure 1-1 ). It is

impossible to know the exact number of sites

that actually will be developed. While less than

the dozen planned sites could easily handle the

total volume of the Nation’s LLW, it is questionable whether all States and compacts that

do not develop their own disposal facilities

will be able to manage their own waste or

reach an agreement with a sited State or

compact when they lose access to the three

operating sites on January 1, 1993.20

States and compacts could reach agreements

to cooperate in their management of LLW. An

16A ~m is a s~dard tit of me~~ment of the radiation imparted to biological systems by radioactive material. Rem is an acronym for

“roentgen equivalent man.’ 8 Rem is the unit used to measure equivalent dose-the biological effeet of an absorbed dose. For comparison, the average

annual whole tmdy dose in the United States is about 300 millirems, of which about 50 percent is from natural background (see ch. 4). A millirem

is a one-thousandth of a rem (103).

17’’ Hazardous life” is defined in Pennsylvania as the maximum permissible concentration as defined in Federal regulation or as defiied by

the State. Pennsylvania defines hazardous life as the time required before an area can be released for unrestricted use. An analysis would be conducted

that calculates the effect all possible pathways of exposure to determine the total exposure at a given time. Pennsylvania will have to determine that

this total exposure level is at background level before deciding that the hazardous life has expired.

ls~e ~c, ~wever, ~ no prohibition on States choosing a longer tistittlt.ional care Fiod.

l~e NRC, ~A, ~d D~ rcx@re that a manifest document describes in detail the contents of a waste package and is affixed to a package bfore

it is transported to a waste processing facility or to a disposal site,

~nder the LLRWPAA, States and compacts hosting a facility are not obligated to cooperate with other States and compac~s.
Chapter 1-Overview, Findings, and Policy Options ● 13

agreement could involve a State or compact

paying another State or compact to take its

waste or involve States and compacts trading

waste types or waste services. For example, the

Governors of Maine and Vermont are negotiating with the Governor of Texas to have Texas

take their waste. Texas has always planned to

develop its own site, and there has been some

question as to the legality of a single State

excluding other States from using its facility (7).

If Texas accepts Maine’s and Vermont’s waste

(which is low in volume—see table l-l) and

forms a new compact, and if Congress consents

to the compact, this question of exclusion rights

would no longer be relevant.

A trade agreement could involve a compact

deciding to trade its mixed LLW for another

compact’s Class C LLW.21 A compact or State

may also decide to develop a multiregional

LLW treatment complex and trade these services for another State or compact to dispose of

its waste. There may be great advantages for

States and compacts to cooperate in such ways.

Equity in sharing the responsibility for LLW

could still be realized while treatment or disposal facility development costs could be saved.

One disadvantage of this approach may be

States’ concern about the increase in liability

associated with the increase in waste volumes.

No State is currently planning to trade waste

services with another State.

It is hard to predict whether States and

compacts without access to a site will be

successful at making these types of cooperative agreements or develop a way to manage

their own LLW after the operating disposal

sites close. States and compacts could have

disposal facilities operational for their nonmixed radioactive LLW, but not for their mixed

LLW, and eventually have to take title to and

possession of the waste. If the State fails to take

possession of the waste, it would eventually be

liable for all damages incurred by the waste

generator.

The next milestone for the States and compacts is to file a license application for a disposal

facility by January 1, 1990, or to have their

Governors certify to the NRC that they will have

the capability to manage all their LLW by

December 31, 1992, This 1990 milestone can be

met and yet progress toward planning for

post-1992 may be limited because earlier milestones are easier to meet than later ones.

How Will a Further Drop in Waste Volume

Affect Disposal and Treatment Costs?

One factor that has made the development

of multiple disposal sites difficult is shrinking

LLW volumes. The nationwide LLW volumes

have declined by about 55 percent in the last 9

years (see figure 4-4 in ch. 4) and could decline

significantly more over the next few years. The

past drop in volumes has been largely driven by

costs related to implementing the 1982 LLW

disposal regulations (10 CFR Part 61) and cost

surcharges established in the LLRWPAA. A

future drop in volumes will be driven by future

LLRWPAA surcharges and costs associated

with more elaborate disposal designs for facilities constructed to hold smaller waste volumes.

Many of the costs associated with developing

a facility are fixed (e.g., State screening operations, site characterization, licensing, monitoring program, compensation packages to host

community, and financial assurances). Therefore, costs per unit volume will increase with

facilities designed to hold small waste volumes,

While cost increases provide incentives for

individual generators to reduce wastes, smaller

volumes reduce economies of scale which

drives up unit disposal costs. This scenario

places more burden on small generators, e.g.,

medical and research facilities, than on large

generators.

Some uncertainties make it difficult to predict

how far future waste volumes will drop. First,

21~ ~s Cxmp]e, a diW~ provision would have to be made for Class C mixed LLW.
14 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

radioactivity (measured in curies22) is also a

determinant of disposal cost. Site operators may

decide to place even greater emphasis on

radioactivity, than is currently done, in determining disposal cost at future sites. They may

make this decision because treatment practices

have reduced volumes far more than generators

have reduced radioactivity. A possible negative

outcome of this approach would be that waste

generators would have lowered incentives to use

volume reduction techniques, which often result

in a more stabilized waste form that is less likely

to collapse or leach once disposed. The drop in

future waste volumes could also be greater

depending on the impact of below-regulatory

concern (BRC) limits for the radiological component of a waste. *3 This impact may not happen

depending on whether BRC waste is accepted at

a municipal landfill or, in the case of mixed

LLW, at a hazardous waste landfill.

The phenomenon of increasing unit disposal

costs due to decreasing waste volumes heightens

if the Nation shifts from having three disposal

sites to having a dozen or so, in which case total

disposal costs may go up. LLW generators are

required to use the disposal facility in their

compact unless their compact has made an

agreement with another State or compact. Therefore, in each of the nine compacts, the disposal

site operator has a guaranteed market for LLW

disposal. Unit disposal costs will probably vary

significantly from one disposal facility to another, depending on the waste volume requiring

disposal, the disposal technology used, and

other site-specific conditions such as land values, State regulations, and local community

compensation programs. For example, disposal

in a below-grade vault for a compact region

generating only 10,000 cubic feet of waste a year

could be between $450 and $590 per cubic foot

(3), while in a compact region generating

230,000 cubic feet of waste a year the cost could

be between $50 and $56 per cubic foot for the

same disposal design (3, 10). Yet generators in

a particular State or compact cannot use a

facility in another State or compact with a more

economical disposal operation nor can a compact solicit out-of-State or out-of-compact customers to improve the economics of its facility

unless the Board overseeing the compact approves of such an arrangement.

Until new LLW disposal facilities are operating and disposal costs stabilize, the trend of

declining waste volumes will likely continue.

By 1993, the trend in decreasing LLW volumes

shipped for disposal should taper off, but by that

time volume could drop 40 to 50 percent below

1988 levels. (See ch. 4 section on ‘‘Implications

of Waste Minimization and Treatment Techniques on Future Waste Volumes. ’

The same phenomenon is true for waste

treatment. Some compacts are moving towards

controlling the export and import of waste for

treatment (e.g., waste decontamination, recycling, and compaction). They may believe that

their regulations are stricter and require that all

waste be processed within the compact. A

compact may also choose to restrict waste from

being imported for processing. The compact

may not want to accept waste from a State that

it believes may lose disposal capacity access,

because it fears that it will have to keep the

State orphaned waste. By restricting the export

and import of waste, however, competition to

develop efficient treatment technologies will

likely stall because of small waste volumes. A

decision by a compact to require its generators to use only its waste processing facility

would run counter to the argument for

State/compact cooperation. Likewise, closing

compact treatment facilities to out-of-region

States would oppose the argument for State/

22A ~~e is ~ ~omon ~1 of memue of radioac~ivi(y tha[ is b~d on [he ra[e of radioactive decay. One curie describes the iimount of radiation

from 1 gram of radium for 1 second, or about 37 billion disintegrations per second. The abbreviation for curie is Ci.

23When ~ wm~ is dete~in~ by F~er~ or State re~]ations to ~ radioactively BRC, the concentration or quantities of radionuclides in the waste

are so low that the waste can be disposed of in a nonradioactive waste site (e.g., a landfill) without posing an undue risk to pubhc health and safety.

The NRC and EPA are both working on setting limits for BRC waste. As of November 1989, the two agencies’ limits were inconsistent; this will

have to be resolved eventually because NRC’s regulations that arc set in a final rule must be consistent with EPA’s final standard.
Chapter l---Overview, Findings, and Policy Options ● 15

compact cooperation. The LLW Forum24

passed a resolution on July 14, 1989 supporting

the free movement of LLW and materials among

regional compacts and unaffiliated States to

treatment/processing facilities or to brokers.

What Additional Concerns Apply to Mixed LLW?

More immediate than any of the issues

concerning nonmixed LLW management is

the problem that no disposal facility or offsite

storage or treatment facility for mixed LLW

exists.

With respect to disposal, EPA regulations

apply to hazardous waste landfills, while NRC

regulations apply to LLW disposal facilities. A

disposal facility for mixed LLW that incorporates both of these regulations, however, does

not exist. Most generators, therefore, are using

all available management techniques to alter

their practices so that they generate either

exclusively radioactive waste or exclusively

hazardous waste. By doing so, disposal of the

waste is possible. However, some practices that

generate mixed LLW cannot be so altered and a

LLW is generated that contains a hazardous

constituent. As is discussed below, the absence

of treatment capacity, the absence of appropriate treatment technologies, storage prohibitions that cannot be met, and the absence of

disposal capacity are serious problems that

need to be addressed.

Even without disposal facilities and offsite

treatment and storage facilities, ad hoc surveys

indicate that the cumulative onsite storage

volume of mixed LLW is holding steady for

the majority of generators when it should be

increasing (6). This situation raises the question: where is mixed LLW going? Generators

may be finding ways to treat some of their stored

mixed LLW so that it is either exclusively

radioactive or exclusively hazardous and, thereby,

dispose of it legally. However, it is also

possible that mixed LLW is slipping through

waste brokers and processors and illegally

entering nonqualified disposal facilities. Since

waste packages are only visually spot-checked

and scanned for radioactivity levels, it is possible that mixed LLW is entering the disposal sites

undetected. Thus far, ad hoc State and industry

surveys have neither supported nor refuted this

speculation (6).

In passing the LLRWPAA, Congress did not

give regulatory authority for mixed LLW to

only the NRC or only EPA. Therefore, the NRC,

under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), and the

EPA, under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA), have joint jurisdiction

over mixed LLW. Several States and compacts, particularly those in dry regions,

believe that this dual regulatory system is

technically unnecessary and burdensome.

NRC regulations are site-performance-based,

meaning that the site as a whole has to meet

certain objectives. NRC expects radionuclides

to leach from the waste eventually, but at such

a slow rate that no appreciable amount will ever

reach the site boundary. EPA regulations are

much more prescriptive in that they require

certain features to be included in all disposal

designs. For example, an EPA-permitted hazardous waste landfill must have double liners

and a leachate collection system unless the

permittee can demonstrate that no migration of

any hazardous constituents into the groundwater

or surface water will occur at any future time (40

CFR Part 264). It maybe quite difficult to prove

that no migration will occur. States particularly

in regions with little rainfall, deep groundwater,

and long groundwater time-of-travel argue that

the EPA-required design features are unnecessary. Nonetheless, one such State, Texas, has

decided to design its mixed LLW disposal unit

with these features in order to comply with EPA

regulations.

Some other States and compacts, particularly

those in humid regions, believe that the two

agencies’ regulations complement each other

and, if used together, would provide for the most

technically suitable mixed LLW disposal facili24~e LLW Fo~ is ~ ~~alation of reprexn(at1ve5 of Su[es ~d comp~~s wi~ tie god tO facilitate implementation of the LLRWPA ad

LLRWPAA.
16 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

ties. Their designs currently include EPArequired features and NRC site performance

requirements. For example, double liners and a

leachate collection system would be included

while worker exposure would be limited and the

site would be environmentally monitored and

secured from human intrusion for 100 years.

Regulations That Are Currently UnattainableAs noted, many of the hazardous constituents in

mixed LLW are banned from land disposal until

they meet specific treatment standards. However, no offsite treatment facilities have been

developed, aside from an energy recovery facility burning BRC25 scintillation fluids in Florida.

Two examples of mixed LLWs for which no

treatment capacity is available are organic

chemicals and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) solvents and sludges used in cleaning clothing,

tools, and equipment (6). Waste oil may also

become a problem. (Some States have listed

waste oil as a hazardous waste, however, it is not

hazardous under Federal law. A lawsuit has

required EPA to consider whether waste oil

should be listed as a hazardous waste, and EPA

expects to make this determination in late 1989.

If waste oil is found to be hazardous, the volume

estimates of mixed LLW will rise dramatically.)

If treatment capacity is to be developed

commercially for these wastes, generators of

“like” wastes will have to group together and

pressure the waste treatment industry to

develop the necessary treatment facilities.

However, for at least five reasons, the industry is reluctant to develop mixed LLW

facilities. First is lack of data. Without a

national survey on mixed LLW volumes and

types, industry will have difficulty meeting

market needs. Second is the possibility that

compacts could attempt to restrict the import

and export of waste for treatment, thereby

limiting waste volumes and making the development of a treatment facility economically unviable. Third is the long licensing period expected

for receiving a permit to operate such a facility.

Fourth is the reluctance of facility operators to

contaminate the internal mechanisms of their

machinery with radioactivity. Fifth, is the opposition of some public interest groups to siting

such facilities.

Certain mixed LLW contains hazardous constituents for which EPA recommends incineration as

the best demonstrated available technology. Yet

in developing hazardous waste standards,

EPA did not consider possible radioactive

constituents. In the case of organic chemicals

containing high concentrations of carbon-14 and

tritium, no standard off-gas systems for incinerators would trap these radionuclides. To meet

EPA’s regulations, a generator of this waste

would have to apply for a treatment standard

variance. No generator has found a technology in the research and development phase,

much less available commercially, that can

handle this type of mixed LLW. The NRC,

EPA, and DOE may wish to consider providing grant monies for firms to research

treatment options for these problem wastes.

In particular, monies within DOE’s technical

assistance program for States could be redirected to support this research.

A generator of mixed LLW for which no

treatment capacity is available has two potential

options for treating its waste. First, it can submit

a‘ ‘no migration’ petition, for which a generator

must demonstrate that disposal of this waste,

without being treated first, will result in no

migration. However, no such variance for mixed

LLW has been granted to date. Second, a

generator can apply for a case-by-case extension

for 1 year, renewable for 1 year. To receive this

extension, however, the generator must have a

binding contract with a mixed LLW treatment

facility operator ensuring that at the end of the

extension period the waste will be treated to

meet EPA’s standards. Since no such treatment

facility is operational or, to date, is even

planned, this second option appears unfeasible.

Xne BRC llml[s ~t for ~e~ fluids were established by the NRC in 1981 [(46 Federul Register 16230, Mar. 11, 1981) 10 CFR PWI 20.3061. ~ey

are not the same limits as those over which the NRC and EPA are in conflict; the conflicting limits are for more generic types of LLW.
Chapter l---Overview, Findings, and Policy Options ● 17

The result of considering these “options”

forces generators into ceasing the practice

that produces the mixed LLW or into simply

storing their waste. Storage, however, is

prohibited for any period longer than that

needed to accumulate enough volume to ‘facilitate proper recovery, treatment, and disposal”

(40 CFR Part 268). Since no commercial

treatment facility or disposal facility is available

for these problem mixed LLWs, storage in all

likelihood would not be allowed.26 Mixed LLW

generators are, therefore, left with no options

but to stop generating the waste or to ignore

the storage prohibition. Without a solution to

this problem, States or EPA could prohibit

generators from producing mixed LLW or to

cease operation. Services provided by nuclear

utilities, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and research and medical institutions could be crippled.

Possible Regulatory Conflicts and Inconsistencies-Most States and compacts agree that

potential conflicts and inconsistencies may exist

between the NRC and EPA in implementing

both agencies’ regulations on a site-specific

basis. However, it is unclear whether all of the

conflicts and inconsistencies can be resolved

within the existing regulatory framework.

One example of a possible conflict concerns

worker exposure during waste sampling and

testing to characterize a waste (e.g., to test its

leachability) and to verify the contents of a

waste package received by the disposal site

operator. For characterization, EPA requires

that a generator take a 100-gram sample to test

a waste’s leachability if the generator cannot

verify that the waste is not hazardous based on

his/her knowledge of the process that generated

the waste. For this size sample for some mixed

LLW, the NRC considers it dangerous to

workers. To circumvent EPA’s requirement, a

generator has to apply for a waiver, which can

take years to receive. EPA and NRC are working

toward resolving this issue, but no final joint

guidance has been established.27

With respect to waste verification, EPA

requires that the treatment, storage, or disposal

site operator verify the contents of a waste

package by obtaining a detailed chemical and

physical analysis of a representative sample of

the waste (40 CFR Part 264). As is true for a

generator, an operator need not verify the waste

by sampling unless he/she is not certain of the

contents based on a single process that generated

the waste. In cases where several wastes are

combined in one package (as is the case for

routine waste from waste brokers and processors) or where the process that generated the

waste has changed, the site operator may have to

sample widely, conducting a detailed chemical

and physical analysis on each sample. In contrast, the operator of a LLW disposal facility

generally only visually checks packages and

conducts no chemical assays on the waste. Once

again, the issue is worker exposure; following

NRC regulations, it has to be as low as is

reasonably achievable. If a disposal site operator verified all necessary packages as required by EPA, he/she could receive excessive

exposure.

Another possible inconsistency or conflict

between the two agencies is in inspection and

enforcement. For a storage site, EPA requires

that the operator directly inspect containers on

a weekly basis (40 CFR Part 264). Typically, the

inspection is done visually to see if any containers are degrading. The NRC, in contrast, allows

much of its storage inspection to be done

remotely, using cameras and area radiation

monitors. Again, a worker could be subjected

to excessive exposure if he/she visually moni-

%Norage prohibitions do not apply in States that have base RCRA authorization but have not yet received mixd waste authorization. Mixed wa.wc

is a provision under RCRA, and EPA is not responsible for regulating a particular provision during the period whale the State is waiting to receive

authorization for it. Therefore, during this interim period before a State is granted mixed waste authorization, the storage prohibition does not apply

unless a State law establishes the prohibition. As of October 1989, nine States had mixed waste authorization: South Carolina, Washington,

‘Rmessec, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Utah, Ohio, and Minnesota.

~EpA ~d NRC ~ve d~~ a document entitled “Characterization Guidance’ that addresses t.k StlMphtg ptUCCdUfC.
18 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

tored stored mixed LLW on a weekly basis.28

Furthermore, it is unclear how the agencies

would procedurally arrange the inspection

and enforcement of facilities, given their joint

jurisdiction: Would a team of agency officials

with representatives from both agencies inspect

the facilities and enforce the requirements?

Would enforcement actions against a generator

be carried out by a joint-agency team?

Timing conflicts and inconsistencies between

the development of EPA’s regulations and the

development of State/compact LLW disposal

facilities are problematic for mixed LLW in

some cases. For example, many States are

planning to receive mixed waste authorization,

which means that they, instead of EPA, will

regulate mixed LLW. However, this authorization may not be granted in time for mixed

LLW disposal units to be permitted consistent

with State timetables for developing their LLW

disposal facilities.

Regulatory Overlap and Duplication-The

NRC and EPA may want to evaluate several

areas where their regulations overlap and their

efforts could be consolidated to regulate mixed

LLW more effectively and efficiently. Overarching regulatory areas include generic procedures for determining inconsistencies between

the AEA and RCRA and below-regulatory

concern limits for specific wastes (e.g., waste

oi129 and CFC solvents and sludges). For waste

package manifests, the two agencies could

establish one set of requirements. For documentation of facility activities, the two agencies could

streamline the licensing and permitting procedures so that only one set of procedures would

have to be followed. Recordkeeping, in general,

could also be conducted in a format that would

meet both agencies’ needs. The two agencies

could also agree on a single set of financial

assurance requirements. Finally, several areas

concerning practices at the site could be simplified; these include design variance procedures,

facility monitoring requirements, emergency

preparedness and prevention requirements, postclosure failure scenarios, and remediation requirements.

Conclusion

The generation of some mixed LLW is

unavoidable, even if generation practices are

changed to the extent practicable. Of primary

concern is the management of organic chemicals

and CFCs.30 EPA and NRC will have to decide

how generators are to manage these wastes,

given the absence of treatment facilities, in some

cases the absence of an appropriate treatment

technology, and the prohibitions on storage.

With these roadblocks, generators are left

with three options. They can stop producing the

waste; they can illegally store the waste; or they

can illegally dispose of the waste. None of these

‘‘options’ are ideal and two of them (to illegally

store or illegally dispose of the waste) could lead

to adverse environmental and/or adverse health

effects.

POLICY OPTIONS

What can Congress do to make sure

commercial low-level radioactive waste, including mixed LLW, is disposed of equitably

among States, in an environmentally sound

manner, and with administrative efficiency? To

grapple with these questions and the specific

problems reviewed above, Congress may want

to consider two major goals. They are: 1) to

encourage States and compacts to cooperate

among themselves so that all States can safely

manage their LLW after December 31, 1992,

and 2) to resolve regulatory problems concerning mixed LLW. There are several options that

Congress may wish to consider to reach these

goals.

28]t is ~clm whether EpA would ~low ~] of ~ls ins~tion to & COn&ICted remotely. me NRC md EPA are developing guidance on t.h issue.

29BRc IimiM fw the r~owtlvi~ in w~te Oil wo~d only be relev~[ to natio~ mix~ LLW management if EPA determines that wiisk oil is

hazardous, Even if EPA does not make this determination, the BRC limits would apply to States in which waste oil is listed as hazardous.

30~ not~, if EPA fi~ wm~ oil t. be a h~~d~s w~e, mixed LL.W volumes will rise dramatically kause the available treatment practices

for waste oil will result in a residue that will still be found to be a mixed LLW.
Chapter 1-Overview, Findings, and Policy Options ● 19

Goal 1: Encourage Cooperation Among

States and Compacts To Ensure

Disposal Capacity Availability

Option A: Amend the LLRWPAA To Force

States and Compacts To Consolidate Their

Disposal Facility Development Efforts

Some States (e.g., Michigan) favor Congress

amending the LLRWPAA to limit the total

number of disposal facilities to gain economies

of scale. These States believe that with fewer

facilities, more revenue could be collected at

each facility to support a more rigorous regulatory oversight program and a financially sound

liability fund.

For three main reasons, amending the

LLRWPAA does not seem very viable. First,

neither the LLRWPA of 1980 nor the 1985

amendments of LLRWPA intended to prescribe a certain number of disposal facilities

for the Nation. States felt that they should have

the latitude to negotiate among themselves and

form workable compacts. Congress made this a

central theme to both the LLRWPA and the

LLRWPAA. In some cases a compact of two

States resulted and in others a compact of eight

States resulted. Some States decided to develop

a facility for waste generated only within their

borders. Not surprisingly, political factors, rather

than economic ones, were generally the driving

force in compact membership. Also, for some

compacts, economy was not as critical as

ensuring that the facility could be built to

accommodate public concerns.

Second, setting limits on the number of

LLW facilities would take away State rights—

the very rights that the States, via the

National Governors Association, asked Congress to include in drafting the LLRWPA of

1980 and the LLRWPAA of 1985. As is, the

LLRWPAA neither discourages nor encourages

States to change the terms of their compacts.

States are free to negotiate, if they so desire, and

to cooperate among themselves to manage and

dispose of LLW. The balancing of political

factors and economic factors is left to the States.

Third, by limiting the number of LLW

disposal facilities now, the supportive political climate under which new facilities are

being developed could be damaged. Some

States and compacts have made great progress in

developing these facilities (e.g., Texas, the

Central Midwest Compact, and the Southwestern Compact), and this progress could halt

abruptly. The communities that have agreed to

host a disposal facility may fear that they would

be forced to take a much greater volume of LLW

from elsewhere. They may feel that the equity

built into the LLRWPA and LLRWPAA was

being challenged. If the States and compacts that

have made the most progress in developing new

disposal facilities were to stop their development, the Nation would be little closer than it

was in 1980, when the LLRWPA passed, to

having new LLW disposal facilities.

As of November 1989, the most vocal State,

Michigan, that lobbied Congress to consider

amending the LLRWPAA to limit the number of

LLW disposal facilities, had dropped its case.

Michigan received no endorsement from the

States and compacts that are making good

progress in developing disposal facilities. Nonetheless, as tougher LLRWPAA milestones approach, which States and compacts must meet,

the amendment argument could be raised again.

Option B: Hold a Congressional Oversight

Hearing To Encourage States To Reduce the

Number of Disposal Sites

Through an oversight hearing, a congressional committee with jurisdiction would encourage States and compacts to cooperate among

themselves to ensure that every State can safely

manage its waste after December 31, 1992.

States in favor of Option A would likely support

this option.

A potential downside of such congressional

action is that many States and compacts may

not be in a position to discuss the delicate

negotiations they are undertaking. The Governor of a host State that plans to build a disposal

site for nonmixed LLW may be quietly negotiating with the Governor of a host State that plans
20 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

to develop a disposal unit for mixed LLW.

These Governors may be negotiating a trade—

nonmixed LLW for mixed LLW and vice versa.

An oversight hearing may only agitate these

negotiations. Furthermore, a hearing could

panic potential host communities into rejecting their role. All States that have made

significant progress toward developing disposal

capacity would likely be opposed to this option.

Option C: Take No Federal Action, But

Individual Members of Congress Would Track

the Progress of Their States

Alternatively, Congress would take no public

action to reduce the number of disposal sites.

Instead, individual Members of Congress could

keep abreast of the progress their States are

making to ensure that disposal capacity will be

available. Members of Congress could discuss

the issue with the Governors of their particular

States, determine whether negotiations are proceeding, and determine how they can be quietly

facilitated.

Goal 2: Resolve Regulatory Problems

Concerning Mixed LLW

There is a range of policy options that could

meet this goal. Four main options are presented

here. As shown in figure 1-2, at one end of a

spectrum, either the NRC or EPA may receive

sole regulatory jurisdiction. At the other end,

dual NRC-EPA jurisdiction as it now stands can

continue. Between these two extremes are two

other possibilities. All four options, with scenarios for implementation, are discussed below.

How any option would be implemented

depends on whether the State in question has

Agreement State status under the AEA or mixed

waste authorization under RCRA, or both.

Furthermore, to implement one option would

require legislation, while for others only rulemaking and/or guidance would likely be required.

Option A: Give Sole Regulatory Jurisdiction to

One Agency

Either NRC or EPA would be given sole

jurisdiction for regulating mixed LLW. Sole

jurisdiction would require legislation. Several

groups (e.g., Edison Electric Institute, Utility

Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program,

Nuclear Management and Resources Council,

Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, and some

user groups of radioactive materials) have

lobbied Congress to give the role to the NRC.

They argue that the current dual regulatory

system is duplicative, burdensome, and inconsistent (1, 2,4). They believe that the regulations

EPA applies to mixed LLW that are not included

in NRC’s regulatory framework could be added

to the NRC framework and enforced by NRC.

Sole jurisdiction could also be given to EPA.

Regulations that NRC applies to mixed LLW

could be added to EPA’s regulations and

enforced by EPA. No group has supported this

approach to date, however.31 One reason is that

mixed LLW was buried at LLW sites, until

burial was no longer allowed, and the radioactive waste community became more familiar

with NRC regulations than with EPA regulations. Furthermore, it was assumed that by

regulating the radioactive portion of the waste,

the hazardous portion would be regulated as

well.

An advantage of sole regulatory jurisdiction is that from an administrative perspective mixed LLW disposal facilities, or special

mixed LLW units at a larger facility for

mainly nonmixed radioactive LLW, could be

developed and operated more economically

and efficiently. The disposal site developer/

operator would have only one agency (whether

at the State or Federal level) with whom it would

have to coordinate. Furthermore, a waste generator, processor, and a disposal site developer/

operator would no longer need two sets of

manifest documents or two sets of reporting

forms.

311f ~~vlmmen~ Wmrnunity (e.g., the Natural Resources Defense Council) had to choose between the NRC or the EPA f~ sole jtisdiction,

it would favor rhe EPA, The environmental community, however, favors both agencies regulating mixed LLW.
Chapter l-Overview, Findings, and Policy Options ● 21

Figure 1-2—A Spectrum of Policy Options for Mixed LLW Regulation

Option A Option C Option D Option B

Jurisdiction Sole Lead agency with Active inter-agency Current dual

jurisdiction concurrence of other task force jurisdiction

Action Legislation Joint rulemaking Joint rulemaking Joint guidance required joint guidance

1

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1989

If the NRC is granted sole jurisdiction, mixed

LLW generators and processors would need

only a license from the NRC or, if located in an

Agreement State, from the designated State

agency to treat and store their waste. Generators

would not have to receive a permit from EPA or,

if the State is mixed waste authorized, the State

designated agency. If a State had Agreement

State status, the State agency with jurisdiction

(e.g., Department of Nuclear Safety, Department of Health Services) by itself would regulate all mixed LLW management activities. If

the EPA were to be granted sole jurisdiction, the

designated agency in a State with mixed waste

authorization would assume much of the regulatory role.32

A major disadvantage of shifting all Federal regulatory responsibility y to one agency is

that the one agency may not be able to carry

out adequately the basic mission of the other

agency’s regulations. For example, if the NRC

is granted sole regulatory responsibility, it may

have trouble assuming EPA’s regulatory philosophy of treating waste to the extent practicable

and making waste as nonhazardous as possible

before disposing of it. EPA holds this philosophy because many of the hazardous constituents

EPA regulates can become very mobile in a

disposal site and can migrate offsite via groundwater; organic chemicals are good examples.

EPA has a long history of regulating these types

of wastes and this expertise may not readily

transfer to the NRC. The reverse would be true

if EPA is granted sole regulatory responsibility.

EPA may not be able to appropriately reflect the

AEA’s and NRC’s philosophy. For example, it

is unclear whether EPA would adopt NRC’s

concern about worker exposure being kept as

low as is reasonably achievable and about the

institutional control period at a mixed LLW

disposal facility lasting up to 100 years.

Similar problems with respect to one State

agency regulating mixed LLW could result.

For example, assume that NRC is given sole

regulatory authority and a particular State has

Agreement State status; the authorized agency

within that State may have no working knowledge of hazardous waste and be unable to

effectively regulate mixed LLW from a hazardous waste perspective. Likewise, assume that

EPA is given sole regulatory authority and a

particular State has mixed waste authorization;

the authorized State agency may have no

working knowledge of radioactive waste and be

unable to effectively regulate that part of the

waste.

Another disadvantage of transferring all

regulatory responsibility to the NRC would

JZEPA, ~ well, would have a role in r~@ating mix~ LLW on issues that the State had not yet received jurisdiction. For example, a State could

have mixed waste authorization and yet not have received responsibility for enforcing new standards that had recently been issued by EPA that

deal with some aspect of mixed LLW. EPA is constantly msuing new regulations, and RCRA-authorized States have some time to become responsible

for them.
22 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

be the potential loss of EPA’s regulation of

hazardous waste at DOE defense sites. To

date, DOE sites are independently regulated

only for their hazardous materials and subsequent wastes that are produced. A large constituency, including several public interest

groups (e.g., the Natural Resources Defense

Council), feels strongly that EPA regulatory

oversight of waste management activities is

necessary for adequate environmental protection, including the restoration of contaminated

areas at DOE sites. Removing EPA from

regulating commercial mixed LLW would

raise the question of whether EPA should be

removed from regulating defense mixed waste

as well.

For the above reasons, it appears likely

that the expertise of both agencies will be

needed to continue regulating mixed waste.

Environmental organizations (e.g., the Natural

Resources Defense Council) oppose either agency

being given sole regulatory jurisdiction.

Option B: Maintain Current Dual Regulatory

Jurisdiction

The present dual jurisdiction of NRC and

EPA can continue, along with the schedule on

which the two agencies are working to resolve

implementation issues relating to the dual regulation of mixed LLW. Legislation would not be

required to implement this option. Most likely

only joint guidance would be needed.

Under this option, in a State with only

Agreement State status, a State agency would

regulate the radioactive portion of the mixed

LLW while the EPA would regulate the hazardous portion. In a State with only mixed waste

authorization, a State agency would regulate the

hazardous portion of the waste while the NRC

would regulate the radioactive portion. In a State

with both of these State authorities, the State

agencies would regulate both the radioactive

and hazardous components of the waste. As

described in Option A, the range of regulatory

possibilities, considering both Federal and State

jurisdiction, are numerous and can greatly

complicate policy decisions.

Since the passage of the LLRWPAA in 1985,

the EPA and the NRC have only developed three

guidances/guidelines. There are several areas of

potential regulatory conflict and inconsistency,

areas where regulations are unattainable, and

areas where the regulations are duplicative. It is

imperative for safely managing mixed LLW

that the current schedule of resolution between the two agencies be greatly accelerated.

Timely action is particularly needed for mixed

organic chemicals and CFCs that may be being

illegally stored for lack of treatment and disposal capacity. No constituencies, including

public interest groups or industry, have supported Option B.

Option C: Give One Agency the Regulatory

Lead With Concurrence Required by

the Other Agency

One option between the two extremes is for

one agency to take the regulatory lead, but only

with the other agency’s concurrence on regulatory issues. Joint rulemaking would most likely

be required to implement this option.

An advantage of this option, as with the

option of one agency having sole regulatory

jurisdiction, is that mixed LLW would be

more economically and efficiently regulated.

Coordinating with the lead responsible State or

Federal regulatory agency would be easier for

all waste management activities than coordinating with two agencies at all times.

As with the sole regulatory jurisdiction option, the major disadvantage of Option C, but

to a lesser degree, would be the question of

whether the lead agency could appropriately

carry out the tenor of the other agency’s

regulations. Even with concurrence by the

supporting agency, it is difficult to ensure that its

regulations would be implemented thoroughly.

Furthermore, as with sole jurisdiction, if a State

agency must take the lead to regulate mixed

LLW, the agency may be ill-equipped to carry

out dual roles with equal expertise. Another

disadvantage is that the concurrence requirement could greatly impede resolution of the
Chapter l-Overview, Findings, and Policy Options . 23

various regulatory problems concerning mixed

LLW.

Option C has been neither supported nor

dismissed by public interest groups and various

industries. However, environmental organizations are against designating the NRC as the lead

agency.

Option D: Establish an Active Interagency Task

Force With Congressional Oversight

Another option between Option A and

Option B is for an active interagency task

force to resolve problems concerning regulation of mixed LLW. The current NRC-EPA

Interface Council, which was formed to address

mutual concerns, would be expanded, or a new

task force would be formed with members from

both agencies. Congress, in its agency oversight capacity, would request such a task

force to develop joint rulemaking or joint

guidance on mixed LLW issues where compromises between the two agencies are needed.

Task forces have been used effectively in

other cases of overlapping Federal regulatory

jurisdiction. For example, the Mine Safety and

Health Administration has overlapping jurisdiction with the Occupational, Safety, and Health

Administration in developing health and safety

standards for employees in the mining industry.

The two agencies formed an interagency agreement, including a provision to develop joint

rulemaking and cooperative training.33 Likewise, the Food and Drug Administration, within

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and EPA

have an overlap on regulating biotechnology

products. A Biotechnology Science Coordinating Committee was established, consisting of

members from both agencies, to regulate these

products (7).

Congress could forward a tight schedule,

containing milestones for resolving possible

conflicts and inconsistencies, to the task force.

Joint rulemaking or joint guidance, in fact, could

be established for all of the following issues:

regulations that are currently unattainable:

—certain treatment standards,

—storage prohibitions;

possible regulatory conflicts and inconsistencies:

—waste sampling and testing,

—facility inspection and enforcement,

—timing conflict between EPA location standards and LLW disposal siting efforts,

—timing conflict between States being granted

mixed waste authorization and States’

schedules in developing LLW disposal

facilities;

regulatory overlap and duplication:

—procedures for determining inconsistencies

between AEA and RCRA,

—BRC limits for specific wastes,

—facility design variance procedures,

—waste package manifest requirements,

—licensing and permitting procedures,

—recordkeeping,

—financial assurance requirements,

—facility monitoring requirements,

-emergency preparedness and prevention

requirements,

—post-closure failure scenarios,

—remediation.

In addition to developing rulemaking and

guidances on the issues above, Congress could

request that the task force report on additional areas where rulemaking or guidance is

needed. This task force could decide that all the

issues are resolvable through joint rulemaking

or joint guidance, or it could decide that

legislation is needed. If legislation is needed,

Congress will be better informed after the

task force makes its recommendations than it

is now to determine which issues need to be

resolved by law.

Some compacts (e.g., Central Interstate) and

public interest groups support this option as a

practical approach to regulating mixed LLW.

Opposing this option are the electric utility

industry and some user groups of radioactive

3344 F~er~ Register 22827 (Apr. 17, 1979).
24 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

materials. These opposition groups are more

familiar with NRC regulations than with EPA

regulations and would prefer reporting to one

agency—the NRC. However, because of the

disadvantages discussed under Option A (e.g.,

the difficulty of one agency enforcing both sets

of regulations and the precedent that would be

set for DOE defense waste regulation if the NRC

were granted sole jurisdiction over mixed waste),

it appears that the expertise of both agencies is

needed. Chairman Carr of the NRC has had

discussions with EPA Administrator, William

Reilly, on the problems concerning mixed waste

regulation. The agencies have made little progress, however, in resolving these problems. No

legal impediment is keeping the NRC and EPA

from expanding their Interface Council or from

creating a new task force. There is, however, no

evidence that the agencies plan such action.

Issue Requiring Prompt Resolution

It is imperative that mixed waste regulations that are currently unattainable be

addressed immediately so that waste generators are left with an option for managing

their mixed LLW. Today these generators face

the choice of going out of business (if they have

to stop producing the waste), illegally storing

the waste, or illegally disposing of it.

To address this problem, Congress could

encourage EPA to allow generators/

operators to store a particular waste if no

treatment capacity and/or no disposal capacity is available. In other words, storage would

be allowed only if it is not being used in lieu of

disposal. This action would give mixed LLW

generators an intermediate option until treatment capacity and disposal capacity are

developed and available.

EPA could require that generators demonstrate their diligence to ensure that these facilities are developed as a condition for permitting

mixed LLW storage. EPA would have authority

to stop waste storage if a generator fails to

demonstrate progress, An advantage of this

approach is that by generators applying for a

storage permit, EPA would have a record as to

what types and volumes of mixed LLW are

being generated. EPA could use the data to

better ensure that wastes are not being illegally

disposed. The waste treatment industry could

use the data as a marketing tool to develop

necessary waste treatment facilities.

Monies could be allocated within EPA,

NRC, and DOE budgets to support entities

(e.g., universities, national laboratories, and

private companies) that are interested in

researching and developing treatment technologies for mixed LLW. For example, monies

could be redirected from the DOE technical

assistance program established to support

States’ site development efforts. Particular attention could be given to treatment technologies

for organic chemicals containing high concentrations of carbon-14 and tritium.

With congressional support, there may be

a way for EPA to allow such intermediate

storage when it issues its rule for treatment

standards, established in the final third of

listed hazardous wastes (due to be issued in

May 1990).

CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES

1.

2.
Chapter l-Overview, Findings, and Policy Options . 25

7.

8.

9.

Seitzinger, Michael V., “hgal Analysis of Whether

a State Can Exclude Lmw-Uvel Radioactive Waste

Generated Outside the State From Disposal Within 10.

the State, ” Congressional Research Service, Library

of Congress, 86-957 A, Oct. 6, 1986.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, An

Evaluation of Optiow for Managing Greater-ThanCkzss C Luw-Level Radioacti~e Waste, OTA-BP-O- 11 .

50, October 1988.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1987 Annual Report on

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Progress, DOE-NE-00984 (Washington, DC: August

1988).

U.S. Department of Energy, Conceptual Design

Report: Alternative Concepts for Lo~-Kzvel Radioactive Waste Disposal, prepared by Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp. for the Lmw-hvel Waste

Management Program, DOE/LLW-60T, June 1987.

U.S. Department of Energy, DRAFT Integrated Data

Base for 1989: Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste

Inventories, Projections, and Characteristic’s, DOE/

RW-006, Rev, 5, 1989.
Chapter 2

Federal Legislation and

State and Compact Response
CONTENTS

Page

Federal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Key Elements: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 . . . . 31

State and Compact Response to Federal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Sited Compacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Compacts Without Access to a Disposal Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 36

Unaffiliated States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . 54

Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table

Table Page

2-1. Milestones and Deadlines in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy

Amendments Act of 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Chapter 2

Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Po&y Act of 198 0

In the fall of 1979, a series of transportation and

packaging incidents’ prompted the Governors of the

three States with operating commercial low-level

radioactive wrote (LLW) disposal facilities to take

action to protect public health and safety. The

Governors of Washington and Nevada temporarily

closed their sites, and the Governor of South

Carolina instituted a program to reduce by one-half

the amount of waste disposed of at the site, which

had received more than 80 percent of the Nation’s

waste during the preceding year.

All three existing sites—as well as three former

commercial sites that were closed2 for various

licensing and environmental reasons (see ch. 6)---

had been established by private LLW disposal

companies and were operated without any formal

interstate agreements governing waste acceptance.

While the initial motivation behind the newly

imposed disposal restrictions was to protect health

and safety, the three States with sites, referred to as

sited States or host States, were also signaling their

unwillingness to continue to accept the entire

country LLW indefinitely.

Alarmed by the potential loss of all commercial

LLW disposal capacity. several committees of the

U.S. House of Representatives held hearings in

November 1979 on future Federal LLW waste

disposal policy. Initially, these committees considered adopting legislation that would have made

commercial LLW disposal a Federal responsibility.

Immediate congressional action of this type was

opposed by the Governors of the three sited States,

who testified in favor of allowing States an opportunity to examine alternatives to Federal disposal.

Because Washington and Nevada had reopened their

sites and, because the congressional session was

nearly over, the committees agreed to defer consideration of LLW legislation until the following year.

During the next 3 months, a number of interested

organizations established task forces or review

groups to explore alternate ways to assure disposal

capacity for commercial LLW. The Conservation

Foundation formed a dialogue group on LLW in

November 1979. The next month, the National

Governors’ Association (NGA) created an eightGovernor task force on LLW disposal. The same

month. the Department of Energy (DOE) named a

task force to deal with LLW issues and created a

Program Review Committee to provide broad-based

guidance to DOE’s LLW management program. In

February 1980, President Jimmy Carter established

the State Planning Council to deal with all nuclear

waste issues. All of these entities examined various

ways to address the disposal of LLW, and, by the

summer of 1980, all had agreed that a State-oriented

solution was the best means of assuring new

capacity.

A number of considerations supported a State

rather than Federal solution. Chief among them was

the concern that the new sites not pose a threat to

public health and safety. States were convinced that

they were better qualified than the Federal Government to assure the protection of their citizens and the

environment, While subsequent revelations have

confirmed that many Federal facilities have not

taken adequate care of nuclear and hazardou s

materials in the past. many States—especially those

with Federal facilities in their boundaries-were

convinced even in 980 that it was a sound

environmental policy decision to give States the

responsibility for providing for new commercial

LLW disposal capacity. States wanted to be involved in decisions regarding siting, technology

selection. operator choice. regulation, fee schedules.

and public participation. State representatives believed that States had the political, technical, and

economic resources to handle LLW disposal. For

these reasons. State-oriented organizations such as

the NGA, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the State planning Council all endorsed a

State-oriented solution in the summer of 1980. The

DOE LLW task force and Program Review Committee and the Conservation Foundation Dialogue —— .

I For ~xmp]e, ,n 1979, the ~ca~[y, N’V ~ltc WJ\ [cm~(~r~llk clo~d w hcn a fire occurred In a truck c~ mg low Icvcl r~dloa~llv~ ~ astc and .

contarmnaied llqmds leaked from the truck Slmllar ]nctdcnts occurred at the Whland, WA N(C In 1979, ciiusmg It to be tcmpwirdy shut down as WCII.

[nc]dents included a fhipn)cn[ of cobalt leaking and J truck cx~wding allowcxt wc]ght IImIt\

2A LLW dl~pos~ fwl]l[y ,n Maicy ~lat~, Ky, o~.ralcd from ] [)~~ [0 1 [)77 In Wcsl V~!lCy , ~’f a LLW fa~ll i[j opcfa[cd from 1‘)63 [{) 1‘)75 ~IIlii{])’,

a LLW facility operated m Sheffield,’lL from 196710 1978.

–29–
30 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Group also recommended that the States be given

the lead role on this issue.

In August 1980, the NGA task force issued a

75-page report containing 17 recommendations

(48). This report reflected in greater detail the

sentiments of the other entities mentioned above.

The

●

●

●

●

principal findings of the report were:

LLW could be managed most efficiently at the

State level.

Each State should be given the responsibility to

provide for disposal capacity for the commercial waste generated within its borders.

States should be encouraged to form regional

compacts, since fewer than 50 sites were

needed to dispose of the Nation’s anticipated

volume of commercial LLW.

To foster compact formation, regional compacts should be allowed to exclude waste

generated outside their borders after a specified

date.

Interstate compacts requiring congressional approval were recommended as the preferred form of

interstate agreement for several major reasons. First,

States cannot customarily restrict the importation of

waste to commercial facilities within their borders

and to do so would violate the interstate commerce

clauses To exercise the exclusionary powers suggested in the Federal legislation would require

consent by Congress. Thus, only interstate compacts

would meet this requirement. Second, since interstate compacts are Federal law as well as State law,

they have a permanence and enforceability that other

forms of agreement lack. Since LLW waste sites are

built to operate for several decades and most

compacts anticipate establishing a series of LLW

sites, it is advisable to have these facilities governed

by statutes that cannot be as readily changed as other

types of interstate agreements.

Given both the broad-based support for delegating

responsibility for new disposal capacity to the States

and the unanimous endorsement of the NGA,

Congress ratified the Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Policy Act (LLRWPA) in December 1980--just 13

months after the issue had first gained national

attention. The legislation had three major provisions

which were included in the NGA task force report:

●

●

●

Each State was made responsible for providing

for the availability of disposal capacity for the

commercial waste generated within its borders.

States were encouraged to form interstate

compacts to collectively meet their obligation

to provide disposal capacity.

As an inducement to form compacts, States

were encouraged to include authority to exclude LLW generated outside their borders in

the compact legislation they adopted and submitted to Congress.

Following congressional action, States began

discussions on creating regional compacts. Among

the first compacts to be submitted to Congress were

three that included the three existing host States

—Washington, Nevada, and South Carolina. One of

the prime motivations of these States in supporting

the adoption of the LLRWPA was their desire to

reduce the quantity of waste being shipped to their

sites. Given that the 1980 Act invited regions to

submit compacts with the authority to exclude

out-of-region waste after January 1, 1986, the sited

States quickly negotiated compacts with their neighbors and sent the proposals to Congress for ratification. The member States party to a compact with an

existing site are referred to as sited States. States

without access to a site also recognized the advantages of compacts and negotiated compacts as well.

By late 1984, nearly 40 States had joined 7 compacts

and submitted them to Congress. A detailed discussion of these compacts and how they evolved is

provided below, under “State and Compact Response to Federal Legislation.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy

Amendments Act of 1985

Despite the progress in forming compacts, the

prospect of the three sited States being able to

exclude all out-of-region waste after January 1,

1986, caused the Senators and Representatives of

States and compacts without access to a site to

oppose granting congressional consent to the sited

States’ compacts. States and compacts without

access to a site were unwilling to allow the sited

States’ compacts to pass Congress unless there were

some assurances that the LLW from their States

would continue to be accepted at the sited States”

facilities until new sites were operating. The sited

JThe Commerce Clauw is in tie ~“nl~ed !jtatcs Constitution, Art, 1, sec. 8, cl, 3. It states that ‘‘The Congress shall have power .To regulate

Commerce. . among the several States. . .‘ Many cases have interpreted this clause, and in partmdar several have been conccmed with a State’s nghl

to exclude waste generated m other States.
Chapter 2—Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response • 31

States for their part threatened to shut down their

facilities altogether if their compacts were not

adopted by Congress. This impasse continued until

late 1984. Seven compacts were pending before

Congress, but there was no prospect for approval.

With the January 1, 1986, exclusionary date less

than 15 months away, some Members of Congress

once again turned their attention to Federal LLW

policy. While the 1986 date was perhaps mainly

symbolic in value, key committee chairs recognized

that the impasse over consent to the compacts

represented a threat to the success of the LLRWPA

of 1980. With an eye to breaking the deadlock,

Representative Morris Udall of Arizona, Chair of the

House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

introduced legislation in October 1984 amending the

LLRWPA. Although the draft legislation was skeletal in nature, it did indicate to all interested

parties-particularly the States and compacts—that

Congress was intent on preserving the LLW system

that had been established 4 years previously.

Less than 5 weeks after the introduction of the

Udall bill, representatives of States and compacts

held a series of meetings under the aegis of the NGA.

The goal of the meetings was to negotiate a

compromise between the sited States and compacts

and the unaffiliated States4 and compacts, Representatives of the States and compacts were convinced

that they could achieve a satisfactory solution to the

problem. Congress, for its part, was willing to accept

the compromise developed by the States and compacts if it was acceptable to the key interested parties

and if it promised to promote the goals of the 1980

LLRWPA.

Throughout 1985, States and compacts met frequently to discuss amendments to the LLRWPA.

Representatives of other interests, including congressional staff, waste generators, site operators,

insurance companies, and environmental groups

also participated. The legislation eventually adopted

by Congress in December 1985 largely reflected the

concerns of the States and compacts. The legislation

formed a compromise between States and compacts

without access to a site and sited States and

compacts. This compromise was needed to further

progress in constructing new LLW disposal facilities. Since the legislation contained the compromise

provisions endorsed by the States and compacts,

Congress was also able to consent to the seven

compacts that had been pending for several sessions.

These seven compacts—the Northwest, the Rocky

Mountain, the Central Interstate, the Central Midwest, the Midwest, the Southeast, and the Northeast

compacts—were adopted as Title 2 of the 1985

Amendments. Subsequently, two other compacts—

the Appalachian and the Southwestern—have received congressional consent.

The chief features of the Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) of

1985 were a 7-year extension of the date by which

the sited States could exclude waste outside their

regional boundaries, coupled with a series of milestones and enforceable penalties to assure progress

in establishing new facilities during the 7-year

transition period.

Key Elements: Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Policy Amendments Act of 1985

The LLRWPAA of 1985 establishes a set of

incentives and conditions that allows access to

existing disposal facilities through the end of 1992

(see table 2-l). Milestones and deadlines are established in the LLRWPAA to ensure that new disposal

capacity is available to compacts without access to

a site and to unaffiliated States until the early 1990s.

Failure to meet the milestones can lead to the

imposition of penalty surcharges and possibly to

denial of access to the disposal sites.

Main features of the LLRWPAA include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

a 7-year interim access period consisting of a

4-year transition period and a 3-year licensing

period,

disposal site volume limits and reactor volume

allocations,

escalating surcharges to encourage volume

reduction and disposal facility development,

milestones and deadlines for new disposal

facility development,

surcharge rebates to encourage disposal facility

development, and

penalties for failure to meet milestones.

4S(ates that do not bc]ong to a compact are known as unaffiliated st~cs.
32 . Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Table 2-l-Milestones and Deadlines in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985

Milestone

Requirement Penalty

July 1, 1966

Each unaffiliated State must

join a compactor indicate the

intent to develop a site for

LLW within the State.

January 1, 1988

Each compact without an operating disposal facility must

identify a host State or select

a facility developer and location-

-and must have developed a

siting plan. Each unaffiliated

State must also have developed a siting plan.

January 1, 1990

Each compact without an operating facility and unaffiliated State must submit a

complete LLW license application to operate a disposal

facility, or the Governor of

each State must provide a

written certification to the NRC

that the State will provide for

storage or disposal of LLW

generated after December 31,

1992.

January 1, 1992

Each compact without an operating facility and unaffiliated State must submit a

complete license application

to operate a LLW disposal

facility.

2 x the surcharge ($20/cubic

foot) for the period July 1,

1986, through Dec. 31, 1986

Access to existing disposal

sites may be denied after

Jan. 1, 1987.

2 x the surcharge ($40/cubic

foot) for the period Jan. 1,

1988, through June 30,1988.

4 x the surcharge ($80/cubic

foot) for the period July 1,

1988, through Dec. 31, 1988.

Access to existing disposal

sites may be denied after

January 1, 1989.

Access to existing disposal

sites may be denied after

Jan. 1, 1990.

3 x the surcharge ($120/

cubic foot maximum) for the

period Jan. 1,1992, until complete application is filed or

until Dec. 31, 1992.

Deadline

Requirement Penalty

January 1, 1993

Each compact without an operating facility and unaffiliated State must provide for

the disposal of all applicable

LLW, including mixed LLW

generated within such State

or compact region, or the

rebate monies due the State

may be returned to generators

incrementally.

January 1, 1996

Each compact without an operating facility and unaffiliated State must provide for

the disposal of all applicable

LLW, including mixed LLW,

generated within the State or

compact region, or each State

must assume title, possession, and liability for the LLW

generated within the State.

1/36 of the rebates collected

for the period Jan. 1, 1990,

through Dec. 31, 1992, returned to generators monthly

with interest.

Rebates to generators continue until Jan. 1, 1996, or

until State provides for disposal.

SOURCE: Afton Associates, 1989.

As a result of the LLRWPA of 1980, the

LLRWPAA of 1985, and the subsequent compact

consent legislation, there are now 9 compacts with

a total membership of 43 States. Seven States are

presently unaffiliated with a compact, as are the

District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, both of which are given the same

responsibilities as States under the Federal legislation. The State of Washington has decided to

continue as the host State for the Northwest Compact and plans to continue using the existing LLW

disposal site near Hanford, WA, as the region’s

disposal facility. The existing disposal facilities in

Barnwell, SC, for the Southeast Compact and in

Beatty, NV, for the Rocky Mountain Compact are

scheduled to close on or before January 1, 1993.

Prior to their closure, a new disposal facility is

planned to be operational in each compact (i.e., in

North Carolina and Colorado respectively).

Except for a compact’s selection of a host State,

all other major decisions regarding facility development and regulation are the responsibility of the host

State or site operator, depending on host State

requirements. As a result, most host States have

devised unique approaches to siting that are tailored

to address State-specific concerns, In many cases,

the resultant State laws and regulations have been

developed with extensive public input and are more

stringent and comprehensive than Federal requirements. Because of this diversity of approaches and

requirements, each host State’s progress must be

evaluated within the context of its individual requirements, procedures, and timetables.
Chapter 2--Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response ● 33

STATE AND COMPACT

RESPONSE TO FEDERAL

LEGISLATION

The history of each compact’s formation and the

efforts of each compact and unaffiliated State to

develop new LLW disposal facilities is traced

below. Unique aspects of each compact’s and State’s

siting program are highlighted, such as benefit

packages and compensation measures that were

particularly influenced by public input, Each compact and unafiliated State is proceeding on different

internal schedules for having disposal capacity

available by the January 1, 1996, deadline.

Sited Compacts

Northwest Compact

Member States: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,

Oregon, Utah, Washington

Host State: Washington

The Richland, WA disposal site has operated

since 1965. Through the work of the Radioactive

Waste Committee of the Western Interstate Energy

Board, Washington and other Western States negotiated a compact that eventually included five Northwestern States plus Alaska and Hawaii. With the

seven compact States’ total waste volume constituting about 7 percent of the Nation’s total in 1980,5

Washington agreed to serve as the host State for an

indefinite period, providing certain assurances were

met by the other member States. The Northwest

Compact was ratified by the compact States in 1981,

submitted to Congress in 1982, and approved by

Congress shortly thereafter.

The Northwest Compact set criteria under which

it would consider entering into a contract with an

unaffiliated State to dispose of its waste. The criteria

include that a State cannot be a member of any

compact that was ratified as of April 23, 1987; it

cannot generate more than a 1,000 cubic feet of LLW

annually; and it must be contiguous to a Compact

member State.

The operator of the Northwest Compact’s disposal site, US Ecology, Inc., explored the profitability of adding a mixed LLW disposal facility to the

Hanford, WA site, to receive the Compact’s mixed

LLW and out-of-region mixed LLW. However, with

Washington’s policy to accept no out-of-region

LLW, including mixed LLW, after 1992, US Ecology, Inc. found that the Compact would generate

insufficient volumes of mixed LLW to justify the

development and operating costs. The Compact is

currently studying other options for managing its

mixed LLW. It has conducted two regional surveys

of potential mixed LLW generators to determine the

volumes of mixed LLW generated and stored and to

determine waste minimization and treatment practices used by the generators.

As of November 1989, the Compact had made no

provisions for mixed LLW disposal. Since the

milestones in the LLRWPAA are for States that do

not have access to a site, Governors’ certifications

from the Northwest Compact States will not be

required. The State is working on the national mixed

LLW problem, to understand and resolve the problems that are hindering States from managing their

mixed LLW.

Recognizing that at some point its LLW disposal

site will be closed and to ensure that the necessary

funds are available for its closure. the State of

Washington commissioned a two-phase study to

develop design specifications and cost estimates for

closure. The State has studied financial assurance

requirements for liability and cleanup associated

with LLW management activities. The State is also

attempting to ascertain the volumes, types, and curie

content of the LLW disposed of at the site, which has

been operated since 1965.

Rocky Mountain Compact

Member States: New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada

Current Host State: Nevada

Future Host State: Colorado

The State of Nevada used to some degree the

Western Interstate Energy Board. as did Washington, to assist in the negotiation of a compact. Prior

to passage of the LLRWPAA. Nevada had taken

about 8 percent of the Nation’s total LLW—the

smallest percentage of the three sited States. Nevada

was interested in taking an even smaller amount of

waste and, therefore, selected as compact partners

several of the lowest volume producers in the

sThi~ 7 ~rcent “~1~~ d~~ no( represent [he ~oi~ waste volume from tie NatI~n being accept~ at tie Richl~d si[e In 1980; the site W&S acccpling

about 12 percent of the Nation’s LLW.
34 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

country. While Nevada agreed to continue to serve

as the host State temporarily, the compact did

include a mechanism for selecting a successor host

State. Nevada required that only States that generate

more than 20 percent of the compact’s waste would

be required at some point to serve as the region’s

host State. Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and

New Mexico were all originally eligible to join the

Compact.

Arizona decided not to join the Rocky Mountain

Compact. Arizona had several large nuclear power

plants scheduled to come online in the late 1980s;

therefore, it would be generating large volumes of

LLW and would doubtless have been designated as

one of the region’s successor host States. Colorado,

as the largest producer of commercial LLW among

the member States, was selected as the next host

State. Nevada intends to close the Beatty site at the

end of 1992, when Colorado will take over as host

State for the Compact.

During the transition period through 1992, the

Rocky Mountain Compact has agreed to take waste

from small unaffiliated States. In 1987, the Compact

signed contracts with Rhode Island and the District

of Columbia to accept their waste through 1989. In

August 1989, the Compact Board approved the

renewal of its contracts with Rhode Island and the

District and approved new contracts with Vermont,

New Hampshire, Maine, and Puerto Rico to accept

their LLW through 1992.

The future host State, Colorado, has adopted

siting legislation, and the State Geologic Survey has

completed an initial study of the entire State which

indicates that six areas of the State appear suitable

for further investigation.

In 1988 the Umetco Corp., a subsidiary of Union

Carbide, announced its proposal to develop a

disposal site near Uravan, CO, for the radium waste

from the cleanup of Superfund sites in Denver. At

the same time, Umetco also submitted a conceptual

design for a LLW disposal facility to be co-located

with the radium waste disposal site. The LLW site

would accept Class A, B, and C LLW for disposal in

mined tunnel cavities in a shale formation. Umetco

proposed to license these facilities in two phases;

first it would seek a license for the radium disposal

in an above-grade disposal facility, and second it

would pursue a license amendment to develop the

mined cavity disposal site for Class A, B, and C

LLW. The second phase would only occur if the

company determined that sufficient quantities of

LLW were generated in the region to make the

operation economically feasible.

Since receiving this proposal, the State of Colorado has issued a license for the radium waste

facility. However. because the Rocky Mountain

Compact legislation defines LLW to include radium

waste, any site licensed to accept radium waste

generated in the Compact must also be designated as

a regional LLW facility by the Compact Board. The

Colorado Department of Health petitioned the Compact Board to designate the Umetco site as a regional

facility and on May 8, 1989, the Compact Board

approved Colorado’s petition. However, the facility

will likely not be constructed because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is responsible for deciding where to dispose of the radium

waste from the Denver Superfund sites, has contracted to ship it to a site in Utah,

Other private companies have been interested in

developing a LLW disposal facility in Colorado, but

no formal proposals have been made as of November

1989. The State and Compact are reviewing other

options for providing disposal capacity for the

region’s LLW after the Nevada site closes at the end

of 1992, but no decisions have been made. Both

Colorado and the Compact Board are concerned that

the region does not generate enough commercial

LLW to justify development of a new LLW disposal

facility.

As of November 1989, the Compact had made no

provisions for mixed LLW disposal. Since the

milestones in the LLRWPAA are for States without

access to a site, Governor certifications from the

Rocky Mountain Compact States will not be required.

If a LLW facility is developed in Colorado, the

site operator will pay the host county or municipality

a 2 percent gross receipt tax. Since the State

government would own the property, the licensee

would not be paying any property taxes. The gross

receipt tax would be in lieu of such property taxes.

One percent of the gross receipts are to be paid to the

State’s General Fund.

Southeast Compact

Member States: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, South Carolina, North

Carolina
Chapter 2---Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response ● 35

Current Host State—South Carolina

Future Host State—North Carolina

In 1980, South Carolina received 80 percent of

the Nation’s commercial LLW. Intent on reducing

both the amount of waste accepted and the time

during which the State would have to continue

serving as a host State, South Carolina initiated

compact negotiations with other Southeastern

States. Prior to these discussions, South Carolina

announced that it was reducing by 50 percent the

volume of waste it would accept annually at the site

in Barnwell. Furthermore, it announced that it would

close the site at Barnwell on December 31, 1992.

Provisions to select a successor host State were,

therefore, included in compact negotiations. Host

State selection was based on criteria such as the

volume and radioactivity of commercial LLW generated over a set number of past years, projected

future waste volumes, and transportation distances.

After lengthy negotiations. in September 1986 the

Southeast Compact Commission chose North Carolina as the successor host State.

North Carolina’s designation has been hotly

debated in the State’s General Assembly as anticompact groups have lobbied heavily for North

Carolina to withdraw from the Compact. Numerous

bills have been introduced which, if passed, would

require North Carolina to withdraw from the Compact and develop a LLW disposal facility only for

North Carolina’s LLW.

To help persuade North Carolina to remain within

the Compact and to host the disposal facility, the

Compact amended its legislation to limit the term of

the host State to 20 years or 32 million cubic feet of

LLW received for disposal. whichever comes first,

and restrict to 30 days the ability of party States to

withdraw from the Compact after commencement of

disposal operations. As a condition for remaining in

the Compact, this legislation requires that the party

States adopt these amendments as part of their

Compact legislation by 1990 and requires congressional approval of these amendments to the Compact

by 1992. The legislatures of each member State have

adopted the required changes, and congressional

action is expected on the amendments during 1989.

North Carolina agreed to remain in the Compact

and passed legislation establishing the North Carolina LLW Management Authority and a process for

siting a LLW disposal facility for the Southeast

Compact. The Authority is responsible for site

selection and facility development, operation. and

closure. It has selected a facility developer/operator—

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.—to design, operate,

and close the facility. North Carolina has passed

legislation prohibiting shallow-land burial as a

disposal design (see ch. 6 for a description of

shallow-land burial), Furthermore, the design must

use engineered barriers, and the bottom of the waste

disposal facility must be no less than 7 feet above the

seasonal high water table.

While Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. will be responsible for site characterization, the Authority will

select candidate sites and the preferred site on which

the developer will base the license application. As of

June 1989, the Authority had conducted two phases

of its preliminary site screening work with the

assistance of a private contractor and had eliminated

all but 9.5 percent of the State land area as

potentially suitable. The Authority plans to name at

least two candidate sites for characterization by late

1989, A final site is to be selected in November

1990. The target date for facility operation is January

1, 1993,

As of November 1989, the Compact had made no

provisions for mixed LLW disposal. Since the

milestones in the LLRWPAA are for States without

access to a disposal site, Governor certifications

from the Southeast Compact States will not be

required.

The North Carolina Radiation Protection Commission adopted regulations for LLW disposal in

1987 with considerable input from statewide environmental groups and LLW generators. The regulations will be used by the Division of Radiation

Protection in the Department of Environment,

Health, and Natural Resources to license and regulate the disposal facility since North Carolina is an

Agreement State.

The State siting legislation provides extensive

opportunities for public participation and gives

potential host communities the option of appointing

local review committees to receive grants from the

State of up to $50.000 per site, to review the State’s

siting efforts. Once a final site is selected and a

license application submitted, the host community

may appoint a local review committee, which is

eligible to receive $100,000 from the State to hire

independent experts to review the license application. The legislation provides for a 2.5 percent gross
36 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

receipts tax and for payments in lieu of property

taxes, since the land would be owned by the State.

The governing body of the host community may also

impose a privilege license tax on the facility to cover

any costs incurred due to the presence of the facility.

Finally, the local government may submit concerns

it has to the Governor’s Waste Management Board

for arbitration.

The Authority has hired a number of public

information and public participation staff members

and has sponsored over 25 community forums

throughout the State. The Authority is also encouraging communities to volunteer for consideration as

a host community and has received inquiries from

several local governments.

To cover all costs incurred by the State related to

the LLW disposal facility, disposal fees will be set

and collected by the Authority. Until the disposal

facility is operational, however, it is unclear how

North Carolina will finance facility development.

Monies have been appropriated from the State’s

General Fund and the Authority has proposed a

surcharge of Southeast Compact generators to cover

prelicensing expenses. The Compact also granted

North Carolina $200,000 in 1988 to offset the

Authority’s operating expenses,

Compacts Without Access to a Disposal Site

The majority of States that did not become

members of one of the three sited State compacts

have formed compacts with States in a similar

position rather than remain unaffiliated. States

without access to a site saw three main advantages

to this approach. First, by being in a compact, States

have the absolute legal authority to exclude waste

from outside of their compact. Second, there are

substantial economic advantages with larger disposal sites (see ch. 6 on disposal costs). Third,

compacts may rotate among members the role of

host State, while going it alone commits a State to

hosting a site indefinitely.

Appalachian Compact

Member States: Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania

Host State: Pennsylvania

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was a longtime participant in negotiations for a Northeast

Compact, but the State decided to withdraw because

it saw the compact as unwieldy given its size and the

number of competing political concerns. Recognizing that it was a major generator of LLW, Pennsylvania decided to host a disposal facility. Initially,

Pennsylvania negotiated a compact with bordering

States with the provision that any States joining the

new compact would have to develop a site at some

point if the State generated more than 25 percent of

the compact’s LLW. Agreeing to this provision,

Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia (all small

LLW-generating States) signed on to the Appalachian Compact.

The Appalachian Compact was adopted by Pennsylvania in December 1985 and was adopted shortly

thereafter by the other member States. The Compact

was submitted to Congress and signed into law on

May 19, 1988. Even prior to congressional ratification, Pennsylvania began preparing for site selection

and the choice of a suitable technology.

With much input from a Public Advisory Committee, public meetings, and submitted public comments and suggestions, Pennsylvania passed its

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act in

February 1988. This law establishes the process for

developing a LLW disposal site and assigns overall

program responsibility to the Department of Environmental Resources (DER). These responsibilities

include regulatory development; operator selection;

oversight of facility development, licensing, regulation, inspection, operation, and closure; and approval of transferring the disposal facility responsibility, on closure, to the Commonwealth Custodial

Agency.

To enable DER to license and regulate a LLW

disposal site in Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth

plans to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the regulatory authority. The Commonwealth initially plans to apply for limited

Agreement State status for regulating only LLW

disposal (not treatment or storage) and expects NRC

to delegate this authority to DER in the near future,

pending final adoption of State LLW disposal

regulations. These regulations were proposed in July

1988 and were finalized in April 1989. They

conform to NRC’s LLW disposal regulations where

necessary and include requirements on site selection

procedures, siting criteria, facility design criteria,

operator licensing, permitting and licensing fees,

and financial assurance and liability mandated by

the LLW Disposal Act.
Chapter 2—Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response ● 37

The Pennsylvania Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Act also assigns the responsibility for

adopting the regulations proposed by the DER to the

Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB).

This adoption is the final step needed for the State to

apply for limited Agreement State status. Once this

step is completed the EQB must determine whether

the three potentially suitable sites meet these siting

regulations before a detailed siting study can begin.

To help review proposed regulations, operator

selection, and other program decisions, the law also

establishes a permanent 23-member LLW Advisory

Committee comprised of citizens, public interest

groups, generators, and legislators.

The DER selected an operator-license designee,

responsible for site selection; license application

preparation; and facility construction, operation, and

closure in July 1989. Once a contract has been

signed, the site operator will begin screening the

State for potentially suitable areas. The DER estimates that three potentially suitable sites will be

selected by December 1990 for submission to the

EQB. Therefore, the Appalachian Compact member

States will have to submit Governors’ certifications

for their LLW, including their mixed LLW, to meet

the LLRWPAA January 1, 1990, milestone. Following the selection of three potential sites, the operator

will characterize them and choose one on which to

base its application for a LLW disposal facility

license. The final site is expected to be selected and

a license application to be submitted to DER by

mid-1992. After issuance of the license in mid-1994,

facility construction will begin. The facility is

expected to be online in mid-1995.

All costs for facility development and operation

are to be borne by the generators. DER has proposed

legislation in Pennsylvania to assess fees on generators in each member State to help offset the costs of

Phase 1 of facility development--costs incurred

until the license application is submitted.

The Pennsylvania LLW Disposal Act and the

LLW Management and Disposal Regulations include several unique requirements that reflect extensive public input and the General Assembly’s goal

to go beyond the minimum Federal requirements

regarding technology selection, financial assurances

and liability, and benefits to host communities.

Specifically, the statute prohibits the use of shallowland burial and requires that the facility be abovegrade unless other designs provide significant improvements in protecting public health and the

environment. The statute establishes a goal for a

‘‘zero release capacity’ facility, which will be

implemented through ALARA (as low as reasonably

achievable) considerations and through a regulatory

requirement for corrective action to abate the source

of radiation in the event that off site radiation

measures exceed natural background levels. The

DER has developed regulations and design criteria

that provide for enhanced containment and recoverability.

With respect to financial assurances and liability,

the Pennsylvania LLW Disposal Act requires the

facility operator to maintain insurance coverage or

some other financial assurance approved by DER to

provide third-party liability coverage for damage

claims resulting from facility operations. The minimum amount of liability specified in the law is equal

to the capital cost of the facility. There is no limit to

the operator’s liability if it can be shown that the

operator acted in a negligent, willful, reckless, or

intentional manner. In all other claims for damages,

the operator’s cumulative liability is limited to $100

million plus the amount of insurance required by the

DER. The operator is also required by statute to

collect a disposal surcharge during operation of the

facility to contribute to the Regional Facility Protection Fund (specified at $100 million) which will be

used to cover any third-party damage claims against

the facility. Most significantly on liability, the

statute includes the controversial ‘‘rebuttable presumption’ provision which presumes that the operator is liable and responsible for all damages and

radioactive contamination within 3 miles of the

facility boundary without proof of fault, negligence,

or causation. To rebut the presumption of liability,

the operator must prove that: 1) the operator did not

contribute to the damage, 2) the radioactive contamnation existed prior to any disposal operations, 3)

the landowner refused to allow the operator to

conduct a pre-operational survey. or 4) the contamination occurred as a result of some cause other than

facility operations. American Nuclear Insurers, which

insures the three currently operating LLW disposal

sites against third-party claims, has expressed reservations about providing insurance coverage under

these circumstances.

The law offers benefits and compensation to local

host communities. It provides for direct economic

incentives to potential host municipalities and counties and benefits for affected municipalities or
38 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

counties, as well as extensive local involvement and

oversight in facility development and operation.

When the site developer submits three potentially

suitable sites to the EQB, the DER is required to

provide up to $100,000 per site to each host

municipality and county to evaluate the proposed

sites. The DER then presents its findings to the EQB

for consideration. On receipt of a license application,

DER must provide funds up to $150,000 to the host

municipality and county to conduct an independent

evaluation of the license application. The statute

also provides for the host municipality and county to

appoint one representative each to the LLW Advisory Committee created by the law. Other municipalities may also petition the DER to be designated

as an affected municipality, or the DER may

designate affected municipalities in the absence of a

petition.

The law further requires that the operator establish

a reasonable disposal surcharge, with the approval of

DER, to provide monies for local oversight and

control and direct payments to the host municipality,

host county, and affected municipalities.

The governing bodies of the host and affected

municipalities are granted exclusive power and

authority to determine how the funds are to be spent.

For example, monies are available to hire two

full-time inspectors for both the host municipality

and county; these inspectors are given the right of

independent access to inspect any and all records

and activities at the site and to carry out joint

inspections with DER officials. DER must respond

immediately to any emergency complaint of the host

inspector and within 24 hours to any written

complaint. The local inspectors also have the

authority to temporarily shut down the facility

pending an investigation by DER, which will retain

the ultimate authority for requiring the facility to

cease operations. Monies are also available to train

and to equip first-responders to handle emergencies

at the facility or on the transportation routes serving

the site. Monies are also available to support affected

county emergency planning, training, and central

dispatch facilities to handle emergencies at the

facility.

Also included in the law is a property purchase

program that guarantees property owners, within 2

miles of the facility boundary, the property value

established immediately prior to the operator’s

submission of potentially suitable sites. This property value is guaranteed for a 2-year period starting

on the date the facility license is issued and must be

paid by the site operator if a landowner decides to

sell his or her land. In addition, school district and

property taxes for individuals whose primary residence is within 2 miles of the facility will be paid for

the duration of the facility’s operational life.

In addition to these compensations, the law

requires the operator to provide for an independent

surface water, plant, and soil sampling program for

areas within 3 miles of the site boundary and

independent continuous air, well water, surface

water, and soil sampling at the facility boundary.

Results from these sampling programs must be

provided to the host county and municipality, to

affected municipalities, landowners, home-owners,

and to DER. Furthermore, prior to waste acceptance

at the facility, and every 3 years thereafter, the

operator must provide health surveys related to

cancer and other disease rates and to birth defects for

the population within a 5-mile radius of the facility.

The operator is also required to offer, free of charge,

whole-body radioactivity readings and other tests

for the presence of internal radioactive emitters to all

permanent residents within the host municipality or

within a 5-mile radius of the facility boundary.

Central Interstate Compact

Member States: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana,

Oklahoma, Nebraska

Host State: Nebraska

The membership of the Central Interstate Compact is composed of States that generally were not

included in the membership of other compacts

surrounding the region. While several member

States of the Central Interstate Compact are affiliated with the Southern States Energy Board, South

Carolina was not interested in including them in the

Southeastern Compact. Other Central Interstate

Compact members were not included in the Midwest

Compact or the Rocky Mountain Compact. The

Southern States Energy Board did, however, assist

the Central Interstate members in negotiating the

provisions of their compact.

The Central Interstate Compact was ratified by its

five member States in 1982 and submitted to

Congress. It was ratified along with six other

compacts with the passage of the LLRWPAA in

1985. The Central Interstate Compact was unique

among all compacts in the powers that it gave the
Chapter 2—Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response ● 39

compact commission and the site developer. As

originally envisioned, the compact commission

would have reviewed site-specific plans submitted

by commercial site developers. In other words, in

choosing a site developer, the commission would

simultaneously select the host State and the host

community. Opposition to this one-step process and

a desire for more participation by the public and the

member States led to a revision of the original

procedures. Under the revised plan, the commission

would select a site developer, and the site developer

in turn would recommend a host State. After these

decisions, the designated host State and the site

developer would work together to nominate host

sites.

In accordance with this plan, the Central Interstate

Compact Commission picked US Ecology, Inc. in

June 1987 as the site developer for the region. US

Ecology, Inc. recommended Nebraska for the region’s host State. The Compact Commission approved this recommendation and named Nebraska as

the host State in late 1987. Nebraska Governor Kay

Orr established several conditions under which the

State would accept this responsibility. These conditions were enacted into law by the State legislature

as part of the Nebraska Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Act in April 1988. which was

amended in May 1989.

The legislation designates the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (DEC) as the lead

agency for overseeing the siting and licensing of the

LLW disposal facility, including the development of

siting criteria and disposal facility design requirements. The Radiological Health Division of the

Department of Health is also assigned responsibility, as the State’s designated Agreement State

agency. for regulating the facility in coordination

with DEC. The two agencies will Jointly monitor

and inspect the facility once operational. US Ecology, Inc. is responsible for promoting facility

development, including site characterization, site

selection, facility design, license application preparation, and facility operation and closure.

Legislation failed to pass that would have required local voter approval of any LLW disposal

facility sited in Nebraska. This legislation was an

outgrowth of a 1988 statewide ballot initiative for a

binding referendum which, if passed, would have

required the State to withdraw from the Compact and

would have required that any LLW disposal site in

Nebraska be approved by voters at both the statewide and local levels. Compact and siting opponents

were successful in putting the initiative on the

November 1988 ballot. They failed, however, to

generate sufficient support to pass the referendum,

which was defeated by a 64 to 36 percent margin.

During this political activity. US Ecology, Inc.

formed a Citizens Advisory Committee to provide

input into the development of site selection criteria

and the site selection process.

Since the Nebraska LLW Disposal Act directs the

site developer/operator to seek sites actively in areas

where the community has expressed positive interest

in hosting the facility, US Ecology, Inc. began its

search by asking for interested communities to

volunteer for preliminary site screening. Twentyone counties and 54 communities responded by

passing resolutions asking to be considered in the

preliminary siting study. In January 1989, US

Ecology, Inc. narrowed down the number of potential sites to three, where detailed characterization

studies would be conducted. The three sites are

located in Nemaha, Nuckolls, and Boyd counties

and were selected based on their technical merits as

determined by preliminary site studies of their

geology, topography, groundwater, surface water.

and other environmental characteristics. US Ecology, Inc. has obtained options to purchase the sites,

and field work for their characterization began in

April 1989.

Nebraska’s most recent timetable for facility

development indicates that a license application will

be submitted to the DEC in mid-1990. Therefore, the

Central Interstate Compact member States will have

to submit Governors’ certifications for their LLW,

including their mixed LLW, to meet the LLRWPAA

January 1, 1990, milestone. Once the license application has been submitted, it is expected to take

approximately 1 year to review it, with license

approval expected by mid-to-late 1991. Construction by US Ecology, Inc. will commence following

license approval, and the facility is expected to be

operational by the beginning of 1993.

As with Pennsylvania’s law. the Nebraska LLW

Disposal Act as amended includes several requirements that reflect extensive public input regarding

technology selection, financial assurances and liability, and benefits to host communities. Specifically, the law prohibits the use of shallow-land burial

(as practiced prior to 1979) as a disposal technology
40 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

in Nebraska and requires that the disposal cells be

built above-grade and that they be designed to meet

the State’s zero-release objectives. Regulations issued by the DEC require the site developer/operator

to submit a design for an above-grade disposal unit

that incorporates one or more engineered barrier(s)

to isolate the waste from the environment.

US Ecology, Inc. submitted a conceptual disposal

design for reinforced below-ground concrete vaults

(see ch. 6 for a description of this type of design) in

its original proposal. The design was reviewed by all

member States and was considered an important

factor in selecting a developer/operator. Following

the Compact’s selection of US Ecology, Inc. and the

designation of Nebraska as the host State, workshops were conducted in the State to review US

Ecology, Inc. ’s conceptual design. Public comments

received during the workshops indicated strong

preferences for an above-grade facility, concrete

engineered barriers, and extensive monitoring requirements to ensure immediate detection of any

releases from the disposal unit. These suggestions

and others have been incorporated as regulatory

requirements and as part of US Ecology, Inc. final

facility design. Nebraska intends to develop disposal

capacity for mixed LLW using a very similar

disposal technology design, which key State officials feel will adequately address disposal requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA).

As in other States where shallow-land burial is

prohibited by law, public input has been a crucial

element in the disposal technology selection process

in Nebraska. According to State officials, the effort

to address public concerns regarding disposal technology designs has increased public acceptance of

the facility’s design and reduced public concerns

regarding the adequacy of the technology.

Public input resulted in the inclusion of several

other technical requirements in the Nebraska LLW

Disposal Act. For example, no decommissioning

waste may be disposed of at the regional facility

without DEC’s special approval; Class C LLW must

be managed separately and stored or disposed of in

a retrievable form, and mixed LLW must be treated

to the maximum extent practicable prior to disposal.

With respect to liability, the law requires that the

Legislature’s Judiciary Committee conduct a study

of liability issues related to the disposal of LLW and

report its recommendations by November 1, 1989.

In addition to Nebraska’s community consent

policy and its efforts to solicit public input on

disposal facility designs, the State has adopted

additional provisions establishing local oversight

committees (called monitoring committees), benefits packages, and compensation measures for potential host communities:

●

●

●

●

●

●

$l00,000 per site is provided to fund the

activities of local monitoring committees during site characterization, and $100,000 per year

is provided for the local monitoring committee

in the county selected to host the site.

Local monitoring committees have access to all

monitoring data and have authority to contract

with independent technical experts during site

characterization and with a qualified inspector

(with independent access to the facility) during

operations.

A formula is established for allocating the

Community Improvements Fund, monies that

are provided by the Compact member States

and are used as incentives to compensate

potential host municipalities, neighboring municipalities within 6 miles of the proposed site,

and the remaining political subdivisions of the

counties in which proposed sites are located.

The developer/operator will collect $2 million

annually through waste disposal fee surcharges

to fund the Community Improvements Fund

during the operational life of the facility.

The DEC must annually offer to sample and

analyze well and surface water and any domestic water supply and to test agricultural products at no cost to landowners adjacent to the

facility boundary.

Property owners within 3 miles of the disposal

site are guaranteed compensation for any loss in

property values caused by the location of the

facility for up to 5 years after the site becomes

operational.

While the State legislature is still refining the role

of the local monitoring committees and the allocation formula for the benefit packages, both the State

and site operator are committed to these innovative

programs to increase public acceptance. Another

incentive to hosting the disposal site is its impact on

the local economy, US Ecology estimates that the

local economy could be stimulated by as much as $3

million to $6 million annually.
Chapter 2—Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response ● 41

Central Midwest Compact

Member States: Illinois, Kentucky

Host State: Illinois

The first negotiations for a compact in the

Midwest involved a large number of States, with

attendance sometimes including representatives from

as far away as North Dakota and Maryland. Eventually, a core group of States emerged to pursue final

negotiations.

Since there was no operating commercial LLW

disposal facility in the Midwest, a major topic of

discussion was the criteria for choosing the region’s

host State. Because Illinois generated most of the

region’s waste and was centrally located, most

observers assumed that Illinois would be selected as

the first host State. Influential members of the

Illinois Legislature made that assumption and amended

the compact to reflect their concerns. They insisted

that if other Midwestern States wanted Illinois to

remain as a participant in the compact, the other

member States should adopt the Illinois version of

the compact, especially the provision requiring

shared liability among all party States in the event of

site-related remediation costs. None of the other

Midwestern States, however, would adopt the Illinois amendments,

The result of the impasse between Illinois and the

other Midwestern States was the submission to

Congress of two compacts-a Central Midwest

Compact composed of Illinois and Kentucky and a

Midwest Compact consisting of eight other Midwestern States (see following discussion of the

‘ ‘Midwest Compact’ ‘). The Central Midwest Compact agreed that Illinois will always serve as its host

State as long as Kentucky disposes of less than 10

percent of the total LLW from the compact.

The Illinois LLW Management Act, passed in

1983, designated the Illinois Department of Nuclear

Safety (IDNS) as the lead agency for site development in Illinois, with responsibility for site selection, licensing, and regulation of the facility. IDNS

began the siting process by requesting counties to

indicate their interest and, then, by screening potentially suitable areas in 21 counties for exclusionary

and favorability factors. By early 1988, IDNS had

announced 60 candidate sites in 17 counties from the

original 21, Under Illinois law, IDNS can study any

site, but a site cannot be selected without approval of

the affected county or municipality,

After results of the initial screening activity were

published, all of the 21 counties withdrew from the

process. However, outside of the 21 counties

screened, the Martinsville City Council, the Wayne

County Board, and community leaders in Monmouth (Warren County) requested that IDNS select

and study potentially suitable sites within their

jurisdictions. Martinsville is located in Clark County,

where the County Commissioners voted 4 to 3

against further siting studies by IDNS. However,

because some potentially suitable Clark County sites

fell within the City of Martinsville’s jurisdiction,

IDNS was able to select sites in the area based on the

City Council’s request.

IDNS ultimately identified two sites near Martinsville and two sites in Wayne County for detailed

study. One Wayne County site was dropped from

consideration because IDNS was unable to reach

voluntary agreements with local al landowners for

access to the site and was unwilling to exercise its

statutory authority to enter properties with only

written notice. Field work has been completed at one

site adjacent to Martinsville and at the remaining site

in Wayne County, and the second Martinsville site

has been held in reserve. The Director of IDNS plans

to select a final site by November 1989, based on the

findings from the site studies.

In May 1988, IDNS entered into a contract with

Westinghouse Electric Corp. as the facility developer/

operator. In early May 1989, however, Westinghouse Electric Corp. expressed concern over the

issues of facility financing, operator liability, and

facility ownership, and Westinghouse Electric Corp.

notified IDNS of its intention to cease work. IDNS

subsequently contracted with Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. to design, finance, construct, and operate

the facility. IDNS expects to receive a license

application from Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. in

time for the January 1, 1990, milestone. To meet this

milestone, however, Governors’ certifications for

mixed LLW will be required from both Illinois and

Kentucky. Once the license is issued, Chem-Nuclear

Systems, Inc. will be responsible for constructing,

operating, and closing the facility. IDNS’s current

schedule calls for the license to be issued in 1991

with the facility construction to begin shortly

thereafter. The facility should be operational well

before the January 1, 1993, deadline.

Illinois law prohibits the use of shallow-land

burial as a disposal technology for LLW generated
42 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

in the Central Midwest Compact. In March 1988,

IDNS promulgated stringent regulations pertaining

to the design, construction, and operation of a LLW

disposal facility. Particularly significant among

these regulations is a 1 millirem per year exposure

limit, which is more stringent than the 25 millirem

per year exposure limit established by NRC regulations for LLW disposal. To meet these requirements,

Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. will build an abovegrade concrete vault (see ch. 6 for a description of

this design) with the waste packaged in modular

concrete containers. The vaults will be equipped

with leachate collection systems and extensive

monitoring systems to allow for prompt detection of

any releases of radioactivity from the individual

disposal units. As in Nebraska, this design is also

intended to meet RCRA requirements for the disposal of mixed LLW.

To build public support for its siting initiatives,

IDNS has invested considerable resources and staff

time working with statewide environmental groups,

local community leaders, and the media. These

efforts have produced positive results. Environmental groups in the State have generally been

supportive of IDNS’s siting program, since they

were involved in developing siting policies and

disposal regulations through their participation in

the statewide Citizens’ Advisory Group on LLW.

The Citizens’ Advisory Group, which consisted of

representatives from a variety of groups interested in

LLW, employs facilitators from the Conservation

Foundation to build consensus on approaches for

siting and regulating a LLW disposal facility.

IDNS has opened field offices in Martinsville and

Fairfield in Wayne County to establish a presence in

the community and to provide information to

interested citizens. IDNS has adopted a strict policy

of local purchasing for its contractors and itself and

has hired several staff employees from the potential

host communities. IDNS has also supplied local

libraries with a large number of publications and

videotapes on LLW management and has sponsored

tours of operating LLW facilities for interested

members of the community.

IDNS and the Compact have also provided

substantial benefits and compensation packages to

the potential host communities. IDNS officials have

worked closely with locally appointed citizens’

advisory committees in Martinsville and Wayne

County to promote public involvement in the siting

process. In 1988, IDNS approved grants of $500,000

each to Martinsville and Wayne County to hire

consultants to independently review the site characterization work being performed by IDNS’s contractors. The compact Commission also provided grants

of $100,000 to each community to study the

potential socioeconomic impacts associated with a

LLW disposal facility. In addition to the grants for

local review, Martinsville and Wayne County each

received $400,000 in “immediate needs’ grants

from IDNS to be used at the discretion of the local

governing bodies. The grant Martinsville received

for the second site under consideration was originally offered to Clark County, which turned it down

due to continued vocal opposition from a local group

opposed to siting the facility in Clark County.

The community ultimately selected to host the

site will receive approximately $800,000 per year in

direct economic benefits during construction and,

subject to negotiation with IDNS and the facility

operator, over $1 million per year from waste

disposal surcharges collected during the operating

life of the disposal facility. The annual compensation will be adjusted to keep up with inflation.

In addition to the benefit packages, Illinois State

law includes several provisions concerning local

approval and oversight of the disposal facility

operations. In 1988, the LLW Management Act was

amended to clarify the procedures by which the

IDNS must secure the approval of the host community governing body before selecting a final site. The

amendments also give the host community governing body the statutory power to close the facility if

the facility accepts any waste except LLW or mixed

LLW for disposal. LDNS is working with the

communities to negotiate contracts for additional

economic benefits, safeguards, and provisions for

local oversight with the State. The host community

may also hire local inspectors to monitor activities

at the disposal facility.

IDNS’s LLW program and related site development activities are funded by an assessment on

nuclear reactors and nonreactor generators of LLW

in Illinois. IDNS anticipates spending over $50

million by the end of 1992 in program and facility

development costs. A portion of the assessments is

currently being placed in the State’s long-term care

fund, which is expected to reach $4 million to $5

million before the facility opens.
Chapter 2—Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response . 43

As a result of IDNS's comprehensive LLW

management program and its efforts to promote

opportunities for public participation in the siting

process, the siting effort has advanced rapidly in the

State, with IDNS enjoying good relations with most

of the local leaders in the Martinsville community.

While efforts to build working relationships in

Wayne County have been less successful, the

majority of County Commissioners still supports the

ongoing siting activities being conducted by IDNS

and its contractors. A lawsuit requesting an injunction to halt the siting activities in Wayne County was

filed by individual members of a citizens’ opposition

group in Wayne County but does not appear to have

the potential to delay the siting efforts. In late

August 1989, the plaintiffs in that case moved to

dismiss their action. Local nonbinding referenda in

Wayne and Clark counties, held in November 1988,

saw voters in both counties opposing the location of

a LLW disposal site in their counties, but the voters

in the City of Martinsville voted in favor of hosting

the LLW disposal facility.

IDNS has used a combination of statutory and

regulatory requirements supplemented by an active

public involvement program to build a significant

measure of public support for siting a LLW disposal

facility for the Central Midwest Compact in Illinois..

State officials have noted that the up-front benefits

packages, grants for local review, and the local veto

over final site selection have enabled local leaders in

Martinsville and Wayne County to view the siting

process in a positive light. In addition, public tours

of operating facilities have been an important part of

IDNS’s program.

Midwest Compact

Member States: Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan

Host State: Michigan

Based on waste generation volumes and transportation factors developed by the Midwest Compact,

Michigan was chosen as the first host State for the

Compact in June 1987.

Efforts to establish a LLW disposal facility in

Michigan began with the enactment of the Michigan

LLW Authority Act in late 1987. The Act created the

Michigan LLW Authority and set up requirements

for establishing a disposal facility. Unlike most State

siting authorities or commissions, the Michigan

Authority does not have an appointed membership.

Instead, the Authority is headed by a single Commissioner appointed by the Governor with the consent

of the State Senate. To implement the provisions of

the Act the Commissioner is empowered to hire the

necessary staff and contractors.

Under the law, the Authority is responsible for site

selection, license application, facility design. construction, operation, and closure. To fulfill these

responsibilities, the Authority plans to contract with

a site developer/operator who will prepare the

license application and operate and close the site.

The Department of Public Health (DPH) has also

been instructed by the legislature to consider applying to the NRC to obtain limited Agreement State

status in order to license and regulate the LLW

disposal facility. If DPH does not obtain Agreement

State status, the disposal facility will be licensed by

NRC.

The Authority has developed exclusionary screening criteria that eliminated over 95 percent of the

State from further consideration during the first

phase of the siting process. A Public Advisory

Committee was appointed to assist the Authority in

screening the candidate areas and in identifying

three candidate sites on the basis of technical

favorability factors. Three candidate areas were

chosen on October 4, 1989.

The second phase of the process will concentrate

on analyzing these areas and will address technical

requirements for siting, as well as aspects of public

acceptability. Representatives of the Authority plan

to meet with local citizens of the candidate areas to

explain the subsequent site screening steps and to

discern citizens’ concerns. The selection of three

candidate sites for characterization is scheduled for

January 1990. Therefore, the Midwest Compact

member States will have to submit Governors’

certifications for their LLW, including their mixed

LLW, to meet the LLRWPAA January 1, 1990,

milestone. Based on information collected during

site characterization and preliminary performance

assessments, an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) will be prepared, which will serve as the basis

for selecting a preferred site. If the legislature

approves of the preferred site. the Authority or its

designated site developer/operator will prepare a

license application incorporating the EIS. The application will be submitted to DPH and/or NRC

depending on whether or not the State has obtained

Agreement State status for regulating LLW.
44 ● partnerships Under pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

The activities of the Authority are currently

funded by the Compact Commission, which levies

an export fee on waste shipped to the three operating

disposal sites from the region’s nuclear utilities. The

Compact Commission approved $3 million in export

fees to partially fund the Authority’s activities

budget for fiscal year 1988 and $3.6 million for

fiscal year 1989. In the event that Michigan withdraws from the Compact, the Compact and the

utilities have negotiated a guaranty agreement requiring the Michigan utilities to repay export fees

collected by the Compact Commission from utilities

in other member States. Although the affected

parties have agreed to the guaranty agreement, the

Michigan Public Service Commission has yet to

approve provisions for collecting the money for

repayment of the export fees if Michigan withdraws.

The terms of the negotiated guaranty agreement

require that it be in place before additional export fee

funds collected by the Compact are disbursed by the

Compact Commission to the Authority. As of

September 1989, the Commission had transferred $3

million to the Authority. Future transfers are pending final action by the Michigan Public Service

Commission.

Michigan did indeed threaten to withdraw from

the Compact. On January 30, 1989, Michigan

Governor James Blanchard announced that he

planned to introduce legislation to withdraw Michigan unless his fellow compact State Governors

agreed to join him in requesting congressional action

to reduce the number of LLW sites currently planned

and to support amendments to the Midwest Compact

to address Michigan’s concerns regarding shared

liability, financial assurances, and institutional stability. The Governor also announced that he was

directing the Michigan LLW Authority to immediately halt the State’s siting activities until these

issues were resolved.

In response to Governor Blanchard’s actions,

officials in the sited States of Washington, Nevada,

and South Carolina informed the Governor of their

intent to immediately deny Michigan’s LLW generators access to the currently operating sites on the

grounds that suspension of the siting activities put

the State and Compact out of compliance with the

1988 milestone. The three sited States said that

before denying access to generators in the other

Midwest Compact States, they would allow these

States additional time to either address Michigan’s

concerns or to take other action necessary to bring

the Compact back into compliance.

In making his announcement, Governor Blanchard argued that Federal policy for managing LLW

needed reconsideration because significant reductions in LLW volumes coupled with advances in

LLW reduction, treatment, and disposal technologies meant that the 13 sites currently planned for

development were no longer needed for safe disposal of LLW. Regarding amendments to the

Midwest Compact, the Governor stressed the need to

amend the Compact legislation to limit the ability of

member States to withdraw from the Compact and to

impose substantial penalties for withdrawal. The

Governor also called for Compact amendments to

ensure that the party States would share equally in

any financial responsibilities and/or liabilities associated with the construction, operation, closure, and

maintenance of the regional disposal facility.

In response to Governor Blanchard’s request, the

Governors of the Midwest Compact member States

agreed to amend the Compact legislation in areas

suggested by Governor Blanchard. The member

State Governors also agreed to consider any proposals Michigan might advance aimed at reducing the

number of LLW sites currently planned for development around the United States. After receiving the

commitment of his fellow Governors, Blanchard

agreed to resume the activities of the Michigan LLW

Authority. Although this interruption did delay the

siting process in Michigan, the Authority is still

confident that it can meet its January 1990 target

date for identifying three suitable sites for characterization. The Authority is currently reviewing its time

line for facility licensing and construction as well as

other technical criteria and incentive packages

provided for in the legislation. The Authority

expects to develop legislative proposals to update

these requirements and to amend the Compact

legislation.

As is true in many States, Michigan Legislation

prohibits the use of shallow-land burial as a disposal

technology for LLW and requires that the waste be

disposed of in concrete canisters in above-ground or

below-ground engineered vaults (see ch. 6 for a

description of these designs).

If problems occur at the site, the legislation

establishes a Remedial Action Fund of $10 million

to be collected during the operating life of the

facility and a Imng-Term Liability Fund with annual
Chapter 2--Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response ● 45

payments of not less than $500,000 to cover

third-party liability claims. The legislation requires

that $600,000 be deposited annually into the State’s

Long-Term Care Fund.

To provide benefits to the host State and host

community, the legislation requires the Authority to

establish a fee system for the disposal site, Revenues

from this system are to be sufficient to cover any and

all costs associated with the site development,

operation, maintenance, institutional control, and

other expenses incurred by the Authority. In addition, these revenues are to cover the costs of

regulating the facility, the expenses of the Compact

Commission, costs incurred by local monitoring

committees in reviewing facility siting, construction

and operations; and direct, unrestricted economic

benefits to the host State of $500,000 annually and

to the host community amounting to $800,000. The

legislation also provides for collection of disposal

fees to finance an International LLW Research and

Education Institute in the host community. The

Authority has accepted a joint proposal from the

University of Michigan and Michigan State University to develop the Institute.

In addition to the disposal fee, the Authority is

required to impose a 20 percent surcharge on waste

disposal fees to provide additional benefits and

compensation to the State and host community.

Under the legislation, the host community is to

receive, in addition to the direct economic benefits

listed above, 35 percent of the surcharge revenues or

$400,000 per year, whichever is greater, and the host

county is to receive 15 percent of the surcharge

revenues or $300,000, whichever is greater. The

surcharge will also provide equal benefits to municipalities that share a boundary with the host community. Provisions are also made for compensating the

host community and county for any costs associated

with the facility’s development and operation; since

the State will own the property, the licensee will

make payments in lieu of property taxes. The

Michigan Environmental Response Fund and the

Clean Michigan Fund are also to receive 15 percent

each of the 20 percent surcharge.

The Midwest Compact gives final authority over

funding of these incentives to the Compact Commission. The Commission has objected to the magnitude of incentives provided for in the Michigan

statute, and the Commission and the Authority are

currently discussing alternatives,

Northeast Compact

Member States: Connecticut, New Jersey

Host States: Connecticut, New Jersey

Soon after passage of the 1980 LLRWPA, States

in the Northeast began discussions to create a

regional compact. Initially, participants in the discussions represented all States from Maine to

Maryland. State representatives envisioned a largevolume compact along the lines of the Southeast

Compact. Negotiating a Northeast Compact. however, presented a unique challenge in terms of trying

to balance the benefits and obligations of largevolume States versus small-volume States.

Within the Northeast region were three States—

New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania-that

frequently ranked among the top 10 generating

States in the Nation. On the other hand, the region

also contained a number of States that generated

comparatively low volumes of LLW. Considerable

effort was spent trying to arrange an equitable

sharing of the waste disposal and management

burden among the various parties. Large-volume

generating States were concerned that, under any

one-vote/one-State arrangement, the small States

would control the process by which a regional host

State was chosen. Small States for their part worried

about joining a compact where they potentially

could be selected as a host State and would have to

accept volumes of waste annually that were hundreds of times what they would generate in a year.

Some small-volume generating States proposed

that the Northeast Compact draft contain a provision

restricting the siting of a regional waste facility to

States generating more than 20 percent of the

region’s waste. Despite repeated efforts, however,

the majority of participants could not agree on a

mutually acceptable resolution.

Although the Northeast Compact text had been

negotiated, only four States enacted it—

Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.

Since the Compact did not contain any language

exempting small generating States from hosting a

disposal facility, the northern New England States of

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont. and Rhode Island

did not ratify the Compact. The Northeast Compact

was ratified by Congress in 1985, and Delaware and

Maryland chose to withdraw from the Compact and

join the Appalachian Compact. Subsequently, the

two remaining States-Connecticut and New Jersey—
46 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

have examined various ways of equitably distributing the responsibility of establishing a regional

disposal facility. Because each State generates

approximately the same volume and radioactivity of

waste and has similar environmental characteristics,

there was no easy way to choose the initial host

State. The Compact Commission reviewed four

management options for LLW:

1. siting a separate disposal facility in each State

for all classes of LLW,

2. siting a disposal facility in one State for Class

A LLW and a facility in the other State for Class

B and C LLW,

3. developing LLW treatment facilities in one

State and a disposal facility in the other State

for all classes of LLW, and

4. establishing a mixed waste disposal facility in

one State and a disposal facility in the other

State for all classes of LLW.

In spring 1989, the Northeast Compact Commission chose the first option, requiring both States to

develop separate disposal facilities for all classes of

LLW, including mixed LLW. In anticipation of this

choice, both Connecticut and New Jersey had

already named State authorities and siting boards to

establish new LLW disposal sites.

Connecticut-Connecticut has adopted disposal

facility siting legislation and has designated several

State agencies to play a role in the siting process.

Legislation directs the Connecticut Hazardous Waste

Management Service (CHWMS) to develop a LLW

management plan, to characterize the amounts and

types of LLW generated in the region, and to select

the disposal technology for the facility. The CHWMS

is also responsible for selecting a private firm to

develop and operate the facility and for selecting

candidate sites and one preferred site for licensing.

Site selection and licensing will be based on criteria

established by State and Federal agencies, including

the Connecticut Siting Council and the Connecticut

Department of. Environmental Protection (DEP).

The law requires the Siting Council to issue a

certificate of public safety and need and requires

DEP to issue permits before a LLW disposal facility

can be developed on the site selected by CHWMS.

The CHWMS plans to select a facility developer/

operator to prepare the certification document and

license and permit applications. The Commissioner

of Environmental Protection is responsible for

adopting regulations for the construction, operation,

closure, and long-term care of the facility. The Siting

Council is responsible for developing regulations on

siting. Because Connecticut does not plan to apply

for Agreement State status, NRC will be responsible

for licensing and regulating the site.

The CHWMS hopes to issue a request for

proposal for a facility developer/operator in April

1990 and hopes to select a final site for characterization by July 1990. Therefore, Connecticut will file a

Governor’s certification for its LLW waste, including mixed LLW, to meet the LLRWPAA January 1,

1990, milestone. The State’s schedule calls for a

license application to be submitted by the January 1,

1992, deadline and for the site to be online by April

1994.

Legislation has been adopted that establishes a

policy for funding Connecticut’s facility development program. The legislation allows the State to

assess LLW generators a fee (based on volumes of

LLW shipped for disposal) that will produce sufficient revenues to cover the State’s facility development costs incurred until construction begins. The

legislation also includes reporting requirements for

LLW generators and civil penalties for not reporting

or for reporting inaccurate information.

Connecticut saw oversight as critical to site

development and passed legislation establishing an

1 l-member Radioactive Waste Advisory Committee to monitor the siting process. The legislation also

provides for a local project review committee to

represent the host municipality during the facility

development process. Furthermore, it directs the

facility developer to deposit $100,000 with the

Connecticut Siting Council on submission of the

application for a certificate of public safety and

necessity; the money is to be used by the local

project review committee to obtain technical assistance as necessary to review the facility license

application. The facility operator is also responsible

for providing sufficient funds for the host municipality to hire a full-time inspector; in addition, the

operator must pay for annual sampling of drinking

water wells within 1 mile of the facility. The DEP is

responsible for overseeing the drinking water sampling program. Finally, this legislation grants full

access to the facility and to all records to the chief

elected official of the host municipality or his or her

designee.

Provisions are also made in Connecticut’s legislation for incentives and compensation to the host
Chapter 2---Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response ● 47

municipality. The law provides for an adjustable

gross receipts tax of up to 10 percent on facility

revenues to be paid to the host municipality and

requires the facility operator to negotiate a compensation package of up to $150,000 to mitigate any

socioeconomic impacts associated with the facility.

The legislation also requires the facility operator to

make payments to the host municipality in lieu of

property taxes, since the property would be Stateowned. The operator must also guarantee local

residents, within 2 miles of the site, the property

values of their land as they were assessed prior to site

selection. This guarantee lasts 5 years after the site

becomes operational.

New Jersey--In December 1987. the New Jersey

State Legislature passed its Regional Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Siting Act

which established the New Jersey LLW Disposal

Facility Siting Board as an independent agency

housed in the Department of Environmental Protection. The Board is authorized to administer the LLW

siting process, including the selection of a firm to

construct, operate, close, and monitor the regional

disposal facility. The law also establishes the New

Jersey LLW Advisory Committee to advise the

Facility Siting Board in its activities. New Jersey

law prohibits the use of shallow-land burial as a

disposal technology and establishes a standard of

strict, joint, and several liability for the facility

operator.

Members of the Facility Siting Board and Advisory Committee were appointed by Governor Thomas Kean and confirmed by the State Senate in late

1988. Since that time, the groups have been working

to implement their responsibilities under the State

siting law and the Compact legislation. The Advisory Committee has drafted siting criteria for review

by the Board, and the Board is in the process of

hiring staff and has a contractor to provide technical

assistance and to develop a public education program. As required by State law, the Department of

Environmental Protection has surveyed LLW generators in New Jersey to provide information needed

to update the regional management plan. Official

dates and time lines have not been established for

selecting candidate sites or for other critical elements of facility development. New Jersey will have

to file a Governor’s certification for its LLW,

including mixed LLW, to meet (he LLRWPAA

January 1, 1990, milestone. Funding for the State’s

activities is being provided from discretionary funds

in the State budget and from general revenue

appropriations.

The Regional Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Siting Act provides for compensation

to the host municipality. Since the disposal site land

will be State-owned, the site operator must make

payments to the host municipality in lieu of property

taxes. The municipality is also to receive a gross

receipts tax of 5 percent to cover costs associated

with the facility. The Act also exempts the LLW

disposal site host municipality from being considered as a site for a solid waste facility or a major

hazardous waste facility. In addition, municipalities

that currently host solid waste or hazardous waste

facilities are exempted from hosting a regional LLW

disposal facility.

Southwestern Compact

Member States: Arizona, California, North Dakota, South Dakota

Host State: California

Policy makers in California concluded that no

other State was likely to take California’s large

volume of waste and that California should plan to

build its own site. In 1983, California adopted siting

legislation and began the process of establishing a

LLW disposal facility.

As siting efforts progressed, other unaffiliated

Western States, notably Arizona, looked on with

interest. Arizona saw major benefits in a compact

with California because California was already

committed to building a facility and because Arizona had three nuclear reactors coming online in the

next decade. Without access to the California site,

Arizona would probably have to build its own

facility.

Negotiations between California and Arizona

spread over several years. During this time, the

California Legislature debated, at length, the features of a compact. Meanwhile, the Arizona Legislature passed several alternate compacts which included either South Dakota or North Dakota or both

as members.

In July 1988, the California Legislature pained

legislation to create the Southwestern Compact,

which offered membership to Arizona, North Dakota, and South Dakota, After some debate about

Arizona succeeding California as the region’s host

State in 30 years, Arizona agreed to succeed as the
48 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

host and the Arizona Lesislature ratified the compact in June 1988. With two States as members, the

compact was submitted to the Congress for consent.

Congress adopted the Southwestern Compact later

in 1988. In early 1989, both South Dakota and North

Dakota joined the Compact.

Prior to a resolution on these compact negotiations, the State of California passed legislation in

1983 designating the State Department of Health

Services (DHS) as the agency responsible for

licensing and overseeing the development of a LLW

disposal facility. In 1985, the DHS selected US

Ecology, Inc. as its licensee designee to site,

construct, operate, and close the State’s LLW

disposal facility. US Ecology, Inc. began the site

selection process by focusing on 18 desert basins

identified as technically suitable 6 for the safe

disposal of LLW. Then, US Ecology, Inc., with the

assistance of a Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC)

managed by the League of Women Voters of

California, developed siting criteria to exclude

portions of these basins from further consideration

and to designate high avoidance areas. Based on the

input of the CAC and comments from the general

public, the criteria were evaluated for relative

importance and were used by US Ecology, Inc. to

select candidate areas. Public meetings were held in

each of these candidate areas to hear local citizens’

views.

In February 1987, US Ecology announced the

selection of three candidate sites in the southeastern

part of the State. After additional site suitability

studies, US Ecology, Inc. selected a site in Ward

Wiley, 25 miles west of Needles, California, as its

preferred site. DHS expects to receive the license

application from US Ecology, Inc. in November

1989. The Southwestern Compact member States,

therefore, will meet the LLRWPA 1990 milestone

but will have to submit Governors’ certifications for

their mixed LLW since licensing activities for it

have been deferred. The facility for the nonmixed

radioactive LLW is expected to open in mid-1991.

US Ecology, Inc. has proposed to construct a

shallow-land burial facility with certain enhancements required by DHS. Since the preferred site is

also in a habitat of the threatened desert tortoise,

DHS has organized an ad hoc working group to

identify potential impacts and to recommend measures to protect the tortoise population.

Prior to the choice of Ward Valley, local residents

near the three candidate sites were in favor of hosting

the disposal facility because of its direct and indirect

economic benefits (e.g., jobs and associated businesses brought to the area). Neither the State nor US

Ecology, Inc. however, offered any special incentive

packages to the candidate host communities other

than compensation for emergency response needs

and equipment. The Ward Valley community and

statewide environmental groups have voiced some

opposition to the site.

Unaffiliated States

States With Siting Plans: Maine, Massachusetts,

New York, Texas

Maine-In June 1985, an Advisory Commission

was created to advise the Governor and the legislature on radioactive waste management. Despite the

small volume of LLW generated in Maine, legislation was passed in 1986 declaring Maine’s intent to

develop a LLW disposal facility if other means to

satisfactorily manage the State’s LLW are unavailable. In 1987, the State legislature created the Maine

LLW Authority to develop a LLW management plan

and siting process for developing a LLW disposal

facility only for Maine’s LLW. The Authority is

responsible for all aspects of site selection, facility

development, and operation. The Advisory Committee commented on technical siting criteria developed

by the Department of Environmental Protection.

In March 1989, the Authority hired a consultant to

develop a statewide site screening methodology for

the collection and analysis of existing geologic and

environmental data within the State. State law

prohibits shallow-land burial as a disposal technology. The Authority is responsible for evaluating

disposal technology designs and for selecting a final

design in late 1990. The Authority hopes to select a

final site by the end of 1991. The majority of the

Authority’s activities are funded by an assessment

on the State’s one nuclear utility, Maine Yankee.

Maine’s process for selecting a site is unique—it

requires local voter approval of the final site within

60 days of the Authority’s site selection decision.

State law requires that the governing body of the

Whew basins were identified by US Ecology, Inc. ’s consultant-Harding Lawson & Associates —as “hydrologically closed” basins, meaning

that all surface drainage within each basin is confined within that basin.
Chapter 2--Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response . 49

selected host municipality hold a special election to

approve the site. Unless 60 percent of the voters

approve the site, the Authority must find another

location,

Following local voter approval. the facility must

receive a favorable recommendation from the State

Board of Environmental Protection (BEP). The BEP

is required to hold hearings on the technical feasibility and environmental and socioeconomic impacts

of the facility and can either deny permission to

develop the facility or make a recommendation to

the legislature to approve the facility. If the BEP

approves the facility, then the State Legislature must

also vote to approve its location. Following legislative approval, the facility must be approved by a

majority of State voters in a statewide referendum.

The facility would also have to be licensed by the

NRC, since Maine is not an Agreement State.

Considering the approvals required by Maine law,

the Authority estimates that it will not have a

disposal facility online until the end of 1995. Maine

will file a Governor’s certification for its LLW,

including mixed LLW, to meet the January 1, 1990,

LLRWPAA milestone. So that the Authority can

develop a strategy for managing LLW between 1992

and the time when the Maine facility opens, the

legislature amended the LLW Authority Act to

provide for interim storage of LLW. Interim storage

would ensure the continued operation of utilities,

industries, hospitals, and research facilities that

generate LLW in the event that these generators are

denied access to the three currently operating

facilities. Storage would either occur onsite or at an

offsite storage facility. According to law, onsite

storage would last from 1996-2001. If disposal

capacity cannot be found by 1996 and onsite storage

is not available for all LLW, by law the Authority

may begin to develop a storage facility.

In early 1989, Maine presented a proposal to

Texas offering financial incentives in exchange for

LLW disposal and compact membership. Authority

officials have specified in the January 1989 revisions to Maine’s siting plan that if a satisfactory

compact arrangement can be made, it will be the

preferred option for managing the State’s LLW. Any

plans for Maine to forma compact must be approved

by the legislature and Governor and by a majority of

the State’s voters in a statewide referendum.

If a disposal site is developed in Maine, the law

provides for benefits to the host municipality.

Specifically, the law requires the site operator to

make payments in lieu of property taxes to the host

municipality, since the land would be owned by the

State. The law also directs the Authority to develop

criteria for determining further compensation to be

paid to the host municipality. Also, the Authority is

in the process of developing a Community Impact

Program to evaluate the various benefit packages

that could be offered to potential host communities.

The Authority has formed a Citizens’ Advisor-y

Group to assist in establishing policy and development of the site selection criteria.

In August 1989, Maine entered into a contract

with the Rocky Mountain Compact for the Compact

to dispose of Maine’s LLW through 1992. Maine has

to pay the Compact an additional $50 per cubic foot

surcharge for disposing of its LLW during this

period. This contract will enable Maine to meet the

LLRWPAA January 1, 1990, milestone. However, if

Maine generates or plans to generate mixed LLW, it

will have to file a Governor’s certification to satisfy

the January 1, 1990, milestone.

Massachusetts-The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has chosen to manage its own waste and not

join a compact. Like Maine, Massachusetts has not

rejected the option of joining a compact. Massachusetts enacted the Massachusetts Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act in December 1987,

The law created the LLW Management Board and

assigned it primary responsibility for coordinating

the State’s LLW program and for developing a LLW

management plan, selecting a site, and certifying

potential facility operators. The law included an

initial appropriation of $600,000 from the State’s

General Fund to cover start-up costs of the program.

The law assigns responsibility to the Department

of Environmental Protection (DEP) for developing

siting criteria and disposal regulations and to the

Department of Public Health (DPH) for developing

licensing procedures and requirements. Massachusetts has passed enabling legislation to allow the

State to apply for Agreement State status, in which

case the DPH would be responsible for licensing the

facility.

The LLW Management Board has hired a contractor to assist in the development of a management

plan. The Board has appointed a subcommittee to

study funding options for waste management activities. The DEP and DPH are in the process of

developing and finalizing siting and licensing regu-
50 ● Partnerships Under pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

lations. A site development timetable has not been

finalized by the LLW Management Board.

There are extensive requirements for public involvement in the siting process. Most significantly,

the law requires the establishment of a Community

Supervisory Committee (CSC) in communities where

the LLW Management Board has identified candidate sites for preliminary site characterization. The

CSCs are to assist the LLW Management Board in

developing site characterization plans and in interviewing potential operators from a pool of qualified

candidates certified by the LLW Management Board.

After the LLW Management Board selects a site and

it is approved by DEP, the CSC in the host

community is responsible for selecting a facility

operator and a disposal technology. If CSC fails to

select an operator within 90 days of site approval, the

LLW Management Board selects the operator by a

vote of its members. Regarding disposal technology

selection, the DPH is prohibited by law from

licensing a shallow-land burial facility.

The law establishes a standard of strict liability for

any damages resulting from any activity involving

LLW management. During operation, closure, and

post-closure, the site operator has primary legal

responsibility for site cleanup, stabilization, and

restoration. During the institutional control period,

the primary legal responsibility for these tasks is

transferred to the LLW Management Board.

The law also provides compensation to the host

and neighboring communities, such as payments in

lieu of property taxes, since the disposal site

property will be owned by the State, and a gross

receipts tax, both paid by the site operator. Furthermore, the Waste Management Board is to make a

direct payment of $100,000 annually to the host

community during facility construction. The host

community is also to receive $1 per curie and $1 per

cubic feet of LLW or $200,000 per year, whichever

is greater, for 5 years after issuance of the license.

The CSCs are also to receive funds for technical

assistance to participate in the review of the siting

process.

Massachusetts will have to file a Governor’s

certification for its LLW, including its mixed LLW,

to comply with the LLRWPAA January 1, 1990,

milestone.

New York—Although New York has not categorically rejected a compact, the State has yet to join

one and intends to move forward with its own plans

to build a facility for its own waste. In early 1989, the

legislature passed a resolution asking Congress to

extend the 1993 date for shutting off acceptance of

out-of-region waste at the Nation’s three currently

operating facilities and to redefine LLW to exclude

Class C LLW. Congress has taken no action on this

request.

In July 1986, the State adopted comprehensive

siting legislation in its Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Management Act and has since appointed a

siting commission and has begun a number of

activities required by the law to establish a disposal

facility in New York. The five-member New York

State LLW Siting Commission is responsible for

selecting a site and a disposal technology for New

York’s facility. Under the law, the Department of

Environmental Conservation (DEC) is required to

develop LLW disposal and transportation regulations and to certify the site and disposal technology

selected by the Siting Commission. The New York

State Energy Research and Development Authority

(NYSERDA) is assigned to prepare the facility

license application and to construct and operate the

State’s LLW disposal facility. The DEC will license

the disposal facility since New York is an Agreement State. The law also establishes a LLW Advisory Committee and assigns responsibility to the

Department of Health to develop public information

materials on LLW management and the siting

process in New York.

Before the facility is constructed, the State’s

nuclear utilities will be assessed fees covering the

State’s up-front costs for facility development. The

utilities will receive credits for the up-front payments to be applied toward disposal fees once the

facility is operational.

The DEC has promulgated regulations for LLW

disposal and transportation requirements and is

developing additional regulatory requirements for

financial assurances, facility design, construction,

operation, safety plans, closure, and post-closure.

The transportation regulations require transporters

of LLW to obtain a permit for each trailer used to

haul LLW into, within, or through New York State,

and require that each shipment be accompanied by

a State manifest form. The regulations also require

each truck hauling LLW to carry insurance in the

amount of $5 million for a large truck and $1 million

for a small truck.
Chapter 2—Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response ● 51

After applying exclusionary screening criteria,

the Siting Commission announced in December

1988 the selection of 10 candidate areas for a LLW

disposal facility. These areas were selected based on

criteria in the Commission’s site selection plan

developed with the input of the LLW Advisory

Committee and local government officials. In September 1989, the Commission issued a staff report

on its evaluation of the candidate areas and identified 5 sites within 2 of the 10 candidate areas for

further consideration. At least two sites will be

selected for characterization in January 1990, and a

final site is expected to be chosen in the latter half of

1991.

The Siting Commission has developed a process

for selecting a disposal technology with input from

the LLW Advisory Committee. The law prohibits

using shallow-kind burial and requires that the

Commission investigate above-grade and belowgrade disposal methods as well as mined cavities.

The disposal technology selection process also

requires that the Commission consider design features that allow for waste recoverability y and retrievability. The Siting Commission, with the assistance

of a contractor, plans to develop five conceptual

designs in 1989, three of which will be selected and

developed in more detail as preliminary designs. To

select the appropriate technology for the preferred

site, the Siting Commission plans to integrate the

three preliminary designs with data from characterizing the four candidate sites. The Siting Commission must then submit this site and the disposal

design to the DEC for certification. Finally, NYSERDA

will submit a license application to DEC. The

schedule for issuance of the license and subsequent

facility operation is under review. Since a license

application will not be completed by January 1,

1990, New York will have to file a Governor’s

certification for its LLW, including its mixed LLW

to meet this LLRWPAA milestone.

The Siting Commission has conducted public

meetings in the 10 candidate areas and is currently

reviewing potential local impact assistance and

incentive packages. Although the law provides for

assistance to the host community, the law does not

contain specific requirements but does instruct the

Siting Commission to recommend appropriate incentive and compensation measures. The Commission has encountered strong public opposition to its

activities at several of the public meetings held in the

10 candidate areas.

Texas—In response to the LLRWPA of 1980,

Texas decided to build a facility to dispose of its own

waste. The siting legislation which Texas adopted in

1981 indicated that Texas did not intend to pursue a

compact with other States at that time. However, the

possibility of a compact was not rejected altogether.

In 1987, the Texas Legislature instructed the

Texas LLW Authority to prepare background materials on joining a compact. The report was presented

to the legislature in 1988, and the House Committee

on Environmental Affairs held a hearing in October

of the same year. The States of Maine and Vermont

testified at that hearing, showing their interest in

negotiating a compact with Texas. However, the

Committee endorsed the long-established Texas

policy of taking care of only its own waste, but

suggested that the policy could be reviewed if other

States offered significant fiscal incentives to cover

the costs of constructing a LLW site. In early 1989,

both Maine and Vermont submitted proposals for

compacts for Texas’ consideration. The Authority

has also discussed the possibility of forming a small

compact with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The 1981 legislation established the six-member

Texas LLW Disposal Authority. The Authority is

responsible for siting, facility design, construction,

operation, maintenance, and closure. The legislation

directed the Bureau of Radiation Control within the

Department of Health to develop regulations and

licensing procedures for the facility. As the Agreement State agency, the Bureau of Radiation Control

will be responsible for licensing and regulating the

facility.

The activities of the Authority and related facility

development costs are currently funded by appropriations from the State’s General Fund. Once the

facility is operational, the law requires the Authority

to establish a fee system that will be adequate to

recover all facility development costs incurred by

the State from facility users. The Authority is also

considering issuing revenue bonds to fund construction after a license is granted.

The Authority began the siting process by screening the entire State for potentially suitable areas. In

1985, the legislature amended the Authority’s statute to give preference to State-owned land. The

amendment focused the Authority’s site selection

efforts on western Texas, where most suitable

State-owned lands are located. A more detailed

study of these areas resulted in the identification and
52 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

evaluation of several potentially suitable sites in

Hudspeth County.

The Authority selected two sites for further

analysis. In 1987, the Authority planned to name a

site near Fort Hancock, Texas, in Hudspeth County

as its preferred site for characterization, but El Paso

County, which is adjacent to Hudspeth County,

obtained a temporary injunction to halt the siting

activities. The injunction was later overturned by the

El Paso County Court of Appeals. A subsequent

request for a writ of error was denied by the Texas

Supreme Court in January 1988, thus allowing the

Authority to proceed with site characterization.

When site characterization is complete in late 1989,

the Authority plans to designate the Hudspeth

County site as its preferred site. The Authority

intends to submit a license application by the

LLRWPAA January 1, 1990, milestone for its LLW

and to file a Governor’s certification for its mixed

LLW. If construction starts during 1991 as planned,

the facility is scheduled to be online by the end of

1992.

Public opposition to the site characterization

continues in El Paso County, which has spent over

$500,000 to hire geologists and other technical and

legal consultants to review the Authority’s selection

of the Hudspeth County site. One point of El Paso

County’s lawsuit, regarding the site’s proximity to a

reservoir, is still outstanding, but the appeals court

has ruled that it is inappropriate to consider this issue

until site characterization work is complete and the

final site named. The Hudspeth County Commissioners have withdrawn from their inter-local government agreement to cooperate with El Paso

County in pursuing the lawsuit and intend to use

consultants provided by DOE’s Nuclear Energy

LLW Management Program to independently review the Authority’s site characterization work. The

consultants for El Paso County have identified

several areas of concern regarding the site’s geology

and proximity to a 100-year floodplain. The Authority is currently discussing these issues with the

County’s consultants. Further opposition and potential litigation may delay the State’s facility development efforts.

With respect to disposal technology selection, the

legislation passed in 1987 prohibited shallow-land

burial and required containment in concrete or other

materials technically superior to unlined trenches,

Based on the evaluation of three conceptual designs,

the Authority has chosen a preliminary disposal

technology design incorporating below-ground concrete canisters and vaults, The Authority has also

developed a separate preliminary design for a mixed

LLW disposal unit incorporating liner and leachate

collection systems necessary to meet RCRA requirements.

The 1987 legislation also approved incentives and

a compensation package for the host community.

The law authorizes paying the host county 10

percent of the disposal facility revenue, projected at

$400,000 to $750,000 annually, for impact assistance. The county may use this money to offset any

adverse financial impacts caused by the location of

the facility. This compensation and jobs provided by

the facility, combined with the Authority’s commitment to purchase goods and services locally whenever possible, are intended to provide economic

benefits to the host county. The Authority has

opened a field office in Fort Hancock where it offers

numerous community services and public information programs. The Authority also plans to establish

a local advisory committee to study the impacts of

the disposal facility, to oversee the distribution of

impact assistance funds, and to independently monitor the site.

States and Territories Without Siting Plans:

District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Puerto

Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont

None of these States or entities has joined a

compact, though all prefer to join an existing

compact or to contract with a large-volumegenerating State to take their relatively small volumes of waste.

District of Columbia-Under the LLRWPAA of

1985, the District of Columbia is considered a State

and is required to meet the milestones established by

this law. In 1987 the District of Columbia entered

into a contract with the Rocky Mountain Compact.

Under this contract, the District, like Rhode Island,

has been paying an additional $20 surcharge to the

Rocky Mountain Compact regardless of which of the

three national disposal sites receives the LLW for

disposal. In August 1989, the District of Columbia

as well as Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,

and Vermont, have a contract with the Rocky

Mountain Compact for their waste to be accepted

through 1992. Under the terms of this new contract,

the District will be assessed an additional $50 per
Chapter 2-Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response . 53

cubic foot on LLW shipped for disposal (a $30

increase from its previous contract).

Because of this recent contract with the Rocky

Mountain Compact, the District will be in compliance with the LLRWPAA January 1, 1990, milestone, unless it generates or expects to generate

mixed LLW, in which case it will have to submit a

‘ ‘Governor’s certification’ for this waste. The

District will still need to examine, however, its

options for post- 1992 disposal of its LLW, including

its mixed LLW, when it will be under the same

constraints faced by the other unaffiliated States not

planning to develop disposal facilities. The District

is also interested in compact options but has not been

a party to any recent negotiations.

New Hampshire— New Hampshire is not currently planning to develop a LLW disposal facility.

As alternatives, State officials have sought compact

membership or a contract for waste disposal with the

Rocky Mountain Compact. Initially, in 1987, the

Rocky Mountain Compact Board rejected the New

Hampshire bid for access to its disposal site, but in

August 1989 the Compact Board approved to

contract with New Hampshire to dispose of its waste

through 1992. Under this contract, New Hampshire

must also pay the additional surcharge of $50 per

cubic foot for its LLW disposal.

New Hampshire’s LLW generators have in the

past been denied access to the Nation’s three

currently operating disposal facilities because the

State did not meet the 1988 milestone which

required each unaffiliated State either to submit a

siting plan for developing disposal capacity or to

have a contract in place with a sited compactor State

for LLW disposal. Since the State finalized its

contract with the Rocky Mountain Compact before

January 1, 1990, New Hampshire will be considered

in compliance with both the 1988 and 1990 milestones. However, if New Hampshire generates or

expects to generate any mixed LLW, the State will

have to submit a Governor’s certification for this

waste to meet the LLRWPAA January 1, 1990,

milestone. Moreover, because the Rocky Mountain

Compact’s disposal site in Nevada is scheduled to

close at the end of 1992, New Hampshire must

pursue other options for disposing of its LLW,

including its mixed waste, after 1992. State officials

are interested in forming a compact with other

unaffiliated States or joining an existing compact.

No formal negotiations, however, have begun as of

November 1989.

Puerto Rico-Puerto Rico is considered a State

under the LLRWPAA and is required to meet the

milestones. Puerto Rico failed to meet the 1986 and

1988 milestones and has been denied access to the

three currently operating sites.

Puerto Rico is a small producer of LLW, which is

generated in the Commonwealth primarily by medical and research facilities, Puerto Rican officials

have discussed compacting options with Texas and

are interested in negotiating a contract with a sited

compact to meet the 1990 milestone.

Rhode Island-As mentioned, Rhode Island has

a contract with the Rocky Mountain Compact to

dispose of its LLW through 1992. Under terms of the

new contract, Rhode Island is also assessed an

additional $50 per cubic foot on LLW shipped for

disposal.

Since the contract with the Rocky Mountain

Compact enabled the State to meet the 1990

milestone for nonmixed radioactive waste, its generators still have access to all of the three currently

operating LLW disposal facilities. If the State

generates or expects to generate mixed LLW, it will

have to submit a Governor’s certification for this

waste to meet the January 1, 1990, milestone.

The State will need to examine its options for

post-1992 disposal of LLW, including mixed LLW.

Although a few new sites may open by the end of

1992, which may consider a contract, two of the

three currently operating commercial sites will be

closed and the third is not planning to accept LLW

from outside the Northwest Compact after 1992. The

State is interested in pursuing compact options and

has passed legislation for creating a two-State

compact with Massachusetts. Massachusetts, however, has not responded favorably to this proposal.

Vermont-Vermont’s generators were denied

access to the three currently operating disposal

facilities because the State failed to meet the 1988

milestone. The State’s largest generators had developed adequate storage capacity, and the remaining

generators did not produce enough LLW to require

expanded storage capacity. As noted, Vermont,

however, is now in compliance with both the 1988

and the 1990 milestone (with respect to nonmixed

LLW) because it has contracted with the Rocky

Mountain Compact to take its waste through 1992,
54 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Vermont as well will have to pay an additional

surcharge of $50 per cubic foot for disposing of its

LLW. If the State generates or expects to generate

mixed LLW, it will have to submit a Governor’s

certification for this waste to meet the January 1,

1990, milestone.

During the 1989 session of the Vermont Legislature, the House Natural Resources and Energy

Committee considered legislation to create a State

LLW siting authority but as of November 1989 had

not taken any action. The Governor’s Office has also

submitted a proposal to Texas, similar to the

proposal submitted by Maine, to offer financial

incentives in return for compact membership.

SUMMARY

States are using a wide range of approaches to

develop new disposal capacity for LLW. As envisioned by Congress, the compacts and host States

have used the flexibility provided by the LLRWPA

of 1980 and the LLRWPAA of 1985 to create

programs that will both meet specific compact and

State needs and build public support for host State

siting efforts.

In developing LLW siting legislation amid growing public awareness about health and environmental risks, State officials draw from previous

experience of siting hazardous and solid waste

treatment and disposal facilities. Thus, public input

has been sought in LLW siting legislation, especially in the areas of disposal technology requirements and the role of potential host communities in

the siting process. Most States have worked closely

with advisory committees representing diverse interest groups to promote opportunities for public

participation and to build consensus on how to

manage LLW safely.

The results of these efforts are clearly demonstrated in 10 future host States that have enacted

statutory bans on the use of shallow-land burial as a

disposal technology even though the Federal regulations consider shallow-land burial a technically

suitable disposal method. Despite the technical

feasibility of shallow-land burial, public preference

for greater isolation of LLW from the environment

through the use of engineered barriers and structures

has been overwhelming, especially in areas with

humid climates. In an attempt to build public

confidence and support, the majority of host States

have agreed to this preference and are committed to

go beyond minimum Federal standards to address

public concerns regarding disposal technology. Some

States have even gone so far as to establish design

goals for “zero release’ facilities.

Another area where the public has played a crucial

role in developing State LLW siting programs is in

expanded public participation in the siting process

and increased local oversight of facility siting and

operation. Public involvement has also resulted in

larger benefit packages and host community guarantees. Most host State siting legislation includes

provisions and resources for local review of facility

siting plans and oversight and monitoring of facilities once operational. Some States require local

approval of sites selected for LLW disposal, and

others have granted authority to local officials to hire

inspectors and, if necessary, shut down facilities.

State siting programs include provisions for mitigating any adverse financial impacts incurred by local

host governments from the facility’s location and

offer substantial economic benefits and guarantees

through various means. The overriding philosophy

reflected in State LLW siting legislation is that the

users of the facility will bear whatever costs are

necessary to develop a safe and publicly acceptable

facility.

In several States that have advanced to site

selection and characterization, efforts to address

public concerns have produced positive results. By

acknowledging the need for compensation and

incentives to offset real or perceived risks, and by

recognizing the need for local involvement and

oversight, these State programs have enjoyed considerable public support in potential host communities. Although these programs do not guarantee

success in the highly emotional and politically

charged arena of waste facility siting, they establish

a foundation for understanding the Not-In-MyBackyard syndrome.

Of further concern to most States is developing

disposal capacity for their mixed LLW. For the most

part, States’ progress in this area lags behind their

progress in developing disposal capacity for nonmixed LLW. All States that generate or expect to

generate mixed LLW and are not members of one of

the three sited compacts plan to submit Governors’

certifications for this waste to meet the LLRWPAA

January 1, 1990, milestone.
Chapter 2—Federal Legislation and State and Compact Response ● 55

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES

Compacts:

Appalachian Compact

1:

2.

3.

4.

Commonwed-th of Pennsylvania, Department of

Environmental Resources, Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Management in Penns>l~ania: A Program

over-view’, 1988.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvani~ Environmental Quality Board, Low-tivel Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal Regulations (25 PA. Code ch.

236), April 1989,

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bw-ke/Radiouctive Waste Disposal Act, No. 1988-12, 1988.

U.S. Congress, Appalachian Stutes Low-Level Radioactive Wa~te Compact Consent Act, Public Law

100-319, May 1988.

Central Interstate Compact

5.

6.

7.

8.

Cawley, Charles, Paton, Richard, and Ringenberg,

Jay, ‘‘Using a Regulatory Matrix to Identify Requirements and Evaluate Project Compliance, ’ paper

presented at Waste Management ’89, Tucson, AZ,

.March 1989.

hgislature of Nebraska, Legislative Bill 761: An Act

to Amend the Low-Level Waste Disposal Act, May

1989.

US Ecology, Inc., Ln+ Level Radioacti~e Waste

Disposal Information for Nebraskans, 1988.

US Ecology, Inc., Loti’-Lev*el Radioactive Waste

Facility En;-ironmen[al Safet> and Economic Opportuni~, 1987.

Central Midwest Compact

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Central Midwest Interstate Lmw-hvel Radioactive

Waste Commission, Regional Munagernen[ Plan,

Central Midwest Interstate Commission, September

1988.

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, Public Participation Plan on Low-Lz~el Radioactive Waste Mun -

agernent in Illinois, N’ovember 1985.

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, Requirements

for Dispovul of Low-Le~’el Radic)u(ti\’e Waste Awqa?y

From the Point of Generation, Title 32: ch. II, pt. 606

Illinois Mministrative Code, 1988.

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, Announcement of Selection of an Alternative Site for Possible

Development of a .!-o~-l-uiel Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facilih, August 1988.

Illinois Department of h’uclear Safety. The /1/inois

Approach, October-November 1988.

State of Illinois, Illinois Lo~-Lev’el Radioactive

Wwte Management Act, 1983, as amended.

Midwest Compact

15.

16.

17.

18.

Michigan” Lnw-kvel Radioactive Waste Authority,

Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactii’e Waste

Compact Siting Plan, December 1987.

Michigan Imw-Uvel Radioactive Waste Authority,

Executive Summa~: The State of Michigan’s Re -

spomibility for Safely Managing L.o~’-Le\’el Radioactive Waste, March 1989.

Midwest Interstate Lmw-hvel Radioactive Waste

Commission, Host State Compensation and Benefits

Summaries, April 1989.

State of Michigan, Low-L.e\el Radioactive Waste

Authority Act, A;t No. 204, December 1987.

Northeast Compact

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service,

Connecticut’s Low-Le}*el Radioactive Waste Di.v -

posal Facility Benefits to the Host Communih, Fact

Sheet No. 5, April 1989.

Northeast Interstate Imw-Level Radioactive Waste

Commission, Proposed Management Alternative De

cision, March 1989.

Roy F. Weston, Inc., Connecticut Low-Level Radioactive Waste Host State Siting Plan, Northeast

Interstate Low-~vel Radioactive Waste Commission, December 1987.

Roy F. Weston, Inc., New Jersey k)w-kel Radioactive Waste Host State Siting Plan, .Northeast Interstate lmw-hvel Radioactive Waste Commission,

December 1987.

State of Connecticut, Act Establishing a Mechanism

for the Siting of a Regionul bw-ikel Radioaciii’e

Waste Disposal Facility, Public Act No. 87-540, July

1987.

State of New Jersey, Regional I-oi~-Le\’ei Radioacritie Waste Disposal Facility Sitin,q Act, Public Law

1987, c.333, 1987.

Northwest Compact

25. A. T’, Kearney, Inc., Closure and Perpetual Care and

Maintenance of the Commercial Il)w-Le\el Radioactive JVaste Disposal Facility on the Hunf~)rd Resenution, Phase Two Report, prepared for the Washington

State Department of Ecology, February 1989.

Rocky Mountain Compact

26. Colorado Department of Health, Application for

Board Appro~’ai of the Regional Loti-kel Rodi~xztive Waste Disposal Facili~, submitted [o the Rocky

Mountain Lmw-Level Radioactive Waste Board,

August 1988.

27. Sta(e of Colorado, House Bill No. 1246, May, 1982.
56 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Southeast Compact

28.

29.

30.

Ebasco S&vices, Inc., Phase 1 Screening Study

Identification of Potentially Suitable Areas, November 1988.

State of North Carolina, Senate Bill 48: An Act to

Prohibit Shallow-Lund Burial of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, to Require the Use of Engineered

Barriers, to Establkh Requirements for Engineered

Barriers, and Other Requirements Applicable to the

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, and to

Amend Certain Definitions in the Radiation Protection Act, 1987.

State of North Carolina, North Carolina Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Management Authority Act of

1987, 1987, as amended.

Southwestern Compact

31.

Q

33.

34.

35.

36.

Anderson, Gloria, Low-Lzvel Radioactive Waste

Disposal Site Selection Citizens Advisory Committee,

report to US Ecology, Inc. from the bague of

Women Voters, Southern California Regional Task

Force, February 1987.

Envirosphem Company, Factsheet: Enhancements to

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shallow-Land Burial,

September 1988.

State of California, Chapter 1177, Statutes of 1983.

State of California, Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act, Public

Law 100-712, November 1988.

US Ecology, Inc., Siting Objectives and Criteria/

Local Benefits of the California Low-Level Radioactive Wimte Disposal Facility, 1986.

US Ecology, Inc., The US Ecology Reporter, SeptemberOctober i986.

States:

Maine

37. Maine I.mw-bvel Radioactive Waste Authority,

Siting Plan, January 1988.

38. Maine lmw-Level Radioactive Waste Authority,

Revised Siting Plan, January 1989.

39. State of Maine, Act Creating the Maine Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Authority, S.P. 639-L.D. 1865,

Public Law 530, June 1987.

Massachusetts

40.

41.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act,

General Laws, Chapter 111 H, 1987.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Milestone ’88:

Submission of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

to the U.S. Department of Energy and to the States of

Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington Under

Public Luw 99-240, December 1987.

New York

42. DepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation, 6NYCRR

Part 382: Regulations for Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Facilities, December 1987.

43. State of New York, hwlevel Radioactive Waste

Management Act, July 1986.

Texas

44.

45.

46.

47.

State of Texas, The Tens Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Authority Act, 1981, as amended.

Texas Imw-hvel Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal in

Texas: Citizen Participation, 1987.

Texas bw-hvel Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, bw-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal in

Texu.s: Site Selection, 1987.

Texas Imw-Level Radioactive Waste Distmsal Authority, Report to the 71st Texas Legislature on

interstate Compacts and the Texas Program for

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, 1988.

Other:

48. National Governor’s Association, Low-Level Waste:

A Program for Action, NGA Energy and Natural

Resources Program, Task Force on I.mw-hvel Radioactive Waste Disposal, October 1980.
Chapter 3

Overview of Federal Regulations

23-496 - 89 - 3 : QL 3
CONTENTS

Page

Regulatory Framework for LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Regulatory Authority for LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

10 CFR Part 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 59

Regulatory Framework for Mixed LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Historical Perspective on Mixed LLW Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Overview of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Hazardous

and Solid Waste Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Applicability of RCRA to Mixed LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

State Implementation of RCRA . . ● . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 65

State Authorization for Mixed Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Clarification of Interim Status Requirements for Mixed LLW Treatment,

Storage, or Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

NRC and EPA Guidance on Mixed LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Dual Regulation of Mixed LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Implications of RCRA Requirements on Mixed LLW Management and Disposal . . . . 68

Impact of the HSWA Land Disposal Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Storage Prohibitions Affecting Mixed LLW ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Regulatory Issues Affecting the Development of Mixed LLW Disposal Capacity . . . . 74

Future Considerations for the Management and Disposal of Mixed LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Chapter 3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 77

Table

Table Page

3-1. Schedule for Land Disposal Prohibitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Chapter 3

Overview of Federal Regulations

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FOR LLW

Regulatory Authority for LLW

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is

responsible for licensing and regulating nuclear

facilities and materials and for conducting research

in support of the licensing and regulatory process.

Federal statutory authority for NRC to undertake

these activities is derived from the Atomic Energy

Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended1

; the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended2; and other

Federal laws. NRC’s jurisdiction covers a variety of

nuclear materials and operations, including the

treatment, storage, and disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW).

Mixed LLW contains both radioactive and hazardous constituents. For its radioactive constituents,

mixed LLW falls under NRC jurisdiction because it

is a subset of LLW. For its hazardous constituents,

mixed LLW is also subject to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations governing hazardous

waste. The principal Federal hazardous waste law is

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

of 1976.3

Administratively, NRC has jurisdiction over 17,000

commercial possessors and users of nuclear materials through a network of 5 regional offices and the

Agreement State Program. Under the Agreement

State Program, NRC may delegate to a State agency

regulatory authority over certain nuclear operations

if the State agency’s program meets the technical

and administrative criteria established by NRC. To

date, 29 States have obtained Agreement State

status, and most States that contemplate licensing a

LLW site have or will acquire Agreement State

status. States with Agreement State authority regulate commercial practices involving radioactive

materials, including subsequent waste management

practices. The exception to this authority is the

regulation of operations inside nuclear power plants

where NRC maintains exclusive authority for licensing and regulating operations.

NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Part 61 address

disposal of commercial LLW. These regulations

contain:

•

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

performance objectives for the operation of

commercial LLW disposal facilities;

technical requirements for the siting, design,

operation, closure, and post-operational activities of LLW disposal facilities;

technical requirements for waste stability;

criteria for waste acceptance;

criteria for classifying LLW;

administrative and procedural requirements for

licensing disposal facilities;

administrative requirements for closure, institutional control, and long-term care; and

provisions for adequate financial assurance.

10 CFR Part 61

“Licensing Requirements for the Land Disposal

of Radioactive Waste” were developed during the

5-year period from 1978 through 1982 and were

issued in 1983 (10 CFR Part 61). As NRC stated in

the summary of its draft Environmental Impact

Statement for the regulation, “[c]urrent [pre-1983]

NRC regulations for licensing radioactive materials

do not contain sufficient technical standards or

criteria for the disposal of the licensed materials as

waste. ” The new regulations were developed at the

request of a number of affected parties, including the

public, Congress, the States, industry, and other

Federal agencies, which saw a need for codified

regulations tailored for commercial LLW disposal

sites.

In developing the new regulations, NRC had the

choice of establishing two types of requirements:

performance objectives or prescriptive requirements.

Performance objectives would establish overall

goals for the disposal of LLW and would allow

flexibility in how the objectives were to be met. In

contrast, prescriptive requirements would specify

the details of the design and operation of a LLW

168 Stal. 919, 1954.

z~bjic Law 93438, OCt. 1 I, 1974.

s~blic Law 94-580, OC(. 21, 1976.

-59-
60 ● Partnerships Under pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

disposal facility. Based on analyses that NRC

conducted for the Environmental Impact Statement,

NRC chose a combination of these two approaches—

four general performance objectives supported by

technical requirements that are more prescriptive in

nature. The four general performance objectives for

10 CFR Part 61 are:

1. protection for occupationally exposed workers

and the public during the operation of the site,

2. protection of the environment over the longterm,

3. protection for any intruder who might inadvertently make contact with the waste material,

and

4. assurance that the site will maintain its stability

for several hundred years.

NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20, promulgated

in the early 1980s, already provided protection for

workers and the public during operation of a

disposal facility. Building on this earlier provision,

10 CFR Part 61 added the important feature, among

others, of protecting an intruder who might inadvertently come in contact with LLW.

Protection of Workers During Operation

Operation of the disposal facility must comply

with the worker radiation exposure regulations in 10

CFR Part 20. These regulations must be observed for

all releases except those governed by 10 CFR Part

61. In addition, every reasonable effort must be

made to keep exposures during operation as low as

reasonably achievable (ALARA). These regulations

are designed to protect workers as well as any

member of the public who might be exposed to

radiation during operation of the site.

Protection of the General Population

From Releases of Radioactivity

Releases from the site into water, air, or soil or

through plants or animals must not result in an

annual dose to any member of the public of greater

than 25 millirems4 of radiation to the whole body, 75

millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any

other organ. As with the operational standards for

workers, site operators must take action to assure

that any releases of radioactivity to the environment

are ALARA.

Protection of Inadvertent Intruders

The design, operation, and closure of the facility

must ensure the protection of any individual who

inadvertently enters or occupies the LLW site or

comes in contact with the waste when institutional

control of the waste facility is no longer maintained

by the site operator or State. An inadvertent intruder,

unaware of the hazards of the disposed waste, might

engage in activities such as farming, digging a well,

or building a house on the premises. After analyzing

situations like these that could result in exposure to

the inadvertent intruder, NRC staff established that

reasonable protection to intruders must be provided

but must still allow disposal of a reasonable volume

and variety of LLW. Although a specific exposure

limit is not cited in NRC regulations, a working limit

of 500 millirems per year to the whole body was

assumed in preparing the radionuclide concentration

limits and waste classifications in 10 CFR Part 61.

This is the annual limit that is currently considered

the upper limit for exposure to members of the

public.

Assurance That the Site Will Remain Stable

All aspects of establishing and operating a site,

from choosing a location to closing the site, are

regulated to achieve long-term stability and eliminate the need for continued active maintenance after

site closure. This objective reflects lessons learned

from failures at now-closed commercial sites and

Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. A stable site

eliminates or reduces subsidence and water infiltration, thus preventing migration of radionuclides

from the site.

Technical Requirements

To achieve the performance objectives described

above, NRC developed a number of technical

requirements that are more prescriptive in nature for

site characterization, facility design and operation,

waste form and packaging, and institutional controls.

Site Characterization-Choosing a location for a

LLW site begins with eliminating regions with

inappropriate characteristics. Siting requirements

are based on analyses of closed disposal sites and on

recommendations from the U.S. Geological Survey.

4For ~omp~Wn, h~~s receive ~but 360 millirems (or 0.36 rem) a year from natural background radiation (4).
Chapter 3-Overview of Federal Regulations . 61

In particular, areas to be avoided are those that are

difficult to model, are geologically active, contain

exploitable natural resources, and/or have high

potential for water intrusion. (See ch. 6 section on

“Facility Siting—Natural Site Characteristics” for

more detail.)

Facility Design and Operating Practices-NRC

requirements for facility design and operation are

intended primarily to minimize contact with water.

All design features must direct water away from the

waste and must minimize contact of water with the

waste throughout the waste handling process from

storage to closure. Operational and closure features

emphasize maintaining the stability of the site by

segregating unstable Class A LLW from stable Class

B and C LLW and by filling any voids between

waste packages. (See ch. 6 for a description of

disposal technologies.)

Waste Form and Packaging—The waste classification system (see below) dictates the form and

packaging in which LLW can be accepted for

disposal, the location of waste within the disposal

facility, and the concentration of radionuclides

allowed at a given site. NRC’s requirements strictly

prohibit disposal of liquid LLW or of solid LLW

containing more than 1 percent liquid. Explosive,

pyrophoric, and reactive wastes are also prohibited

from land disposal. (See ch. 5 section on “Waste

Stabilization for more detail.)

Waste Classification—There are three classes of

disposable LLW: A, B, and C. Class A waste is the

least radioactive of the three types and will decay

within 100 years to levels that are not considered by

NRC to pose a threat to public health and safety.

Class A waste is not required to be stabilized but

must be segregated from Class B and C LLW in

disposal sites. Class B waste is more highly radioactive and must be disposed of in a form that will

remain structurally stable for 300 years. Class C

waste is the most highly radioactive of the three

classes. Maximum concentrations of radionuclides

in Class C LLW are limited to ensure that at the end

of 500 years the remaining radioactivity will not

pose an unacceptable hazard to an inadvertent

intruder or to public health and safety. Class C waste

must be stabilized and disposed of either at least 15

feet below the top of the facility or beneath a steel

reinforced concrete barrier intended to discourage

intrusion for at least 500 years. (See ch. 5 section on

“Waste Stabilization” for more detail,)

The waste classification system, through its waste

segregation and stabilization requirements, significantly contributes to the long-term integrity of

licensed LLW disposal sites.

Institutional Control--Institutional actions are

intended to insure the long-term stability of the site

and to protect the public. First, the facility must be

located on land owned by the State or Federal

Government. After the site is closed in accordance

with State and Federal regulations, the government

owning the site must maintain it and restrict access

for up to 100 years. At a minimum, environmental

monitoring, periodic surveillance, and minor custodial care must be provided during this period. While

the government agency responsible for institutional

care may wish to retain a presence for longer than

100 years, after that time the site, through its natural

features and design, must be able to meet Federal

performance objectives relying only on passive

controls such as markers and land records.

Second, financial assurance requirements specify

that the site operator supply adequate funds to carry

out all activities connected with licensing and

provide for appropriate closure and stabilization of

the site. The site operator must also ensure that

sufficient funds are available to cover maintenance

costs and monitoring during the institutional control

period.

Summary

NRC performance objectives for the licensing and

operation of a LLW disposal site are designed to

provide long-term protection of the public and the

environment. To a large extent, site operators,

States, and other affected parties have some flexibility in how they meet performance objectives. While

10 CFR Part 61 contains numerous technical requirements for the siting, operation, closure, and

institutional care of LLW facilities, many of these

requirements allow latitude in interpretation and

implementation. The regulatory orientation of NRC

LLW regulations is clearly aimed at meeting performance objectives rather than at dictating all the

minute details of the construction and operation of

the site and the treatment and form of the waste.
62 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FOR MIXED LLW

Historical Perspective on

Mixed LLW Regulation

Waste containing both radioactive and hazardous

constituents has been generated since the beginning

of the commercial nuclear industry. This waste has

come to be known as mixed waste. When the first

Federal regulations covering radioactivity were

adopted, they were intended to apply to all radioactive materials. Since the amount of commercial

waste containing both radioactive and hazardous

components has always been small, no special

provisions were made by regulators of either nuclear

materials or hazardous substances to control this

waste stream. Anticipating the need to integrate

hazardous waste legislation with existing statutes,

the U.S. Congress, in establishing the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976,

added two Atomic Energy Act (AEA) exemptions.

Section 1006(a) of RCRA states that:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply

to (or to authorize any State, interstate, or local

authority to regulate) any activity or substance which

is subject to the [several Federal laws listed], or the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 except to the extent that

such application (or regulation) is not consistent with

the requirements of such Acts.

Section 1004(27) of RCRA excludes byproduct,

special nuclear, and source material regulated under

AEA from the definition of solid waste.

Around 1980, State and Federal agencies began to

question generators and site operators regarding

mixed LLW. Correspondence between site operators

and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

which enforces RCRA, raised the question of RCRA

applicability to LLW sites and the interpretation of

the exclusionary language of Section 1004(27) of

RCRA. An August 17, 1983, letter to US Ecology,

Inc., the site operator of the Hanford, WA, facility,

from EPA Director of the Office of Solid Waste,

John Skinner, stated:

In summary, we have concluded that the wastes

and disposal facilities which you discuss are not

completely exempt from regulation under RCRA.

Therefore, you should be submitting a permit

application to the appropriate Regional Office, and

your facilities should be complying with the appropriate requirements of the State in which the

particular facility is located.

Although no Federal agency took formal action

on mixed LLW during the mid-1980s, continuing

discussions on the topic among generators, regulators, and site operators brought the issue to congressional and public attention. Since Congress was

intent on providing for the management of all types

of LLW, an effort was made to address the regulation

of mixed LLW as part of the Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) of

1985. 5

A number of parties questioned the practicality

and feasibility of disposing of mixed LLW in

facilities that had to satisfy both NRC and EPA

regulations. For this reason, the Senate version of the

LLRWPAA contained a section giving lead agency

status to NRC in licensing mixed LLW facilities.

Key committee and subcommittee chairpersons in

the House of Representatives found this proposal

unacceptable. They were convinced that the hazardous component of mixed LLW required regulation

by EPA or a RCRA-authorized State. The two

houses of Congress could not agree on a compromise, so the regulation of mixed LLW was not

addressed in the LLRWPAA.

In the following session of Congress in 1986, key

committees of Congress held oversight hearings on

mixed LLW. The consensus that emerged from these

hearings was that mixed LLW should be regulated

under the dual jurisdiction of NRC and EPA.

Representatives of NRC and EPA were instructed to

identify and resolve any regulatory impediments to

the management of commercial mixed LLW. The

first set of joint guidance which NRC and EPA

issued addressed the disposal of mixed waste so that

States could use the Federal guidance to meet the

first LLRWPAA milestone requiring submission of

a siting plan by January 1, 1988. Subsequent to the

guidance, States, compacts, and generators have

raised additional management issues on mixed LLW

that may require the attention of both agencies.

s~blic Law 99-240, Jan. 15, 1986.
Chapter .3---Overview of Federal Regulations ● 63

Before congressional deliberation of the mixed

LLW issue, the States that licensed the three

operating LLW sites had taken some action on

mixed LLW regulation. The facilities at Beatty, NV,

and Hanford, WA, never received permission from

the State or a Federal agency to accept mixed LLW.

Nonetheless, because of uncertainties regarding the

interpretation of the AEA exemption to materials

containing both hazardous and radioactive materials, any LLW-even that containing some hazardous constituents-was disposed of at these sites. As

the issue of dual regulatory jurisdiction received

more attention at the State and national level,

Washington State, in April 1985, requested that US

Ecology, Inc., the operator of the commercial site in

Hanford, obtain a RCRA permit to continue receiving mixed LLW, The facility operator chose not to

seek the permit and thus mixed LLW disposal was

no longer allowed at Hanford. Similarly, as a result

of EPA’s clarification of RCRA’s application to

mixed LLW, on July 3, 1986, no mixed LLW

disposal has been allowed at the Beatty, NV, facility

because the site operator has not obtained the

required permit.

South Carolina prohibited the disposal of scintillation vials containing both hazardous and radioactive materials in 1978. This prohibition was due

largely to the increase in the volume of these

materials that began arriving at the Barnwell, SC,

facility after the closing of three other commercial

LLW sites in the eastern half of the country in the

late 1970s. While some LLW containing hazardous

materials may have been disposed of at Barnwell

between 1978 and 1987 due to the ambiguity of

applying the AEA exemption, South Carolina, on

July 6, 1987, expressly prohibited disposal of mixed

LLW at the Barnwell site.

As a result of EPA’s clarification of the AEA

exemption and subsequent State and site operator

action, licensed disposal options for mixed LLW

have been eliminated. While the ability to dispose of

mixed LLW was uncertain in the past and gave rise

to legislative and regulatory efforts at the national

level to promote additional disposal capacity, at

present there are no facilities licensed to accept

mixed LLW under both NRC and EPA regulations.

Overview of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act and Hazardous

and Solid Waste Amendments

In 1976, Congress passed RCRA, giving EPA

broad authority to develop a comprehensive regulatory program for the management and disposal of

hazardous waste, Under RCRA, EPA is responsible

for identifying wastes that are subject to regulation

and for regulating and permitting generators, transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of waste

covered by the regulations. It also granted EPA

broad authority to promulgate regulations as necessary to protect human health and the environment

from adverse impacts associated with hazardous

waste management. This ‘‘cradle-to-grave’ regulatory system for hazardous waste was designed to

track and regulate wrote from the point of generation

to the point of disposal.

Congress amended RCRA with the passage of the

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act of

1984 (HSWA)6 which, among other things, established minimum technology requirements for land

disposal facilities and surface impoundments, corrective action requirements for hazardous waste

facilities seeking permits under RCRA, statutory

deadlines for promulgation of land disposal restrictions and treatment standards, small-quantity generator requirements, and waste minimization requirements. The passage of HSWA shifted the focus away

from land disposal of hazardous waste to a more

comprehensive management system including waste

reduction, recycling, and treatment. Section 1004(s)

of RCRA defines hazardous waste as:

. a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes,

which because of its quantity, concentration, or

physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics

may

-cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious

irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or

—pose a substantial present or potential hazard

to human health or the environment when

improperly treated, stored, transported, or

disposed of, or otherwise managed.

b~b]ic hw 98-616, NOV. 9, 198A.
64 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

To implement this definition, RCRA required the

EPA Administrator to develop and promulgate

criteria for identifying characteristics of hazardous

waste and for listing wastes to be regulated as

hazardous under RCRA. Section 3001(a) of the

statute directs EPA to consider the toxicity, persistence, biodegradability, and the potential for bioaccumulation of waste material in developing these

criteria, as well as other factors such as flammability,

corrosiveness, and other hazardous characteristics.

Under RCRA, hazardous waste is considered a

subset of solid waste, which is defined by Section

1004(27) as:

. . . any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air

pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and from

community activities, but does not include solid or

dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or

dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or

industrial discharges which are point sources subject

to permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act, as amended, or source, special

nuclear or byproduct material as defined by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

Before a substance can be considered a hazardous

waste, it must first be determined to be a solid waste

according to the above definition. After determining

if a substance is a solid waste and is not a useful

product or is being recycled, EPA regulations

establish two methods for determining if a material

is a hazardous waste and thereby regulated under

RCRA. First, EPA lists wastes from specific and

nonspecific sources as hazardous waste based on the

presence of certain constituents, such as identified

carcinogens or mutagens, in the wastes at levels that

endanger human health. These are known as ‘listed’

wastes.

Secondly, EPA may determine that a waste

material is hazardous because it exhibits one or more

hazardous characteristics. EPA considers a waste

material to be hazardous if it is ignitable, corrosive,

reactive, or toxic. Such a waste is known as a

‘‘characteristic’ waste. RCRA also considers mixtures of listed hazardous waste or characteristic

hazardous waste, which still exhibit hazardous

characteristics, as hazardous waste, as well as

residue resulting from the treatment of a listed waste.

EPA lists over 400 wastes from various sources as

hazardous in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D. The

criteria for determining if the waste exhibits one or

more of the hazardous characteristics mentioned

above are included in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261.

It is the responsibility of the waste generator to

determine if the waste material is hazardous based

on the conditions outlined above.

Applicability of RCRA to Mixed LLW

After Congress expressed its preference for an

administrative solution to the debate on joint regulation of mixed LLW by EPA and NRC, both agencies

began working on guidance to assist potential

generators and States in developing strategies for

managing mixed LLW and establishing mixed LLW

disposal capacity. In a July 3, 1986, Federal Register

notice 7

, EPA required a State to obtain authorization

to regulate the hazardous component of mixed LLW

under RCRA and formally clarified the applicability y

of RCRA to waste containing both hazardous and

radioactive constituents. This clarification was necessary because of confusion between the interpretation of Section 1004(27) of RCRA, which excludes

‘‘source, special nuclear, and byproduct material as

defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended. .,’ and the definition of ‘‘solid waste’ to

be covered by the RCRA requirements.

In a subsequent notice of clarification issued in

the Federal Register. on September 23, 19888, on the

application of RCRA to hazardous waste treatment.

storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) for mixed

LLW, EPA stated that RCRA applies to any waste

containing both RCRA hazardous constituents and

AEA radioactive constituents. This interpretation

assumes that if a waste is a mixture of both

hazardous and radioactive constituents, only the

individual radioactive constituents are exempt from

RCRA—not the entire mixture of hazardous and

radioactive materials. As a result of these notices,

mixed LLW is now formally subject to dual regulation under both RCRA and AEA.

751 F~er~ Register 24504, July 3, 1986.

853 Federal Register 37045, Sept. 23, 1988.
Chapter 3--Overview of Federal Regulations ● 65

State Implementation of RCRA

Under RCRA, EPA may delegate to a State

agency the authority to implement hazardous waste

regulations if the State agency’s program is equivalent to the Federal RCRA program. A State program

must have the necessary statutory authority and

expertise to implement RCRA under State regulations. An authorized State program may adopt

requirements that are more stringent and comprehensive than Federal requirements as long as they

are not inconsistent with the Federal program.

Requirements for a State applying for authorization

are listed in 40 CFR Part 271. Although there are

some differences, this provision for authorizing a

State to assume the regulatory role for hazardous

waste is similar in concept to the NRC Agreement

State program for regulating radioactive waste.

Before HSWA was passed, a State received

RCRA authorization in phases based on the various

components of the RCRA regulatory program. A

State with full RCRA authorization was considered

to have base RCRA program authorization. Following HSWA’s passage, EPA assumed responsibility

for enforcing the new regulations until the authorized State agency could incorporate them into its

regulatory program.

Since HSWA required EPA to promulgate many

new regulations, EPA divided the Federal rules

required under HSWA authority and pre-HSWA

authority into groups+ ailed clusters—based on

schedules for when they are to be issued. A State is

to incorporate regulatory changes by a cluster

deadline and to apply for authorization within a

specified timeframe after a cluster of rules is

promulgated by EPA. A State with base authorization that fails to adopt the necessary statutory

authorities and equivalent regulations in a timely

fashion runs the risk of having EPA withdraw the

entire RCRA program authorization.

State Authorization for Mixed Waste

Under EPA’s approach, the authority to regulate

the hazardous component of mixed waste is included

in the non-HSWA Cluster III. The July 3. 1986.

Federal Register notice required a State with base

program authorization to revise its program if

necessary and apply for authorization to regulate the

hazardous component of mixed waste. The notice

allowed a State 1 year from the date of publication

to make necessary regulatory changes and to demonstrate that its hazardous waste program applies to all

hazardous waste, even if mixed with radioactive

waste. A State requiring statutory amendments to

regulate the hazardous component of mixed waste is

given 2 years from the date of the notice to

incorporate necessary changes. A State initially

applying for base authorization after July 3, 1987, is

required to include authority to regulate mixed waste

in its application.

The cluster established deadlines, which extended

previous deadlines, requiring States with base programs to demonstrate mixed waste regulatory authority by 1 year-by July 1988, or by July 1989 it

a statutory change is required. Furthermore, a

2-month grace period can be granted. The EPA

Regional Administrator may also grant States with

base authorization a 6-month extension beyond the

July 1989 deadline to apply for mixed waste

authorization. If necessary, the Regional Administrator may place States on a maximum 1 -year

schedule of compliance to apply for mixed waste

authorization. Given that only nine States have

mixed waste authorization as of October 1989, it is

likely that most States are or will be placed on the

compliance schedule.

Currently, 45 States are authorized for the base

RCRA program. Of these States, only Tennessee,

South Carolina, Washington, Kentucky, Colorado,

Georgia, Utah, Minnesota, and Ohio have received

authorization for mixed waste. These nine States are

responsible for regulating the generation, treatment,

storage, and disposal of mixed waste within their

borders. In the remaining 36 States which have base

authorization but are not currently authorized to

regulate mixed waste, mixed waste is not subject to

regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA and is

regulated as a hazardous waste only if the State has

adopted specific mixed waste statutes and regulations or is regulating the material under some other

State statute or regulation. In the six unauthorized

States and territories, EPA administers the RCRA

program, including regulation of mixed waste.
66 ● Partnerships Under pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Clarification of Interim Status Requirements

for Mixed LLW Treatment, Storage,

or Disposal Facilities

Under RCRA regulations, hazardous waste TSDFs

in existence prior to November 19, 1980--or in

existence prior to the effective date of statutory or

regulatory changes that bring the facility under

RCRA regulation—are eligible for interim status.

Interim status allows a TSDF to operate without a

final permit under regulations found in 40 CFR Part

265 until EPA or an authorized State makes a formal

decision to issue or deny the final TSDF permit. To

be eligible for interim status, the owner or operator

of a TSDF that meets the ‘‘in existence’ requirements mentioned above must comply with the

notification requirements of Section 3010 of RCRA

and must submit a RCRA Part A permit application

pursuant to 40 CFR Part 270.70. Without interim

status, hazardous waste activities at existing facilities must cease until a final permit is issued, which

in some cases might take several years.

On September 23, 1988, EPA issued a Federal

Register notice to clarify interim status qualification

requirements for TSDFs handling mixed waste. In

this notice, EPA determined that TSDFs handling

mixed waste in an unauthorized State had to be in

existence or under construction as of July 3, 1986, to

be eligible for interim status. This “in existence”

date differs from the November 19, 1980, date for

TSDFs handling only hazardous waste, as it corresponds to the EPA’s first official pronouncement

that RCRA requirements are applicable to mixed

waste.

Owners and operators of TSDFs handling mixed

waste that were in existence or under construction by

July 3, 1986, and are located in a State which did not

have base program authorization as of September

23, 1988, were required to submit Part A permit

application to the appropriate EPA Regional Office

by March 23, 1989.

Owners and operators of TSDFs handling only

mixed waste in a State that did have base authorization by July 3, 1986, are not subject to RCRA

regulation until the State program receives authorization to regulate mixed waste. The latest “in

existence’ date in a State for determining interim

status eligibility is the effective date of the State’s

mixed waste authorization. However, once authorized, a State may select an earlier “in existence”

date on which to base interim status qualifications.

For example, a State might choose to select an earlier

date to prevent facilities from obtaining interim

status because these facilities were not in existence

as of the earlier date. As a result, facilities in this

situation would have to cease operations until a final

permit was obtained and would not be allowed to

operate under less stringent interim status requirements. However, as a practical matter, the nine

States that have already received mixed waste

authorization have not chosen earlier in existence’

dates.

In a State with base authorization, TSDFs handling mixed LLW that have already obtained interim

status under RCRA because they handle other

RCRA hazardous waste, will be required to submit

a revised Part A permit application reflecting their

mixed LLW activities within 6 months of the State’s

receipt of mixed waste authorization.

The owners and operators of the three existing

commercial LLW disposal facilities have decided

not to apply for RCRA permits to dispose of mixed

LLW or for interim status under RCRA. As a result,

these facilities are no longer allowed to receive

mixed LLW, and mixed LLW generators are presently without available disposal capacity. If these

three facilities were to apply for RCRA disposal

permits, they would be subject to the HSWA

corrective action requirements, which stipulate that

the facility owner/operator must address any previous releases of hazardous constituents before a final

RCRA permit can be issued.

NRC and EPA Guidance on Mixed LLW

To clarify how dual regulation of mixed LLW is

to be implemented, the two agencies jointly developed three guidance documents that address the

identification and definition of commercial mixed

LLW (8), siting guidelines for mixed LLW disposal

facilities (9), and a conceptual design for mixed

LLW disposal facilities (10).

The first joint guidance document, issued on

January 8, 1987, defines mixed LLW as:

waste that satisfies the definition of low-level

waste in the LLW Policy Amendments Act of 1985

and contains hazardous waste that either (1) is listed
Chapter 3--Overview of Federal Regulations ● 67

as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part

261 or (2) causes the low-level waste to exhibit any

of the hazardous waste characteristics identified in

Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. (8)

It was determined that the RCRA exclusion of

source, byproduct material, and special nuclear

material from the definition of solid waste only

applies to the actual radionuclides in the waste. If the

radionuclides cannot be separated from the waste,

waste containing both radioactive and hazardous

constituents falls under dual jurisdiction and must be

managed in accordance with the requirements of

both RCRA and AEA as implemented by EPA and

NRC respectively. This guidance also includes a

methodology for generators of commercial LLW to

identify mixed LLW.

The second joint guidance document, issued on

March 13, 1987, contains combined NRC and EPA

siting guidelines for mixed LLW disposal facilities.

The guidance states that both NRC and EPA do not

consider the absence of EPA’s final location standards for hazardous waste facilities (which are

currently under development) to be a justification for

States and compacts not to proceed with the

development of LLW disposal sites, including

mixed LLW disposal units in accordance with the

LLRWPAA (9). The joint guidance includes a

preview of EPA’s location standards, combined with

NRC’s site suitability requirements in 10 CFR Part

61.50. EPA has promulgated minimum location

standards for hazardous waste TSDFs and has

established interim final criteria for identifying areas

of vulnerable hydrogeology (6), but EPA has not

developed final location standards that specify

siting criteria for new hazardous waste TSDFs.

EPA’s schedule for adopting these additional location standards is lagging behind the timeframe

needed for States to meet the LLRWPAA. Because

of this delay, the agencies combined their existing

requirements and guidance and developed 11 siting

guidelines for mixed LLW disposal facilities (9) (see

ch. 6). The guidance encourages States and compacts planning to develop mixed LLW disposal units

in conjunction with LLW sites to stay abreast of

EPA’s plans for promulgating the location standards

required by HSWA.

The third joint guidance was issued on August 3,

1987, and includes a conceptual design for mixed

LLW disposal facilities developed by NRC and EPA

(10). The agencies consider the conceptual design

depicted in the guidance for a mixed LLW disposal

unit to be capable of meeting both EPA minimum

technology requirements for liners and leachate

collection systems and NRC’s requirements for

minimizing contact of waste with water. The design

is also to assure long-term stability and avoidance of

long-term active maintenance, which is required by

both agencies. The guidance discusses the need to

evaluate mixed LLW disposal technologies on a

site-specific basis and the potential for site developers to obtain a variance to EPA’s minimum technology requirements.9 According to the guidance,

variations to the conceptual design submitted by

license applicants will be reviewed by NRC and

EPA on a case-by-case basis to evaluate their

acceptability and conformance with Federal regulations. This guidance also discusses facility closure

requirements.

EPA and NRC have also discussed the need to

develop joint guidance on mixed LLW storage,

sampling and testing, inspection and enforcement

procedures, and dual licensing and permitting procedures. No final guidance in these areas has been

issued by the agencies as of November 1989. In a

report for the LLW Forum10, prepared by Afton

Associates, officials from States planning to build

mixed LLW disposal facilities voiced the need for

guidance in these and other areas to increase the

efficiency and feasibility of dual regulation (1). The

Forum also saw joint guidance needed on treatment

standards for particular mixed LLW, pre-approval of

conceptual facility designs, post-closure failure

scenarios, monitoring, and remediation.

Dual Regulation of Mixed LLW

There are four potential scenarios for State and

Federal regulation of mixed waste under dual

jurisdiction:

9T0 ~bt~ ~ “~ace, tie Site Oprator must demons~ate that an altematlvc design and operating practices together wi~ the ch~actcristics of ~C

site location are equally effective in preventing the migration of any hazardous constituent into groundwater or surface water.

l~e LLW Fomm is ~ ~=latlon of state and cornp~t officials hat was estab]ish~ to facilitate implementation of the LOw-k’e] Radioactive

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985,
68 ● partnerships Under pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

1. regulation by a State radiation protection agency

and a State hazardous waste program in an

Agreement State that is also an authorized

RCRA State,

2. regulation by a State radiation protection agency

and by EPA in an Agreement State that is not

authorized for RCRA,

3. regulation by NRC and a State hazardous waste

program in a non-Agreement State that is an

authorized RCRA State, or

4. regulation by NRC and EPA in a nonAgreement State that is not authorized for

RCRA.

Generally, NRC and EPA regulations differ in

their levels of specificity under their governing

statutes. As discussed above, NRC’s regulations for

LLW disposal are primarily based on performance

objectives, allowing the site developer considerable

flexibility in meeting them. Conversely, EPA’s

regulations for managing hazardous waste are prescriptive in many significant areas, such as minimum technology requirements for land disposal,

manifest requirements for waste transportation and

waste sampling, and verification procedures. Because many of these requirements are also mandated

by statute, EPA has little flexibility in developing

regulations for their implementation and must incorporate statutory requirements and prohibitions as

required by law. Although RCRA does offer some

relief from these prescriptive requirements through

variances, the statutory standards for demonstrating

variances found in Section 3004(d) of RCRA are

very stringent.

The provision in RCRA Section 1006(a) for

exempting a substance for which RCRA requirements are inconsistent with AEA requirements has

been much discussed between EPA, NRC, and

States planning to develop mixed LLW disposal

facilities. No guidance, however, has been offered

by either agency on how to implement this provision. As of November 1989, neither NRC nor EPA

has publicly identified any potential inconsistencies

under dual regulation that might preclude compliance with either agency’s requirements.

Of particular concern to the States planning to

build mixed LLW disposal units are the additional

procedural and administrative requirements for permitting a mixed LLW facility under RCRA as well

as under AEA. To meet the milestones and deadlines

prescribed by the LLRWPAA, most States are

hoping to integrate RCRA permitting procedures for

the mixed LLW disposal unit with the licensing

process for their LLW disposal facility. It is unclear

whether or not NRC and EPA will issue guidance or

rulemaking on dual licensing and permitting because they will only serve as the licensing and

permitting authorities for those few States that have

not obtained delegated regulatory authority. If such

guidance or rulings are not issued, Agreement State

programs and RCRA authorized State hazardous

waste programs will have little direction in integrating facility approval procedures.

Implications of RCRA Requirements on

Mixed LLW Management and Disposal

As of November 1989, NRC and EPA were

planning to regulate mixed LLW under their existing

hazardous waste and LLW regulations and were not

planning to develop regulations specifically for

mixed LLW. The two agencies examined the two

sets of existing regulations and found that they are

consistent with one another-no instances were

identified where compliance with one set of regulations would result in noncompliance with the other.

However, both agencies recognize the potential for

conflicts or inconsistencies to arise when implementing the regulations in site-specific cases.

As mentioned earlier, RCRA Section 1006(a)

provides for AEA to take precedence in cases where

the application of RCRA regulations are inconsistent with AEA requirements. Neither agency, however, has adopted procedures or regulations for

making inconsistency determinations under Section

1006(a). Instead, the agencies plan to review on a

case-by-case basis any potential inconsistencies

found by generators or site developers. In its

September 23, 1988, Federal Register notice, EPA

encouraged the regulated community to bring forward actual examples of inconsistencies. If warranted, these examples would be addressed in future

rulemakings or guidance.

Since the agencies are not currently planning to

develop separate regulations for mixed LLW, the

full requirements of the existing regulations will

apply. Under RCRA regulations, the generator is

responsible for determining if the waste being
Chapter 3--Overview of Federal Regulations ● 69

generated contains a listed hazardous waste or if the

waste exhibits any of the four hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.

Generators of mixed LLW containing hazardous

constituents are required to notify EPA or the State

agency authorized for mixed waste and obtain a

generator identification number, Large-quantity generators (those that generate greater than 1,000

kilograms (2,200 pounds) per month) that are

planning to store mixed LLW for more than 90 days

must apply for a hazardous waste storage permit

from EPA or the authorized State agency. Smallquantity generators (those that generate 100 to 1,000

kilograms (220 to 2,200 pounds) per month) may

store hazardous waste for up to 180 days without a

permit and may store up to 6,000 kilograms (13,200

pounds) for 270 days if the waste must be shipped

over 200 miles for management or disposal.

Storing short-lived radioactive waste until the

radioactivity decays to below regulatory concern

(BRC) levels1l has been a common LLW management practice. Mixed LLW generators may incur

additional costs and regulatory burdens to obtain a

RCRA storage permit if they plan to store this waste

for the decay of its radioactive materials. Impacts of

storage prohibitions related to the Land Disposal

Restrictions mandated by HSWA (see the next two

sections) may also affect a facility’s ability to store

mixed LLW.

Generators shipping hazardous waste offsite for

storage, treatment, or disposal must complete EPA’s

Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest and use a

transporter who has an EPA identification number.

The waste must be shipped to a permitted or interim

status TSDF in accordance with the applicable

Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations

governing hazardous materials. Mixed LLW generators will have to complete the Uniform Hazardous

Waste Manifest, as well as the manifest required by

the LLW facility operator. Mixed LLW shipments

will also be required to meet DOT regulations for

shipment of radioactive materials. In its September

23, 1988, Federal Register notice, EPA determined

that NRC’s and EPA’s packaging and waste transportation regulations are complemental} and consistent with DOT regulations. The Federal agencies do

not anticipate States or generators encountering any

problems with conflicts among Federal regulations.

However, in cases where RCRA-authorized States

and NRC Agreement States are licensing mixed

LLW facilities, the State regulations will apply and

conflicts may result where these regulations are

more stringent.

After receipt of the hazardous waste at a permitted

or interim status TSDF, the waste is managed in

accordance with EPA regulations and facility permit

conditions. It is the responsibility of the TSDF

owner/operator to sample and verify the contents of

the waste package. The owner/operator must also

determine that the waste has been properly treated

prior to land disposal. This determination may be

based on information supplied by the generator or on

the analysis conducted at TSDF.

The sampling of mixed wrote containers has been

a focus of concern. RCRA requires that samples be

taken large enough (100 grams) to be representative,

but a large enough sample could result in increased

worker exposure to radiation and a violation of

ALARA principles. Currently, LLW disposal facilities do not open LLW containers prior to disposal

unless external radiation-monitoring indicates the

need to further inspect the waste package. EPA and

NRC are working on resolving this issue but no final

joint guidance has been established as of October

1989.12

Currently, many TSDFs that accept hazardous

waste have self-imposed prohibitions on accepting

radioactive waste. even in de minimis13 quantities.

Others cannot accept radioactive waste for treatment, storage, or disposal because they do not have

the necessary license from NRC or the appropriate

Agreement State agency for managing mixed LLW.

At present, there are no commercial TSDFs that have

the necessary AEA license and RCRA permit to

accept offsite mixed LLW.

I l~ew levels tie ~t by NRC ~ ~a[ BRC wrote poses no undue risk to public heatth and safety and the cnvlronmcnt.

IZEP<4 ~d MC have dr~t~ a cjocurncrtt crttiljed ‘‘Characlen/ahon Gtudancc that ilddresses tie SWNphng pTLXXdUrC.

13~e ~wn’~ Wwe is different from BRC wa~~c in ~a[ de mlnlmL$ wz~~c implies a ~Vi~ radiation hw,~d when dlsposcd of ~d no rc~ard for COS(

or technology. BRC waste, in contrast, implies costs will be evaluated agwnst benefits and current technology. This dlstmctlon was made b) Timothy

Johnson in his talk “Below Regulatory Concern Wastes-ldermficatlon and Implications for Mixed Waste Managcmcm,’ Pro(eed[n~s of U S

Environmental Protection A~ency h41.xed Waste Workshop, Denver, Colorado, July 19-20, 1988, pp. 43-46.
70 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Some mixed LLW generators have developed

onsite treatment facilities for mixed LLW, including

incinerators operating with AEA licenses and interim status RCRA permits. However, due to the

complexities and stringent requirements of obtaining a final RCRA Part B permit, these facilities may

opt not to pursue final permits. The development of

onsite facilities as an option for treating mixed waste

is not considered economically feasible for the

majority of generators that produce small quantities

of mixed LLW. The Department of Energy has

developed treatment capacity for defense mixed

waste, “including incinerators-with RCRA

These facilities, however, are not regulated

nor available to commercial generators.

Impact of the HSWA Land

Disposal Restrictions

permits.

by NRC

As mentioned earlier, the three existing commercial LLW disposal facilities are not authorized to

accept mixed LLW. The Land Disposal Restrictions

(LDRs) mandated by HSWA in 1984 will also

profoundly affect the future management and disposal of mixed LLW. EPA is promulgating the

LDRs as regulations over a 31/z-year period from

November 1986 to May 1990. Once a LDR is

effective for a particular hazardous waste, any mixed

LLW containing that hazardous component must be

treated to an adequate level, as determined by EPA,

prior to land disposal in a mixed LLW disposal

facility.

As part of HSWA, Congress mandated a schedule

for EPA to evaluate all hazardous wastes to determine if continued land disposal of these wastes is

sufficiently protective of public health and the

environment. If EPA does not meet the statutory

deadlines for making specific determinations for

certain wastes, these wastes will be prohibited from

land disposal. Section 3004(m) of RCRA requires

EPA, when issuing its regulations prohibiting the

land disposal of particular hazardous wastes, to also

promulgate regulations specifying levels or methods

of treatment that would substantially diminish the

toxicity or reduce the likelihood of migration of the

hazardous constituent from the wastes. The goal of

these regulations is to minimize short-term and

long-term threats to human health and the environment.

Once the treatment standard is met, the statute

allows the waste or the residues of waste to be

disposed of in a permitted land disposal facility. The

legislation allows the EPA Administrator to delay

the effective date of the treatment standards and land

disposal prohibitions if treatment capacity is not

currently available. The Administrator is also responsible for evaluating and granting site-specific

petitions requesting land disposal facilities to accept

banned waste, based on the finding that there will be

no migration of hazardous constituents from the land

disposal unit for as long as the waste remains

hazardous.

To implement these provisions, EPA has issued or

is planning to issue regulations based on the

schedule that Congress prescribed in HSWA. (See

table 3-l—Schedule for Land Disposal Prohibitions.)

In November 1986, EPA issued LDRs and treatment standards for spent solvents and dioxincontaining waste. On July 8, 1987, the agency issued

LDRs and treatment standards for the California List

wastes. (See table 3-1 for a list of these wastes.) In

August 1988, the agency issued LDRs and treatment

standards for the first third of EPA’s listed hazardous

wastes. The second third of LDRs and treatment

standards for EPA’s listed hazardous wastes was

issued on June 23, 1989. The final third is expected

in May 1990.

In establishing treatment standards, EPA identifies wastes with similar physical and chemical

characteristics and categorizes them into waste

treatability groups. EPA then evaluates technologies

to treat these wastes to determine the best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) for each waste

treatability group. EPA only considers treatment

technologies that have been demonstrated by fullscale operation. Once identified, a technology must

meet three criteria; it must:

●

●

●

be commercially available,

present less risk to human health and the

environment than land disposal of the untreated

waste, and

provide substantial treatment.
Chapter 3---Overview of Federal Regulations . 71

Each of these criteria is explained in detail in a

November 7, 1986, Federal Register notice.14 Treatment technologies prohibited under Section 3004(n)

of RCRA because of air emissions are excluded as

available technologies for purposes of establishing

treatment standards.

If EPA concludes that a demonstrated technology

does not meet the above criteria and therefore is not

available, the treatment standard is based on the next

best technology determined to be available. The

resulting treatment standards, which are determined

to be available, may be expressed as concentration

limits based on the performance of the BDAT or as

technology-based standards in the regulations. EPA

has generally indicated a preference for concentrationbased standards. However, if analytic methods for

determining concentrations are not readily available,

EPA prescribes technology-based standards. To

allow the generator considerable flexibility in meeting a concentration-based standard, EPA does not

require that the waste be treated using a specific

technology.

Possible Variances and Extensions to the

Effective Date for Treatment Standards

National Capacity Variance-Due to the lack of

available treatment capacity for spent solvents and

dioxin-containing waste, EPA granted a 2-year

national postponement of the effective date for

applying the LDRs and treatment standards, allowing waste containing these materials to be land

disposed until the effective date. This reprieve has

since passed for these wastes, and the regulations

became effective on November 7, 1988.

A similar determination was made for some of the

California List wastes. The effective date for LDRs

and treatment standards for halogenated organic

compounds (HOCs) in total concentrations of greater

than or equal to 1,000 milligrams per liter (0.033

ounces per quart) was delayed until July 8, 1989, due

to the lack of incineration capacity. In EPA’s August

17, 1988, rulemaking, which promulgated LDRs and

treatment standards for the first third of the ‘listed’

hazardous waste, EPA issued treatment standards

applicable to certain California List HOC waste to

allow burning in industrial boilers and furnaces.

Table 3-l-Schedule for Land Disposal Prohibitions

NOV. 8, 1986:

Dioxin-containing wastes (F020, F021, F022, F023, F026,

F027, F028)

Spent solvents (F001, F002, F003, F004, F005)

July 8, 1987:

California List wastes (liquid hazardous wastes containing:

free cyanides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and certain

metals at or above specified concentration levels, and those

liquid hazardous wastes having a pH of less than or equal to

2.0. Also, both liquid and nonliquid hazardous wastes containing halogenated organic compounds at or above specified

concentration levels)

Aug. 8, 1988:

At least one-third of all listed hazardous wastes

Wastes disposed of in injection wells

NOV. 8, 1988:

Contaminated soil and debris from the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980a Section 104 or 106 response actions and RCRA

correction actions

June 8, 1989:

At least two-thirds of all listed hazardous wastes

May 8, 1990:

All remaining listed hazardous wastes

All characteristic hazardous wastes

Within 6 months of listing or identification (these wastes are

not subject to the automatic land disposal prohibition):

Newly listed wastes

aPublic Law 96-510.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Land Disposal Restrictions Summary, Volume 1, Solvents and Dioxins, EPA/530-SW87-019A, May 1987,

Treatment standards have not been established for

California List corrosive wastes, metals, or free

cyanides. Generators must, therefore, treat these

wastes to levels below the statutory prohibition

levels found in RCRA Section 3004(d)(2) or render

them nonliquid prior to land disposal. With respect

to other California List wastes, the effective date of

July 8, 1987, still holds.

The LDRs and treatment standards in effect for

dioxins, spent solvents, and the California List

wastes are in effect for the hazardous constituent in

mixed LLW. However, in issuing the LDRs and

treatment standards for the first third of EPA’s listed

hazardous wastes, EPA decided to postpone the

issuance of the first two-thirds of the LDRs and

standards for mixed LLWs until it issues the final

third in May 1990.

145 I F~er~ Register 40572, NOV. 7, 1986.
72 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

EPA could decide to grant a national capacity

variance for the scheduled listed wastes as well. A

maximum 2-year national capacity variance would

extend the effective date of these treatment standards

to May 1992. However, most of the hazardous

constituents known in commercial mixed LLW

whose generation cannot be avoided fall into the

group of dioxins, solvents, and certain California

List wastes, for which treatment standards are in

effect now. Nonetheless, if any hazardous constituents in mixed LLW are detected for which treatment

standards would not be established until the last

third treatment standards are established, a 2-year

national capacity variance could extend the effective

date of these standards to May 1992.

Case-by-Case Extensions—For the commercial

mixed LLWs for which treatment standards are

currently effective, generators must either treat the

wastes to meet the applicable treatment standards of

40 CFR Part 268.40-43 prior to land disposal or

request a case-by-case extension of up to 2 years of

the effective date of the treatment standard. To

obtain an extension, generators must apply to the

EPA Assistant Administrator for a l-year extension,

renewable only once for an additional year. To be

considered for an extension, the petitioner must

demonstrate that he/she has made a good faith effort

to locate an appropriate available treatment facility

and that he/she has entered into a binding contract to

construct or otherwise provide for alternative treatment or recovery capacity that meets the treatment

standard for the entire waste volume. The petitioner

must also demonstrate that, due to circumstances

beyond his/her control, such alternative capacity

cannot reasonably be made available by the applicable effective date.

If an extension to the effective date is granted, the

generator may dispose of the restricted waste

without treatment. The land disposal unit must either

meet RCRA’s minimum technology requirements

for land disposal facilities or be determined by the

Administrator to be equally protective of human

health and the environment until the extension

expires. To meet the underlying standard for protecting human health and the environment, in cases

where LDRs apply but no treatment standard has

been established, EPA will require that the generator

have the capability to manage the waste for which

the extension is requested,

Variances to the Treatment Standard-Under 40

CFR Part 268.44, generators may also apply for a

variance from the applicable treatment standard if

the particular waste in question is considerably

different from the waste used by EPA in setting the

treatment standard and if the waste cannot be treated

to meet the applicable standard. Although no such

variances have been requested for mixed LLW, it is

evident that the presence of high levels of radioactivity in certain mixed LLWs could preclude the use of

certain hazardous waste treatment technologies necessary to meet applicable standards. For example,

such a variance will likely be needed for organic

solvents containing high concentrations of carbon14 and tritium, which if incinerated would escape

through an off-gas system.

To obtain a variance, the generator must not only

demonstrate that the waste is significantly different,

but also that the waste cannot be treated to meet the

standard, whether it be a concentration-based or

technology-based standard. The generator must also

provide an alternative treatment method for the

waste, which EPA will evaluate to establish a new

treatment standard for the waste if the variance is

granted. During consideration of variances to a

treatment standard, generators requesting the variance must comply with all applicable restrictions on

land disposal. Each application for a variance must

include information found in 40 CFR Part 260.20(b)( 1-

4).

No-Migration Petition-In 40 CFR Part 268.6 of

the RCRA regulations, generators of waste restricted

from land disposal have the opportunity to petition

EPA, through their TSDF permit application, for a

no-migration variance. The petitioners must demonstrate that no migration of hazardous constituents

from a site-specific land disposal unit will occur for

as long as the waste remains hazardous. If the EPA

Administrator approves the petition, the waste for

which the variance was requested may be disposed

of at the specific land disposal facility without

treatment. EPA has stated that it ‘‘believes there will

be very few instances when no-migration demonstrations can be successfully made’ (7). EPA identifies likely circumstances where no-migration variances might be used, which include the disposal of

relatively immobile hazardous constituents in arid

land disposal units with no groundwater recharge

and the disposal of small amounts of hazardous
Chapter 3-Overview of Federal Regulations ● 73

waste in stable geologic formations. All variances

and extensions must be granted by EPA through

rulemaking procedures published in the Federal

Register as tentative and final decisions.

Delisting-Generators may also petition the agency

to delist the hazardous waste in question to allow

disposal in a conventional landfill at any point in the

process.

Summary of LDRs and Treatment Standards

The LDRs and treatment standards for spent

solvents, dioxin-containing waste, and some California List hazardous wastes are applicable to those

mixed LLWs containing these substances as of the

effective dates. Surveys of mixed LLW generators

indicate that these standards may cover a large

portion of total mixed LLWs requiring treatment.

With this information in hand. generators of these

wastes can begin immediately to meet these standards.

For other hazardous constituents found in mixed

LLW, treatment standards will not be established

until May 1990. EPA decided to defer establishing

treatment standards for listed hazardous wastes until

standards for the final third of the scheduled listed

wastes are established. This decision was based on

the agency’s determination that while these hazardous wastes exist in large volumes, only a relatively

small volume of mixed LLW containing these

constituents is currently being generated. As a result

of the deferral, generators of mixed LLW containing

hazardous constituents other than dioxins, solvents,

or some California List wastes will be allowed to

continue storing their waste, despite the storage

prohibitions discussed below, until at least May

1990.

Storage Prohibitions Affecting Mixed LLW

As part of the LDRs in HSWA, Congress adopted

legislation prohibiting the storage of hazardous

constituents restricted from land disposal ‘‘. . .

unless such storage is solely for the purpose of

accumulation of such quantities of hazardous waste

as are necessary to facilitate proper recovery,

treatment, or disposal. ’ This prohibition is found in

RCRA Section 3004(j) and in 40 CFR Part 268.50.

The regulations allow transporters to store manifested shipments of restricted waste for up to 10

days. For TSDFs storing mixed LLW for “the

purpose of accumulation. . .,” the burden of proof is

on EPA or a RCRA-authorized State agency during

the first year to demonstrate that the purpose of

accumulation does not meet the requirement. Storage of restricted waste beyond 1 year shifts the

burden of proof to the TSDF owner/operator to

demonstrate that the storage is solely for the

purposes outlined in the statute. Since no treatment

or disposal facility exists for mixed LLW, it is

unlikely that generators would be granted a storage

permit. The storage prohibition does not apply to

wastes for which extensions or variances have been

granted or to wastes that meet applicable treatment

standards.

The storage prohibition is a major problem for

mixed LLW generators currently storing or planning

to store their mixed LLW due to the lack of available

treatment and disposal capacity. This prohibition

may also make it more difficult for States and

compacts planning to submit Governors’ certifications to comply with the 1990 milestone of the

LLRWPAA of 1985. The sited States, DOE, and

NRC have issued guidance and criteria for the 1990

milestone which requires States not in sited compact

to document their plans for the post-1992 management of all LLW, including mixed LLW, as part of

their Governors’ certifications. Many States are

contemplating requiring generators to store LLW

onsite for an extended period until new LLW and

mixed LLW disposal units are licensed and permitted. Most of these new facilities will not be in place

until well after 1992.

Storage prohibitions for the majority of untreatable mixed LLWs—those containing dioxin, solvent,

or certain California List constituents—are in effect

as of November 1988. While case-by-case extensions for treatment could be granted for 1 year and

renewed for an additional year, these extensions are

unlikely because the generator has to have a binding

contract in place for alternative treatment capacity

before the extension is granted. A contract will be

difficult to arrange given that no commercial facility

is operational for treating mixed LLW aside from

onsite incinerators and one offsite incinerator that

accepts only BRC scintillation fluids.

EPA’s ability to allow continued storage of mixed

LLW containing restricted hazardous constituents in
74 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

the absence of treatment and disposal facilities may

be limited since the prohibition is a statutory

requirement. It may, however, be possible for

rulemaking to allow mixed LLW containing restricted constituents to be stored until adequate

treatment and disposal facilities are available. Under

the current schedule of EPA and NRC issuing

guidance on mixed LLW, it is unlikely that such

rulemaking will be available before the January 1,

1990, milestone deadline for submission of Governors’ certifications. As a result, States may have

difficulty complying with the 1990 milestone.

States could go so far as to require generators of

mixed LLW containing land disposal restricted

constituents to cease their operations. This could

potentially cripple utilities, radiopharmaceutical manufacturers, and research and medical institutions.

Generators are currently trying to change their

practices so that they do not produce mixed LLW,

and, for mixed LLW generation that cannot be

avoided, generators are using all available in-house

treatment techniques to alter their waste so that it is

either solely radioactive or solely hazardous. Nonetheless, some mixed LLW generation cannot be

avoided short of shutting down the facilities producing the waste. Generators, in turn, are storing their

waste which is illegal if it is a land disposal restricted

waste falling into the category of dioxin, solvent, or

a California List waste. Generators are pressuring

EPA for relief from the storage prohibition. Mixed

LLW generators could also begin pressuring the

private sector to develop mixed waste treatment

facilities. States could also take it upon themselves

to develop these facilities, but the result could be that

substantial resources and staff would be diverted

from their primary responsibility of developing

disposal facilities, as required by Federal law.

Regulatory Issues Affecting the Development

of Mixed LLW Disposal Capacity

Of primary concern to States and compacts are the

additional technical and procedural requirements of

dual permitting and licensing of mixed LLW facilities under both RCRA and AEA. Although States

with Agreement State status and RCRA programs

authorized for mixed waste will actually permit and

license these facilities in lieu of EPA and NRC, the

two agencies will still be able to exert considerable

influence over the process through the development

of rulemaking or guidance, imposition of minimum

Federal technical and procedural requirements, and

issuance of variances.

Although some State officials believe that dual

permitting and licensing are workable, these officials also note the additional expense and time

required to meet both sets of requirements. One State

has estimated that characterizing sites to meet

RCRA requirements as well as NRC requirements

may increase site characterization costs by $2

million to $4 million per site and could delay the

entire facility siting process by up to a year,

jeopardizing the State’s ability to meet milestones

prescribed by Federal law (2). State officials also

worry about the dynamic nature of RCRA regulations—

the moving target syndrome. They are concerned

that the regulations will disrupt the facility development process if additional regulations are promulgated for site selection criteria and disposal facility

design in the midst of the process (1).

Regarding disposal facility design requirements,

EPA and NRC have promulgated performance

objectives and technical requirements which differ

in approach. NRC has issued general technical

requirements and performance objectives in 10 CFR

Part 61, while EPA has prescribed specific engineering features in 40 CFR Part 264. Most significantly,

EPA requires that all land disposal units install two

or more liners and a leachate collection system

above and between the liners to protect human

health and the environment. Conversely, NRC calls

for the development of free-draining disposal units

to avoid the “bathtub effect. ” NRC’s approach

depends on trench caps and natural site characteristics to minimize infiltration of water and migration

of radionuclides into the environment. (See ch. 6 for

a more details on these differences).

While the joint guidance issued by the agencies

shows that EPA’s minimum technology requirements, which are also statutory requirements, are not

likely to preclude compliance with NRC’s requirements, the guidance does not address operational

concerns resulting from these requirements. One of

these concerns is increased worker exposure due to

the potential radiological hazard posed by leachate

collection and waste verification procedures required by RCRA. States are also interested in how to
Chapter 3--Overview of Federal Regulations ● 75

obtain variances from RCRA minimum technology

requirements by demonstrating that their alternative

designs provide equivalent protection for human

health and the environment. States have requested

guidance in both areas (l). Beyond the minimum

technology requirements which have given rise to

these concerns, other EPA and NRC technical

requirements for land disposal units appear to be

complementary.

To assist them in licensing mixed LLW facilities,

States have requested additional guidance for integrating the administrative licensing procedures of

both regulations and have requested that the agencies develop consultative review and preapprove.1

procedures for State conceptual designs for mixed

LLW disposal units. Recognizing the tight timetable

States are on to develop these disposal facilities,

NRC officials informed their Advisory Committee

on Nuclear Waste that they plan to assist the States

in determining ways to streamline the licensing of

mixed LLW disposal units (11). Nonetheless, this

effort should be jointly conducted with EPA to

ensure that both agencies’ regulations are met.

Future Considerations for the Management

and Disposal of Mixed LLW

Despite the small volumes of mixed LLW currently generated or projected to be generated, the

management and disposal of these materials has

been of great concern both to generators who must

manage the waste in compliance with two sets of

regulations and to State and compact officials who

must develop disposal facilities in accordance with

both RCRA and AEA requirements. While NRC

regulations for treatment of LLW are not as prescriptive as EPA’s, EPA regulations will eventually

require that all LLW containing hazardous constituents be treated to meet the applicable standard. With

no treatment capacity and no assurance of future

treatment capacity, generators may not be able to

manage these wastes in accordance with EPA’s

treatment standards. Furthermore, States may not be

able to do so after 1992 unless regulations are

modified to allow storage while encouraging the

development of treatment and disposal capacity. In

addition, the radiological impacts on the environment, the public, and workers from mixed LLW

treatment will need to be evaluated by the regulatory

community.

RCRA regulations are continual y evolving which

adds to the uncertainty of managing mixed LLW.

The small volume of mixed LLW currently being

generated, could significantly increase if EPA characterizes waste oil as a hazardous waste.

Another issue that may directly impact mixed

LLW management is the development and implementation of a Federal BRC standard and regulations that could theoretically allow mixed LLW with

very low levels of radioactivity to be disposed of as

a hazardous waste. Currently, NRC has established

regulations in 10 CFR Part 20.306 (the Biomedical

Rule) for allowing very low concentrations of

certain radionuclides in scintillation fluids and

animal carcasses to be disposed of without regard to

radioactivity. Furthermore, NRC has issued a policy

for designating certain waste streams as BRC.15

NRC staff is also in the process of developing a

broad generic policy for exempting certain practices

involving radioactive materials from regulatory

control. As proposed in the December 12, 1988,

Federal Register16, this generic policy would establish a 10-millirem-per-year individual whole body

dose as the limit for BRC determinations. However,

EPA plans to propose as part of its LLW standard (40

CFR Part 193) a BRC limit of 4-millirem-per-year

effective body dose, the consideration of collective

doses, extensive recordkeeping and waste characterization requirements, and the potential for recycling

the waste. If EPA’s BRC standard is promulgated,

NRC’s regulations for BRC will have to be modified

to conform with the EPA standard. The resolution of

this inconsistency between the two agencies’ BRC

limits may take years. Even once a BRC standard

and regulations are in effect, operators of hazardous

waste landfills may refuse to accept the BRC mixed

LLW. Furthermore, operators of municipal landfills

may refuse to accept BRC nonmixed LLW. It is,

therefore, unclear what actual impact BRC will have

on waste volumes.

In addition, as of October 1989 the Capacity

Assurance Requirement imposed by the Superfund

1551 Fe&al Register 30839, Aug. 29, 1986.

165 I F~er~ Rc~ster 49886, DCC. 12, 1988.
76 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Lo M-Level Radioactive Waste

Amendments Reauthorization Act of 198617 directs

States to demonstrate that they have the capacity to

manage hazardous waste generated within their

borders for 20 years. This demonstration is necessary for a State to maintain its eligibility for Federal

Superfund money. According to criteria released by

EPA, States are also required to address mixed LLW

in their capacity assurance submissions to EPA.

With no current treatment and disposal facilities, it

is unclear how this problem will be solved.

While States have expressed their commitment to

providing disposal of mixed LLW, they are not

currently able to address storage and treatment

uncertainties faced by generators. Unless States and

compacts decide to develop mixed LLW treatment

facilities (for which they are not directly responsible

under Federal or State law), the private sector will

have to provide these facilities in a timely fashion to

avoid a potential disruption of services provided by

mixed LLW generators. Generators are currently

studying methods to minimize the amount of mixed

LLW generated and treatment options to render the

waste nonhazardous, but it seems unlikely that all

mixed LLW can be eliminated.

The potential volume reduction of mixed LLW

requiring treatment and disposal is a double-edged

sword—it may reduce volumes but it may discourage the private development of needed commercial

mixed LLW treatment facilities by eliminating

economies of scale. To know the types of mixed

LLW generated and their volumes nationwide, it

may be necessary to conduct a comprehensive

survey. A survey could help States in their planning

and could provide marketing information to the

private sector on treatment facility needs,

In summary, while the requirement that generators and disposal facilities operate under dual

regulation may be workable, it presents many

challenges and uncertainties. The workability of

dual regulation would be enhanced if flexible and

practical approaches were taken to ensure that

human health and the environment are protected. For

example, the EPA could decide to allow generators/

operators to store a particular waste for which no

treatment capacity and/or no disposal capacity is

available. In other words, storage would be allowed

if it is not being used in lieu of disposal. This

provision would give mixed LLW generators an

intermediate option until treatment capacity and

disposal capacity are developed and available. EPA

could establish this provision to allow intermediate

storage when it issues its rule for treatment standards, which will be included in the final third of

hazardous wastes (due to be released in May 1990).

To ensure that generators do not abuse this provision, EPA could keep authority to rescind the

provision if good faith effort is not being made to

develop treatment and disposal capacity. An advantage of this approach is that by generators applying

for a storage permit, EPA would have a record as to

what types and volumes of mixed LLW are being

generated. EPA could use the data to better ensure

that wastes are not being illegally disposed. The

waste treatment industry also could use the data as

a marketing tool to develop necessary waste treatment facilities.

NRC and EPA rulemaking and the issuance of

additional guidance for mixed LLW would eliminate a number of issues that are impeding the

protection of human health and the environment:

● regulations that are currently unattainable.”

-certain treatment standards (particularly for

certain problem mixed LLWs (e.g., solvents

containing carbon-14 and tritium),

—storage prohibitions;

● regulatory conflicts and inconsistencies..

—waste sampling and testing,

—facility inspection and enforcement,

—timing conflict between EPA location standards and LLW disposal siting efforts,

—timing conflict between States being granted

mixed waste authorization and States’ schedules to develop LLW disposal facilities;

● regulatory overlap and duplication..

—procedures for determining inconsistencies between AEA and RCRA,

—BRC limits for specific wastes,

—facility design variance procedures,

—waste package manifest requirements,

—licensing and permitting procedures,

—recordkeeping,

—financial assurance requirements,

—facility monitoring requirements,

IT~b]ic Law 99-499, (kt. 17, 1986.
Chapter 3--Overview of Federal Regulations ● 7 7

-emergency preparedness and prevention requirements,

—post-closure failure scenarios,

—remediation.

The EPA and NRC will have to work closely

together in these areas to ensure that States and

compacts can meet LLRWPAA milestones and that

disposal capacity for both LLW and mixed LLW is

made available.

1.

2.

3.

4.

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

Afion Associates, ‘ ‘Assessment of ,Mixed Waste

Management Issues and Federal Guidance, contractor report prepared for the LLW Forum, September

1988.

Afton Associates, ‘‘LLW Forum Meeting Report, ”

based on quarterly meeting held in Sante Fe, NM,

Apr. 12-13, 1989.

Johnson, Timothy, “Below Regulatory Concern

Wastes—Identification and Implications for Mixed

Waste Management, ’ in the Proceedings of U.S.

En~ironmentalProte ction Agenc> Mixed Waste IVbrk -

shop, Denver, Colorado, July 19-20, 1988, pp. 43-46.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Ionizing Radiation E.rposures of the Population of the United States, NCRP report 93, Bethesda, MD, 1987.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, letter from

John Skinner, Director, EPA office of Solid Waste,

to S.V. Wright, Jr., Vice President Operations, L’S

Ecology, Inc., Aug. 17, 1983.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘ ‘criteria for

Identifying Areas of Vulnerable Hydrogeology Under

RCRA: Statutory Interpretive Guidance, ’ Intefim

Final, Office of Solid Waste, July 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, land Di,y -

posal Restrictions Summary, Volume 1, Sol~en~s and

Dioxins (EPA/530-sw-87-019A), May 1987.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission—U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance ~)rl th(,

Definition and identification of Commercial Mired

Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardol~~ Waste arui

Answers to Anticipated Questions, Jan. 8, 1987.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission—U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Combined NRC-EPA

Siting Guidelines for Disposal of Mixed Loti-L.e~’el

Radioactive and Hazardou~ Waste, Mar. 13, 1987.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Joint NRC-EPA Guidance on a Conceptual Design Approach for Commercial Mixed Luw-L.evel Radioactive and Hazardous

Waste Disposal Facilities, Aug. 3, 1987.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, presentation

by Daniel Martin, NRC, to the Advisory Committee

on Nuclear Waste, Apr. 27, 1989,
Chapter 4

Understanding LLW—

Its Characteristics, Volumes,

and Health Effects
CONTENTS

Page

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

What Is Low-Level Radioactive Waste? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Commercial LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Class A Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Class B Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Class C Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Greater-Than-Class C Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Special Categories of LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Mixed LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Naturally Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive Material (NARM) . . . . . . . 87

Other LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Comparison of LLW to Other Types of Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Implications of Waste Minimization and Treatment Tecchniques

on Future Waste Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Understanding Radiation and Its Health Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Sources of Ionizing Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

The Nature of Ionizing Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

Measuring Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Biological Responses to Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Uncertainties in Estimating Health Effects From Low Radiation Doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Migration Pathways and Mechanisms of Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Chapter 4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Boxes

Box Page

4-A. types of Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

4-B. Waste Minimization and Treatment Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Figures

Figure Page

4-1. Commercial LLW Disposal in 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4-2. Generators of Commercial LLW Received at Disposal Sites in 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4-3. Estimated Annual Generation of Commercial LLW in 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4-4. Yearly Volumes and Radioactivity of Commercial LLW

Shipped for Disposal (1980-1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4-5. Volumes of Commercial LLW Disposal in 1986, 1987, and 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4-6. The Percentage Contribution of Various Radiation Sources to the Total

Average Effective Dose Equivalent in the U.S. Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4-7. Pathway Analysis to Biota and Man: Generation and

Disposal Locations on Common Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

●

Tables

Table Page

4-1. Principal Generators and Types of Commercial LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4-2. Principal Radionuclides Found in Commercial LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4-3. Summary of Mixed LLW Generation Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4-4. Cumulative Amounts of Radioactive Waste Generated Through 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4-5. Projected Volume Reduction of Commercial LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4-6. Acute Health Effects Estimated From Whole Body Irradiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Chapter 4

Understanding LLW—Its Characteristics,

Volumes, and Health Effects

OVERVIEW

Commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW)

in the United States is classified as Class A, Class B,

Class C, or Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC), with

GTCC waste being the most radioactive. About 97

percent of the total LLW volume is Class A waste.

About 3 to 10 percent of all LLW is also considered

mixed LLW because it contains low-level radioactive constituents as well as hazardous constituents.

Principal generators of commercial LLW and mixed

LLW include nuclear power plants, other industries,

and academic and medical institutions.

In 1988, about 1.4 million cubic feet of commercial LLW was generated in the United States and

disposed of at licensed disposal sites at Barnwell,

SC; Richland, WA; and Beatty, NV. This volume of

waste would fill about 390 average-size tractor

trailers, forming a line over 31⁄2 miles long. ] This

volume contains about 260,000 curies of radioactivity.

Over the last 9 years the volume of commercial

LLW shipped for disposal has decreased by about 55

percent. If this trend continues, the volume of LLW

shipped for disposal in 1989 should remain at 1988

levels of 1.4 million cubic feet; however, another

significant decrease in waste volume will likely

occur in 1990 when disposal surcharges are scheduled to double. If available volume reduction

techniques are more widely applied and below

regulatory concern (BRC) limits are finalized (see

ch. 3), LLW volumes will probably continue to

decrease over the next several years, perhaps by

another 40 to 50 percent (see section on ‘‘ Implications of Waste Minimization and Treatment Techniques on Future Waste Volumes”).2

WHAT IS LOW-LEVEL

RADIOACTIVE WASTE?

Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) is defined in

the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) of 1985 by what it is not,

rather than by what it is. LLW includes all

radioactive waste that is not classified as spent

fuel, high-level waste, or uranium mill tailings

(see box 4-A). The majority of LLW volume—Class

A waste-contains very low levels of radiation and

heat, requires no shielding to protect workers or the

general public, and decays in less than 100 years to

levels that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) finds do not pose an unacceptable risk to

public health and safety. The remaining 3 percent of

LLW volume-Class B, Class C, and GTCC—

requires shielding and can remain harmful for 300 to

500 years or more.3

Generators of commercial LLW include: nuclear

power plants; fuel fabrication facilities; research

reactors; industrial plants using radioactive materials; manufacturers of radioactive instruments and

radiopharmaceuticals; hospitals, clinics, and other

medical facilities; and other private sector and

university laboratories. LLW typically includes an

assortment of materials that table 4-1 lists in three

general categories of generators.

COMMERCIAL LLW

Each business, institution, or organization that

handles radioactive material must be licensed by the

NRC or an Agreement State that has been granted

licensing authority by the NRC. There are about

17,000 licensees in this country authorized to handle

radioactive materials (17). However. each licensee

may employ many individuals who work with

radioactive material. For example. on nine UniverIThls ~a]ou ~~lng ~ac[or [rm]er~ appllcs 10 V()]umes only, n~( actual (rans~fia[lon sccnarloi, since [rac[or [r~ler wclgh[ liml[~ would prohlblt thc

transport of such heavy loads.

~!vlost treatment technlqucs, vcrws wasIc mlmmlzation tcchmqucs that keep waste from ever bcmg gcncrdlcd, hwc IILdc ci[cct on rcduclng the

waste’s rachoactlvity.

3GTcc ~,m(e is tie responslbllj[y of the Federal Government to dlsposc. Isolation of GTCC waste needs to bc for a lkw hundred [O d fc~ thous~~d

years. For a thorough discussion of GTCC waste, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Asscssmcn~, i4n Evuhumon of Op([on~ for MunugIng

Greuter-Than-Ck.n C Ln+-h’vel l?udmucr~ke Wrak, OTA-BP-O-50, (lctober 1988

-81-
82 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Box 4-A—Types of Radioactive Wrote

The following types of radioactive waste are differentiated by the nature and intensity of the radiation they emit,

as well as by their physical and chemical forms. They are listed roughly in order of decreasing risk to humans.

Spent fuel consists of fuel rods that have been “burned” (irradiated) in commercial, defense, or research

nuclear reactors to the point that they no longer contribute efficiently to the nuclear chain reaction. Spent fuel is

thermally hot, is highly radioactive, and requires heavy shielding. Commercial spent fuel is being stored at 113

operating commercial nuclear power plants pending the availability of a federally monitored retrievable facility for

storage or a deep-geologic repository for disposal.

High-level waste (HLW), as the term is used in this report, is generated when spent fuel is reprocessed to

recover plutonium and uranium. The vast majority of HLW in the United States has been generated over the last

four decades in support of national defense programs. HLW is highly radioactive, generates some heat, and requires

heavy shielding. Most HLW is now stored at Richland, WA; Aiken, SC; and Idaho Falls, ID, pending availability

of a deep-geologic repository.

Transuranic waste is generated from the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons, from the

manufacturing of sealed radioactive sources, and from the refurbishing or decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

Transuranic waste contains radionuclides that have atomic numbers greater than 92, the atomic number of uranium.

Defense transuranic wastes are currently being stored pending disposal in a deep-geologic repository called the

Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), located near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Commercial transuranic waste is

included as low-level radioactive waste.

Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) includes radioactive waste not classified as uranium mill tailings,

high-level waste, or spent fuel. About 97 percent of all LLW-Class A--has relatively low levels of radioactivity.

Class A waste remains hazardous for less than 100 years, Class B and C waste remains hazardous for a few hundred

years, while Greater-Than-Class C waste remains hazardous for a few hundred to a few thousand years. GTCC waste

is the responsibility of the Federal Government to manage. All classes of commercial LLW can contain transuranic

elements.

Uranium mill tailings are the earthen residues--coarse sand and a “slime’ of clay-like particles-that remain

after extracting uranium from mined uranium ore. These tailings contain low concentrations of radioactive material,

but tailing volumes are very large. Mill tailings are found in New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Texas,

Washington, and South Dakota.

Byproduct material is material contaminater or made radioactive during the production or use of special

nuclear material.

SOURCE: I.P. Weber and S.D. Wiltshire, The Nuclear Waste Primer: A Handbook for Citizens, The League of Women Voters Education Fund

(New York, NY: Nick Lyons Books, 1985).

sity of California campuses there are over 15,000 clear power plants is addressed in appendix B.

individual users of radioactive material (20). Industries account for most of the remaining volume

As shown in figure 4-1, about 1,440,000 cubic and radioactivity. Some of the principal radiofeet of commercial LLW (containing about 260,000 nuclides found in LLW from different generators are

listed in figure 4-2 while their half-lives4 and type of curies) was disposed of in 1988 at the three operating

commercial disposal sites in Barnwell, SC; Rich- radiation emitted5 are listed in table 4-2.

land, WA; and Beatty, NV. Figure 4-2 indicates that In light of the wide range of materials, their

nuclear power plants throughout the country pro- half-lives, and the type of radiation they emit, NRC

duce over 50 percent of the volume of LLW uses a four-tiered classification system for commergenerated nationwide and over 80 percent of the cial LLW based on the types and concentrations of

radioactivity. The LLW from decommissioned nu- different radionuclides in the waste. This classificadH~f-life is fie [fie in which half of tie atoms of a particular radioactive substance disintegrate to another nuclear form. For cx~ple, wrote

containing 50 curies of a radionuclide with a half-life of 10 years will contain only 25 curies in 10 years. In 10 more years the waste will conmm 12.5

curies and this decay process continues. Each radionuclide has a specific half-life. Measured half-lives vary from millionths of a second to billions of

years.

SR~i~ion cm ~ ~lt~ ~ a p~icle—~pha or beta, or as a ray—a gamma ray or an X-ray. lb understand the differences in how these particles

and rays affwt humans, see the section on “Understanding Radiation and Its Health Effects. ”
Chapter 4--Understanding LLW--Its Characteristics, Volumes, and Health Effects ● 83

Table 4-1-Principal Generators and Types

of Commercial LLW

Table 4-2-Principal Radionuclides

Found in Commercial LLW

Nuclear power plants:

Dry solids (e.g., protective clothing, rags, paper, plastics, and

other trash); used equipment; sludges, organic solvents, and

other liquids; water purification filter media and “resins”;

irradiated hardware; and gases.

Industries:

Radiopharmaceuticals; wastes from fabricating nuclear fuel;

sealed sources.

Academic & medical institutions:

Dry solids, glassware, plastics, and other laboratory equipment; scintillation fluids and other organic liquids; animal

carcasses, medical treatment and research materials; and

gaseous wastes.

SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Energy, Managing Low-Level

Radioactfie Wastes: A Proposed Approach, DOE/LLLW-9, April

1983, p. 206,

tion system, which NRC describes in 10 CFR Part

61.55, generally reflects the waste’s potential longterm hazards to humans.

Class A Waste

Class A waste, the least radioactive of the four

types, must meet numerous minimum requirements

on packaging to facilitate handling of the waste and

to protect the health and safety of workers at disposal

sites (see ch. 5). Class A waste is normally segregated from other LLW waste at disposal sites, unless

the waste meets the more stringent physical stability

requirements for Class B and C waste. As indicated

in figure 4-3, most of the volume of LLW is Class A

Volume

(1,440,000 total cubic

Chem-Nuclear Systems

Ba

Approximate Type of

Radionuclide half-life radiation emitted

Technetium-99 . . . 6 hours Gamma

Xenon-133 . . . . . . . 5 days Beta, gamma

Phosphorus-32 . . . 14 days Beta

Cobalt-58 . . . . . . . . 2 months X-rays, beta, gamma

iodine-125 , ., ... , 2 months Gamma

Sulfur-35 . . . . . . . . 3 months Beta

Magnesium-54 . . . 10 months X-rays, gamma

Cesium-134 . . . . . . 2 years Beta, gamma

Cobalt-60 . . . . . . . . 5 years Beta, gamma

Tritium . . . . . . . . . . 12 years Beta

Cesium-137 . . . . . . 30 years Beta, gamma

Strontium-90 . . . . . 30 years Beta

Nickel-61 . . . . . . . . 90 years Beta

Carbon-14 . . . . . . . 5,700 years Beta

Nickel-59 . . . . . . . . 80,000 years X-rays

iodine-129 . . . . . . . 15,700,000 years Beta

Uranium-235 . . . . . 700,000,000 years Alpha, gamma

Uranium-238 . . . . . 4,470,000,000 years Alpha, gamma

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

waste, although it actually accounts for only a small

portion of the radioactivity in LLW.

Class B Waste

Class B waste has intermediate levels of radioactivity that are generally 10 to 40 times higher than

levels for Class A waste. In addition to satisfying all

the packaging requirements for Class A waste, Class

B waste must be structurally stable for at least 300

years to prevent collapse of the caps that typically

Figure 4-1--Commercial LLW Disposal in 1088

feet )

Chem-N

US Ecology, Inc.

Beatty, NV

7 %

Radioactivity y

(260,000 total curies)

30/0

US Ecology, Inc.

Rich land, WA

280/o

SOURCE: Data provided by EG&G Idaho In May 1989 during the preparation of U.S. Department of Energy, DRAFT Integrated Data Base for 1989; Spent

Fuel and Radioactive Waste lnventories, Projections, and Characteristics, DOE/RW-0006, Rev.5, August 1969.
84 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Figure 4-2-Generators of Commercial LLW Received at Disposal Sites in 1987

Volume Radioactivity y

Nuclear utilities a

5 7 %

Nuclear utilities a

8 2 %

Academic &

v

------

medical groups d

1%

5 % Industries b

Government agencies c 13%

6% Government agencies c

4%

Industries b

3 2 %

Typical radionuclides from different generators:

aNuclear power plants: cobalt-58 and -60, chromium-51, manganese-54, ceswm-1 34 and -137, nickel-59, trltlum (I.e., hydrogen-3), zinc-65, and Iodine-l 31

bR~iophWm=u~=lW=tes: ~r~n-14, trltlum, lodlne.125, phosphorus.sp, SUKIN-35, and techneclum-gg; fuel-fabrication wastes: uranium-235 and -238;

and sealed sourcss: ceswm-137, and cobalt-60.

%overnment (commercial sites accspt LLW from non-DOE government agencies for disposal): phosphorus-32, cobalt-60, chromium-51, nickel-63, trtlum,

and carbon-14.

d~~pltals~d Univemltles:t~tlum, c=~n. 14, l~lne-l 25, phosphorus.sp, sulfur-35, rubldlum-371 ~clum-45, sulfur-35, chromium-51 , indlum-1 92, and

technetium-99.

SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Energy, The 1987 State-by-State Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Received at Commercial

Disposal Sites, National Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program, DOE/LLW-69T, December 1988, p. 141

Figure 4-3-Estimated Annual Generation of Commercial LLW in 1987

Class A

9 7 %

Volume

Class C < 1 %

Class B 2 %

Radioactivity y

Class B

2 5 %

. --’ ”

,

Category

class A

Class B

Class C —

Volume

( 1 0

3 ft3

1,388

3 9

1 2

Class C

650/.

Category Radioactivity

(103 Ci)

class A 26

Class B 67

Class C 177

Total 270

GTCC* 400

Total 1,449

GTCC* 1

● *Sine the disposal of GTCC waste IS the responsibility of the Federal

Government, GTCC waste IS usually excluded from most discussions

about LLW.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, The 1987 State-by-State Assessment of Low-Leve/ Radioactive Wastes Received at Commercial Disposal Sites,

National Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program, DOE/LLW-69T, December 1988, and Office of Technology Assessment, An

Evaluation of Options for Managing Greater-Than-C/ass C Low-Level Radioactive Waste, OTA-BP-O-50, October 1988, p 43.
Chapter 4--Understanding LLW--Its Characteristics, Volumes, and Health Effects ● 85

cover disposed waste; stability is also important in

limiting exposure to an inadvertent intruder. High

integrity containers are used for Class B and C

waste. (See ch. 5 for more detail on packaging and

chs. 3 and 6 for more detail on disposal regulations.)

Class C Waste

The levels of radioactivity in Class C waste are

generally 10 to 100 times higher than levels for Class

B waste. Packaging and stability requirements for

Class C waste are the same as those for Class B

waste. Because of its relatively high levels of

radioactivity, some Class C waste must also be

shielded and handled remotely to avoid excess

exposures to workers. To prevent inadvertent exposure to human intruders, Class C waste must be

buried at least 16 feet below the Earth’s surface or

covered with a thick intrusion barrier (e.g., concrete

slab). (See ch. 5 for more detail on packaging and

chs. 3 and 6 for more detail on disposal regulations.)

Greater-Than-Class C Waste

Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) waste is more

radioactive than Class C waste, but less radioactive

than spent fuel. GTCC waste is generally not

acceptable for near-surface disposal. In the

LLRWPAA of 1985, the Federal Government was

given the responsibility for the disposal of GTCC

waste, The Department of Energy is currently

developing an inventory of GTCC waste and evaluating alternative disposal technologies, including

disposal in deep-geologic repositories along with

commercial spent fuel and defense high-level waste.

GTCC waste is now being stored onsite pending a

decision about its offsite storage and/or disposal

(13).

At present, there are about 15,000 cubic feet of

packaged GTCC waste now in storage at several

hundred generation sites; an additional 1,400 cubic

feet of GTCC waste are generated each year. The

radioactivity of this waste is about 5 million curies,

or an amount of radioactivity equivalent to all other

commercial LLW that has been generated and

disposed of to date (13).

SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF LLW

The following categories of LLW do not fall

neatly into commercial LLW but can be considered

in some way special because of their composition,

volume, or unique characteristics.

Mixed LLW

Several studies performed in the mid-1980s indicated that about 3 to 10 percent of all commercial

LLW is mixed LLW because it contains both

radioactive and chemically hazardous constituents

(12). Commercial mixed waste is defined and

identified in a document issued jointly by NRC and

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in

1987 (19). This waste is produced by a full range of

LLW generators (e.g., nuclear power plants, medical

and academic institutions, and various industries

such as pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms)

and waste processors.

As shown in table 4-3, the hazardous constituents

in mixed LLW typically include: organic liquids,

metallic lead, cadmium, chromates, and waste oils

(12). Several of the types of mixed LLW listed in the

table have been consolidated into five categories:

1. Organic liquids: Organic liquids are produced

by a full range of LLW generators. Scintillation

fluids, which are used in diagnostic tests and

general laboratory counting procedures for

environmental and facility monitoring, comprise the largest volume of mixed LLW. These

fluids typically contain toluene and xylene.

Organic liquids are also generated by industries

during the manufacture of sealed sources,

pharmaceuticals, radiopharmaceuticals, and diagnostic tests. Industries and nuclear power

plants use organic chemicals, such as acetone

and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), commonly

referred to as freon, for cleaning protective

clothing, tools, equipment, and instrumentation. Trash can also be contaminated with

organic chemicals.

Metallic lead: Metallic lead becomes radioactively contaminated when it is used to store

radioactive materials in a shielded container or

to shield workers from radiation exposure

during product manufacturing and laboratory

research. This lead may be in the form of foil,

sheets, bricks, or containers for storage or

shipping. If lead is decontaminated, the cleaning solutions containing dissolved lead and

radioactive material will also be classified as a

mixed LLW.

3. Cadmium: Nuclear power plants generate

radioactively contaminated cadmium waste

when welding rods containing cadmium are

used. Equipment with such welds and the
Table 4-3-Summary of Mixed LLW Generation Practices

GENERATOR COMMUNITY

Nuclear

Industrial facilities Medical/academic institutions power plants

University

TYPE OF Pharmaceutical Biotechnology Other Spent fuel Waste Medical/clinical nonmedical

MIXED LLW manufacturing manufacturing manufacturing storage processor & research research

counting

procedures

NA

counting

procedures

Cleaning of Cleaning of

laboratory laboratory

equipment equipment

Cleaning of

contaminated

components

Laboratory

counting

procedures

Residue from

research

Residue from

manufacturing

Cleaning of

laboratory and

process

equipment

NA

counting

procedures

NA

Residue from NA

research

Residue from

manufacturing

Cleaning of laboratory and

Spent reagents from

experiment

Cleaning of

laboratory

equipment

Organic chemicals

process equipment

Expired product

NA

Residue from

manufacturing

NA

Oil from radioactive

systems/areas

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Trash with organic NA NA

chemicals

Lead Contaminated

during use

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA NA

Contaminated

during use

NA

NA

Contaminated

during use

NA

Contaminated

during use

Decontamination of

lead shielding

011 from radioactive

systems

011 from hot shop

Oil from radioactive

(xl from hot shop

Clothes laundry

Contaminated

during use

NA

NA

Decontamination of

lead Shielding

Oil from radioactive

systems

Lead decontamination

Waste oil 011 from radioactive

systems

011 from

contaminated

equipment

NA

NA

Trash with oil NA NA MA N A

NA

NA

Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) NA NA

Solvent

CFC concentrates NA NA

Aqueous corrosive liquids NA NA

chromate waste NA NA

Cadmium waste NA NA

NA

Clothes laundry Clothes laundry

Tool decontamination

Cleaning of spent NA NA

fuel casks

Backflush of

resin filters

M NA NA

NA NA NA

Tool decontamination

NA NA

NA Resin Changeouts

NA Spent welding rods

Weld cleaning

Equipment

dicontamination

NA = Not applicable

SOURCE Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp.,“Management Practices and Disposal Concepts For Low-Level Radioactive Mixed Waste,”RAE-8830-1, contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, March 1989, p 2-17
Chapter 4--Understanding LLW-Its Characteristics, Volumes, and Health Effects ● 87

liquids and solid materials used to clean such

equipment may also be contaminated with

cadmium. This waste may not be found to be

mixed if it passes EPA’s EP toxicity test, which

tests for leachability.

4. Chromates: Some nuclear power plants use

chromates to inhibit corrosion in water circulation systems. When the water purification

resins are periodically changed, they will be

considered mixed wastes if they fail EPA’s EP

toxicity test.

5. Waste oils: When the oil in pumps and other

equipment located in radioactive areas is periodically changed, the oil is generally contaminated. Such waste oils and oily trash, principally from radioactively contaminated machine

shops, are considered hazardous under some

State regulations, EPA is currently making a

determination on whether waste oil will be

listed as a hazardous waste (see ch. 3).

Until 1985, most commercial mixed LLW was

disposed of in NRC-licensed LLW disposal facilities. In the future, disposal facilities for mixed LLW

will be licensed by NRC and EPA or by States with

NRC/EPA licensing/permitting authority. However,

neither the three currently operating LLW disposal facilities nor any hazardous waste landfills

are licensed to accept mixed LLW. (The only

exception is that some waste oils and lead may be

accepted at LLW sites if they meet requirements of

the individual sites. ) The vast majority of commercial mixed LLW that cannot be treated and disposed

of as ordinary trash, LLW, or hazardous waste,

therefore, will have to remain in storage until mixed

LLW disposal facilities are developed by States or

compacts. (See chs. 3 and 5 for more detail on this

situation.)

Naturally Occurring and Accelerator

Produced Radioactive Material (NARM)

NARM includes such naturally occurring material

as radium-226 used in some smoke detectors and

watch dials, and polonium-210 used in some industrial gauges; NARM also includes accelerator produced radioactive material generated in linear accelerators for use in medical instruments, Twenty-eight

States regulate NARM and existing commercial

disposal sites can accept such waste. Under Federal

law, however, neither the States nor the Federal

Government is presently responsible for disposal of

NARM.

Other LLW

Some LLW is also generated by certain special

projects. Two examples are the decontamination of

Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant

and the cleanup operation at West Valley, NY, the

site of a no-longer operating commercial spent-fuel

reprocessing plant.

COMPARISON OF LLW

TO OTHER TYPES OF

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

By the end of 1988, the United States had

cumulatively generated over 135 million cubic feet

of LLW, consisting of 19 million curies, from both

commercial and defense activities. Defense activities have generated about 66 percent of this volume

and about 74 percent of the radioactivity. These

percentages are equivalent to the defense program

having generated about twice the volume and three

times the radioactivity of commercial LLW.

Commercial LLW and defense LLW include

almost 85 percent of the volume of all categories of

radioactive waste (including high-level waste, spent

fuel, and transuranic waste) generated in this Nation.

However, the radioactivity in commercial LLW and

defense LLW only contains about 0.1 percent of the

total radioactivity in all categories of radioactive

waste. As shown in table 4-4, the vast majority of the

radioactivity is in the spent fuel generated by 113

operating commercial nuclear power plants.

IMPLICATIONS OF

WASTE MINIMIZATION AND

TREATMENT TECHNIQUES ON

FUTURE WASTE VOLUMES

Although the NRC encourages waste minimization techniques, which eliminate wastes from being

generated, and treatment techniques, which reduce

the volume of wastes once they are generated (18),

waste generators are not required to use any of the

techniques noted in box 4-B and described in more

detail in chapter 5. The 250 percent increase in LLW

disposal costs over the last decade, due to costs

associated with new disposal regulations and disposal surcharges established in the LLRWPAA, has

been the driving force behind reducing LLW volumes, In fact, between 1980 and 1988 the volume of

commercial LLW shipped for disposal has de-
88 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Table 4-4-Cumulative Amounts of Radioactive Waste Generated Through 1988a

Volumes Activity

Waste type (in 103 ft3

) Percent (in 106 Ci) Percent

Low-level waste

Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,000 29.3 5 0.02

Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87,000 55.5 14 0.06

High-level waste

Commercialb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 0.05 30 0.2

Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,500 8.6 1,175 5.4

Commercial spent fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 0.17 20,400 94,3

Defense TRU waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 6.4 4 0.02

Total . . . . . . . . . . . ....>..., . . . . . . 156,850 100.02 21,628 100.00

aDoes not include mill tadings or waste from remedial action projects.

%ommercial waste now located at West Valley, NY Also assumes no commercial reprocessing of spent fuel.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, DRAFT Integrated Data Base for 1989: Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and

Characteristics, DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 5, August 1988, p. 22.

creased by about 55 percent. This trend of decreasing LLW volume is shown in figure 4-4 for the

Nation, and in appendix A for each State and

compact.

As shown in figure 4-1, the most significant

reductions in waste volumes are directly related to

notable increases in unit disposal costs (i.e., cost per

cubic foot). If trends continue, the volume of LLW

shipped for disposal in 1989 should be about the

same as in 1988; however, another significant drop

in waste volumes will probably come in 1990 when

the disposal surcharge doubles from $20 to $40 per

cubic foot, as allowed in the LLRWPAA of 1985. If

unit disposal costs continue to increase during the

1990s as smaller, more expensive disposal facilities

are brought on line, the trend of decreasing LLW

volumes shipped for disposal will probably continue. (Disposal costs are discussed in more detail in

ch. 6.)

Figure 4-4-Yearly Volumes and Radioactivity of

Commercial LLW Shipped for Disposal (1980-1988)

Radioactivity (thousands of curies)

750 . . .

,

I

600

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Year

Volume (millions of cubic feet)

4

3 5
Chapter 4--Understanding LLW--Its Characteristics, Volumes, and Health Effects ● 89

Box 4-B—Waste Minimization and Treatment Techniques

Several waste minimization and treatment techniques are briefly discussed below. With the exception of the

first three techniques listed, these techniques have little effect on reducing the waste’s radioactivity.

● Using nonradioactive substitutes. In many industrial and research applications, nonradioactive material

can be effectively substituted for radioactive materials. If radioactive material must be used, it may be

possible to use smaller amounts of material or isotopes that decay more rapidly.

. Improving the management of radioactive materials. Volumes of radioactive material may be reduced

through better scheduling of material use, reducing excess purchases of radioactive material, and

coordinating purchases through a “clearinghouse.” Simply segregating radioactive from nonradioactive

material can also lead to significant volume reductions.

. Storing radioactive material to allow decay. Many radionuclides in LLW decay to lower levels within a

relatively short time. By storing wastes at their generation sites for a few months to a few years, the

radioactivity may be reduced enough to allow its disposal with other less radioactive wastes or with

municipal waste, should the radioactivity be below background levels.

. Compacting and shredding dry wastes. Compactors can achieve a S-fold to lo-fold volume reduction,

depending on the size of the unit and the type of waste. These units can reduce the height of 55-gallon drums

of waste by 60 to 90 percent within just a few minutes simply by crushing them into large “hockey pucks’

(6, 8). Shredders can be used with or without compaction to reduce waste volumes.

● Decontaminating materials. LLW generators have been successful in decontaminating large pieces of

equipment, tools, glassware, and clothing so that they can be reused.

. Incinerating wastes. Combustible liquids and solid wastes can be incinerated with a 20-fold to 30-fold

reduction in volume. For example, about 80 percent of the dry LLW (i.e., trash) from an average nuclear

power plant is combustible (4). At present, about 100 small on-site incinerators are used mostly by hospitals,

research laboratories, and universities. No commercial incinerator, however, is presently available for offsite

LLW incineration.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

available waste minimization and treatment tech- generators, which generated 35 percent of the

niques are more widely applied. The approach is

based on maximizing decontamination with material

reuse and future incineration.

Utility waste accounted for 58 percent (840,000

cubic feet) of the Nation’s LLW volume in 1988

(1 ,440,000 cubic feet). Approximately 43 percent

(360,000 cubic feet) of this waste is combustible. A

substantial portion of the remaining 57 percent

(480,000 cubic feet) of utility LLW consists of

metallic material that, in many cases, could be

decontaminated. If it is conservatively assumed that

half of the 57 percent could be decontaminated,

240,000 cubic feet of waste would be added to the

360,000 cubic feet of combustible waste, totaling

600,000 cubic feet of volume reduction. Therefore,

nuclear utilities alone could be responsible for

reducing the total LLW volume by 42 percent

from their 1988 volume level. Industrial waste

Nation’s LLW in 1988 and generate similar waste

products, could also increase their use of these two

techniques, potentially increasing the total percentage of volume reduction to around 50 percent.6 Because of the uncertainty of costs being tied

closely enough to volume versus radioactivity to

drive volume reduction practices, a range of 40 to 50

percent reduction in waste volumes is estimated.

Volume reductions could also result from BRC

limits being finalized (see ch. 3) which may enable

some dry wastes that are now classified as Class A

to be disposed of in a municipal landfill or hazardous

waste landfill, depending on its hazardous characteristics. Likewise, liquid BRC LLW not containing

hazardous waste constituents may possibly be disposed of through a municipal sewer system. The

nuclear utility industry estimates that a BRC limit of

6Th1s de~u of Volmc redu~tlon wi]] only Wcur if d]sposal fees are based pnmady on volume. In the future, sue operalors could dwide 10 bfees only on radioactivity, wh]ch would remove generators’ ]ncenti\cs [o reduce volume.
90 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Wast e

Figure 4-5-Volumes of Commercial LLW Disposal

in 1986,1987, and 1988

LLW volumes (cubic feet x 10)

1500

1000

1986 1987 1988

Year

Beatty, NV

LLW volumes (103 cubic feet)

Annual Licensed Volume

Disposal site limit capacity used

Richland, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,400 52,700 10,790

Barnwell, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,200 34,400 20,684

Beatty, NV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 4,900 3,990

Total ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,800 92,000 35,458

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, DRAFT, Integrated Data Base for

1989: Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics, DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 5, August 1989,

p. 157. Date on licensed capacity taken from U.S. Department

of Energy, The 1987 State-by-State Assessment of Low-Level

Radioactive ‘ Wastes Received at Commercial Disposal Sites,

National Low-level Radioactive Waste Management Program,

DOE/LLW-66T, December 1988.

15 millirems per year could decrease its LLW

volume by as much as 30 percent.7

UNDERSTANDING RADIATION AND

ITS HEALTH EFFECTS

Radiation is a natural phenomenon of our environment that has been present since life evolved.

Ionizing radiation is a form of energy generated by

the activity of atoms, which are the basic building

blocks of matter. Some atoms are unstable and

spontaneously change into another form. An unstable atom is said to be radioactive and the process by

which it changes into a new atom is called radioactive decay. More specifically, an unstable atom

releases excess energy when an electron is lost or

gained. This energy is in the form of waves or

fast-moving particles. An atom that spontaneously

produces radiation is called a radionuclide. Within

a certain period, called a half-life, half of an unstable

atom decays and gives off radiation. All radionuTable 4-5-Projected Volume Reduction

of Commercial LLW

Volume (cubic feet)

(based on 1988

shipment data)

LLW volume shipped for disposal

Utility (58°/0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,000

Industrial (35%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000

Other (7%) ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,440,000

Possible volume

reduction (cube feet)

utility

Combustible@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,000

Recyclable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,000

Total utility reduction

(42% of total shipped) . . . . . . . . 600,000

Industry

Combustible + recyclable=

20?/’ reduction

(7% of total shipped) . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000

Possible total volume reduction

(49% total volume reduction) . . . . . . . 700,000

aFlgure deduced from Eleetric Power Research institute, Radwaste

Generation Survey Update, prepard by Analytical Resources, Inc.,

Sinking Spring, PA, February 19S8.

%onservatwe estimate representing a 200/0 reduction of industrial disposal

of LLW.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989.

elides have a known half-life. Half-lives range from

fractions of a second to billions of years. Refer to

table 4-2 for the half-lives of the principal radionuclides found in commercial LLW.

Sources of Ionizing Radiation

An individual is routinely exposed to ionizing

radiation from several natural sources: cosmic rays

from the sun and stars, natural radioactive elements

from the earth (e.g., radium, uranium, and potassium), and naturally occurring radionuclides in the

human body (e.g., carbon-14), Internal exposure can

come from naturally occurring radioactive elements

in food, water, and air. Milk, for example, contains

potassium-40, which emits a small but measurable

amount of radiation. The levels of natural background radiation vary greatly from location to

location. For example, in Denver, CO, the levels of

cosmic radiation are twice as high as they are in

Washington, DC, because of Denver’s higher elevation. Furthermore, there are large regional differences in background radiation due to minerals in the

ground at a particular location. For example, the

background level in certain parts of Colorado can be

Tcoment m~e by parncia Robins~, LLW Program Manager, Electric Power Research Institute, at the Fifth Annual ~ecisionmakers’

Forum+inv-tivel Radioactive Waste Management The AvadableOptwm and Costs, Wild Dunes, South Carolina, June 6-8, 1989.
Chapter 4--Understanding LLW-Its Characteristics, Volumes, and Health Effects ● 91

three times higher than Gulf Coast States such as

Mississippi and Alabama. Increased exposure can

also result from living in a brick or stone house

versus wood due to radon gas released from stone

and brick. On average, all natural sources of

radiation together represent about 82 percent of all

radiation an individual receives (1 1). (See figure

4-6.)

Individuals are also exposed to man-made sources

of ionizing radiation, such as radiotherapy for

disease and X-rays for medical and dental tests. As

with natural sources of radiation, the level of

radiation received by man-made sources varies

greatly with the individual, For example, the radiation from diagnostic X-rays received for a lower

gastrointestinal test is almost 10 times greater than

that received for a chest X-ray (8). On average, these

man-made sources of radiation for medical uses

represent about 15 percent of all radiation an

individual receives (1 1). (See figure 4-6.)

The remaining amount of ionizing radiation

comes from industrial uses of radioactive materials,

emissions from certain consumer products, radiation

from fallout of previously conducted above-ground

tests of nuclear weapons, nuclear power plant

operations, and miscellaneous activities. The amount

of radiation from all of these sources is estimated to

be about 3 percent of the total (1 1). The amount of

radiation from LLW is some fraction of 1 percent

(1 1). (See figure 4-6.)

The Nature of Ionizing Radiation

There are three types of ionizing radiation—alpha

particles, beta particles, and gamma rays or photons—

that result from the decay of radionuclides. The

radioactivity of radionuclides is measured in units

called curies, with 1 curie describing the radiation

from 1 gram of radium for 1 second, or about 37

billion disintegrations per second.8

Alpha radiation consists of positively charged,

highly energized particles that rapidly lose energy

when passing through matter. They are emitted from

naturally occurring radioactive elements, such as

radium and uranium, and from man-made elements

such as plutonium. Alpha particles are larger and

heavier than the particles of beta radiation. Alpha

particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper or by

human skin so that holding a piece of plutonium in

Figure 4-6-The Percentage Contribution of Various

Radiation Sources to the Total Average Effective Dose

Equivalent in the U.S. Population

Terrestrial Internal

8% 11%

Cosmic

8%

‘i

Nuclear Medicine 4%

Radon Consumer products 3%

55% Other <1%

Occupational O 3%

Fallout <0.3%

Nuclear

 Natural (82%) Fuel Cycle 0 .1%

Miscellaneous 0.1%

Man-made (18%)

SOURCE: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements,

Ionizing Radiation Exposures of the Population of the United

States, NCRP Report 93, Bethesda, MD, 1987, p. 55.

your hand would be perfectly safe. If ingested or

inhaled, however, alpha particles would damage

internal tissues with grave consequences (see section on “Biological Responses to Radiation”).

Inhalation of even tiny amounts of plutonium can

cause lung cancer. Low-level radioactive waste

generally does not contain alpha-producing radionuelides.

Beta radiation consists of smaller particles that

travel more quickly in air and can penetrate several

cell layers of skin. Beta radiation can be reduced or

stopped by a layer of clothing or through the use of

a few millimeters of aluminum, glass, or plastic

shielding. Beta-emitting radionuclides are found in

most LLW.

Gamma radiation is in a wave form like light and

X-rays and consists of photons—small packets of

energy that can travel great distances and penetrate

matter. Gamma rays can pass through the human

body or can be absorbed by tissue or bone. Three feet

of concrete or 2 inches of lead will reduce or stop 90

percent of typical gamma radiation. Gamma photons

are used in cancer treatment to destroy the cells of a

tumor without causing major damage to healthy

cells nearby. Gamma-emitting radionuclides are

found in most LLW.

Radionuclides in LLW that emit both beta particles and gamma photons are classified as either beta

emitters or gamma emitters according to which

emitter is biologically more harmful. For example,

.S~e intcmation~ ~it for radioactivity is the becquerel (Bq), which UPMIS one disinte~ation PET ~~d.
92 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

cobalt-60 is referred to as a gamma emitter because

the accompanying beta radiation is biologically less

damaging.

Measuring Radiation

The amount of ionization that a given quantity of

radiation produces is the exposure. A common unit

for measuring exposure is the roentgen; one roentgen is 2.58 x 10-4 coulombs per kilogram of air.

When radiation penetrates biological material it

gives up its energy in a series of collisions or other

interactions with the atoms of the material being

irradiated. The consequences of these interactions

may be the dislocation of atoms, the breaking of

chemical bonds, or the loss of electrons. These

molecular alterations may in turn impair the biological functions of the irradiated material. The amount

of energy deposited in the material is the absorbed

dose. A common unit used to measure absorbed dose

is the rad, an abbreviation for radiation absorbed

dose. 9 Note that exposure and absorbed dose are

very different. Exposure describes a property of the

radiation, while the absorbed dose describes something that happens to a particular material when the

radiation is absorbed.

Biological Responses to Radiation

The amount of biological damage resulting from

a particular absorbed dose is the dose equivalent.

The dose equivalent depends on the kind, amount,

and rate of the radiation; on the nature of the

organism exposed; on the organism’s age, sex, state

of health, and surroundings; and on the particular

biological effect being considered (10).

The dose equivalent is often referred to as simply

the dose, when the absorbed dose is equivalent to the

dose equivalent. This equivalence is generally true

for X-rays, gamma rays, and for most beta particles

(10). The major exception is alpha radiation, which

can lead to more serious biological damage. Once

alpha particles are absorbed by tissue, their large size

and density and the slow speed at which they travel

results in more energy being released in a smaller

area. The radiation is, therefore, more concentrated

and causes more damage. Since this study primarily

deals with beta rays and gamma rays, the term dose

is used for dose equivalent. Dose is measured in

reins, or ‘‘roentgen equivalent man.”10

The average annual whole body dose to a person

in the United States from natural and man-made

sources is about 360 millirems (1 1).l 1 An actual dose

to any given individual could vary widely, however.

Over the course of a lifetime, an individual may

accumulate doses from background exposures of

between 5 and 10 reins (6).

An excessive dose of radiation can result in

somatic damage (i.e., damage to the cells of the body

that compose the tissues and organs) and in genetic

damage that can become hereditary. Somatic damage is most common in cells that divide more

frequently, such as blood-forming cells of the bone

marrow and cells that line the intestinal wall (10).

The body concentrates certain radionuclides selectively in one or another organ (3). Iodine-129 and

iodine-1 31, for example, concentrate in the thyroid;

strontium-90 concentrates in the bone; and nickel-59

concentrates in the intestine. Radiation damage to

these kinds of cells are caused mainly by the acute

(short-term) effects of large doses of radiation.

Embryos are particularly sensitive to somatic

effects from radiation. They are more susceptible to

malformities and death than adults (6).

Cancer can result if cell reproduction is impaired

by radiation and uncontrolled growth occurs. Leukemia and lung, breast, and thyroid cancers appear

more common than other types of cancer due to

radiation (6),

Radiation doses can also cause two types of

genetic damage-whole chromosome damage and

gene mutation. With whole chromosome damage,

the number of chromosomes in a genetic cell may

change or a chromosome may break, in which case

the broken pieces may reattach in a way that leaves

the chromosome’s function impaired. With gene

mutation, a gene may change such that the individual inheriting the gene demonstrates an observable

malfunction such as mental retardation, or, more

drastically, the gene may be so damaged that it

cannot reproduce itself (10). Table 4-6 gives the

types of effects that can be expected from certain

ranges of radiation doses. Data have also been

collected on actual doses that individuals have

Whe international unit for absorbed dose is the gray (Gy), which is equal to one joule per kilogram. The rad is equal to 10”2 Gy.

l~c intematim~ unit for dose is the sievert (Sv); a rem is equal to 10-2 SV.

11A mlll~er:l is a one-thousmdth of a rem (10-3 rem).
Chapter understanding LLW--Its Characteristics, Volumes, and Health Effects . 93

received on average from certain radiation events

(e.g., doses to people from nuclear weapon tests, the

dose to nuclear power plant workers on average, and

the dose to survivors of the Japanese A-bomb

explosions.

The Chernobyl reactor accident has provided

invaluable information on health effects, As a result

of Chernobyl, 237 individuals had radiation sickness

in the Soviet Union. Of these 237 people, 31 died

from the dose received. Of the 50,000 people who

received 50 rads or more, 4,000 apparently received

an average of 200 rads. Experts predict that over the

next decade the fatal leukemia risk of this group of

4,000 is projected to increase by about 150 percent

(l). The irradiated population is also at risk for

genetic disorders in future generations. Up to 1,500

additional cases of genetic damage may be added to

the 35 to 40 million normally expected in the

population of Europe and the Soviet Union (l).

Experts also predict a doubling of cases of radiationinduced severe mental retardation in children who

lived in the area around Chernobyl (l).

Other actual radiation effects were seen in a group

of women who painted radium watch dials in the

1920s. These women pointed their paint brushes

with their lips to paint the fine numerals of the watch

faces. By 1950, 41 deaths had been reported as a

result of bone destruction and blood disorders

caused by the radium absorbed in bone marrow (1 O).

Uncertainties in Estimating Health Effects

From Low Radiation Doses

Some experts predict that small radiation doses

given at very low dose rates do not necessarily

produce an effect that is linearly proportional to the

radiation dose (6). Furthermore, a given radiation

dose delivered over a long period is generally less

severe than the same dose delivered acutely (6).

However, for several reasons it is difficult to

precisely measure health effects from low radiation

doses.

One reason is that health effect estimates are

frequently calculated by extrapolating from measurements made at high exposures. Because health

effect and dose are not linear, these calculations may

not reflect actual effects at low dose levels. A

conservative approach used by many experts is to

assume a no-threshold linear model, with risk

increasing linearly as dose increases (6).

Table 4-&Acute Health Effects Estimated From

Whole Body Irradiation

Dose (reins) Heath effect

5-20

25-100

>50

100

100-200

200-300

>300

300-400

400-1,000

1,000-5,000

>5,000

Possible late effect; possible chromosomal aberrations

Blood changes

Temporary sterility in males (>100rem = 1 year

duration)

Double the incidence of genetic defects which is

normally expected

Malaise, vomiting, diarrhea, and tiredness in a

few hours; reduction in infection resistance,

possible bone growth retardation in children.

Serious radiation sickness; bone marrow syndrome; hemorrhage; L D10-35/30

Permanent sterility in females

Resulting loss of blood defenses and vascular

integrity; electrolyte imbalance; marrow/

intestine destruction; LD50-70/30

Acute illness, early death; LD60-95/30

Acute illness, early death in days; intestinal

syndrome LD100/10

Acute illness; death, early death in hours t.

days; central nervous syndrome; LD100/2

*Lethal dose to percentage of the population in number of days (for

example, L D10-35/30 = lethal dose in 10 percent to 35 percent of the

population in 30 days.

SOURCE: Adapted from Marvin Goldman, “ionizing Radiation and Its

Risks,” The Western Journal of Medicine, vol. 137, No 6,

December 1982, pp. 540-547, and Gilbert W. Beebe, “lonizing

Radiation and Health,” American Scientist, vol. 70, No. 1,

January-February 1982, pp. 35-44,

Another reason is the difficulty of tracing a

particular health effect to a particular low radiation

dose. For example, if a person contracted lung

cancer, it would be very difficult to determine the

cause of the cancer if he/she lives in a house with an

elevated radon level, has had multiple dental and

medical tests using radionuclides in some form, and

works in a nuclear power plant. It would be difficult

to know whether all the sources of radiation were

responsible for the cancer, or whether one source

was more responsible than another.

Compounded environmental cancer risks from

chemicals further complicate health matters, In the

lung cancer example above, if the person smoked it

would be extremely difficult to estimate what

percentage each of the radiation doses and the

chemical dose from smoking is responsible for the

cancer. One source of dose may mask another or may

exacerbate the overall impact to the individual. This

potential synergism between physical risk from

ionizing radiation and the potential environmental

cancer risks from chemicals is not well understood

(6).
94 ● Partnerships Under pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Another problem with estimating low-dose health

effects is the radiation latency factor—the time from

a brief exposure to the first appearance of disease.

For example, the minimal latent period for leukemia

and bone cancer is 2 to 4 years. It may be 10 or more

years for other types of cancer (2). The incidence of

leukemia among Japanese A-bomb survivors

reached a peak 6 years after the explosion. Most

solid tumors require 10 to 20 years to develop (10).

A further complication is that much of our data is

based on animal studies (8). For humans, the full

significance of age and sex on cancer response is not

known, nor is the significance of biologic factors

such as immune competence, hormonal status,

capacity for DNA repair, and genetic composition.

Finally, conducting a valid epidemiologic study is

difficult because of too small an exposure group and

because of the time necessary to conduct a study. In

most cases of radiation exposure events, the population size is too small to conduct a study where

statistically significant risk estimates can be calculated. The exceptions are victims and survivors of

the Japanese A-bombs and Chernobyl accident.

Even with these two events, health effect estimates

for the low-dose population are difficult to calculate

because of the competing unrelated sources of

radiation exposure and environmental risks from

chemicals.

With respect to LLW disposal, no actual data on

radiation exposures to the general public from past

disposal practices exists. The collective dose to

nearby residents is calculated to be well below the

operating limits established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Furthermore, no member

of the public is known to have received a measurable

radiation dose from disposal practices. Workers at

the disposal sites during the operational period of the

site receive the greatest dose. Workers wear radiation detection devices to ensure that the exposure

they receive is below the allowable limits set by

NRC. NRC requires that at all times exposure be

kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

The ALARA concept developed from the scientific consensus that there is no clearly definable

threshold level of exposure. The ALARA concept

requires that the cost of achieving an incremental

reduction below regulatory limits be weighed against

the benefit received in terms of reduced occupational

or population exposures (3). At LLW disposal sites,

ALARA has influenced:

●

●

●

imposition of engineered controls and barriers

to limit effluent releases,

the improvement of instrumentation to validate

lower objectives for allowable concentrations

in conjunction with enhanced monitoring of the

workplace and the surrounding regions, and

evolution of radiation protection programs in

the facilities designed specifically to achieve

ALARA conditions (3).

A Department of Energy study estimates that the

highest dose rate to the maximally exposed member

of the public from a properly functioning LLW

disposal facility would be 10 millirems per year ( 15).

The collective dose rate to nearby residents would be

much lower. If a LLW disposal facility had a major

failure, it is estimated that a maximally exposed

member of the public could receive as much as 500

millirems per year (8). This dose rate is equal to the

limit that a worker is allowed to receive within 1 year

in the unrestricted areas of a site (10 CFR Part 20).

In a restricted area, a worker may receive a dose an

order of magnitude higher. Even at the 500 millirem

dose rate, however, the facility would have to be

remediated immediately; therefore, this dose rate

would not be expected to continue.

Migration Pathways and Mechanisms

of Radiation Exposure

Figure 4-7 outlines the migration pathways and

mechanisms of human exposure from radionuclides

in a LLW disposal site, These pathways include

seepage or runoff from surface water, groundwater

transport, and atmospheric transport. Computer

analyses indicate that the groundwater is the major

pathway at humid sites (8). No single pathway

appears to be dominant for dry sites.

The primary mechanisms for human exposure

include:

●

●

●

●

●

direct radiation of individuals near the source or

near disposed material;

inhalation of emissions dispersed directly into

the air;

direct ingestion of groundwater and/or surface

water;

ingestion of contaminated vegetation on which

particulate have settled, or where gaseous

exchange has occurred, or which have grown in

concentrated soils; and

ingestion of fauna (e.g., livestock, fish) in the

food chain that have ingested and concentrated
Chapter Understanding LLW--Its Characteristics, Volumes, and Health Effects ● 95

Figure +7—Pathway Analysis to Biota and Man: Generation and Disposal Locations on Common Site

Airborne Dispersion

(Gases and Particulates)

Settling

J 1

SOURCE. Robert E Berlin and Catherine S Stanton, Radioactive Waste Management (New York NY John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1989), p 128
96 ● partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

radionuclides from a lower species in the chain.

(3)

As noted above, the annual dose to an individual

would likely not exceed 10 millirems for a properly

operating facility and would not exceed 500 millirems in case of an accident. NRC sets the annual

dose limit of a LLW disposal site at 25 millirems to

the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25

millirems to arty other organ (10 CFR Part 61). Some

States have set their site annual dose limits much

lower—at 1 millirem in the Central Midwest Compact and at background levels for the Appalachian

Compact (see ch. 2). Releases that would result in

doses above these levels would require immediate

remediation.

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Anspaugh, Lynn R., Catlin, Robert J., and Goldman,

Marvin, “Global Impact of the Chemoble Reactor

Accident,” Science, vol. 242, No. 4885, Dec. 16,

1988, pp. 1513-1519.

Beebe, Gilbert W., “Ionizing Radiation and Health,”

American Scientist, vol. 70, No. 1, January-February

1982, pp. 35-44.

Berlin, Robert E., and Stanton, Catherine C., Radioactive Waste Management (New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1989).

Deltete, C. P., “Dry Active Waste: Volumes, Sources,

and Composition, ’ lecture notes from Incineration

of Low-Level Wastes -- 1985, conference held in

Tucson, AZ, Mar. 21-23, 1985, pp. E 1-16.

Electric Power Research Institute, Radwaste Generation Survey Update, prepared by Analytical Resources, Inc., Sinking Spring, PA, February 1988.

Goldman, Marvin, ‘Ionizing Radiation and Its Risks,”

The Western Journal of Medicine, vol. 137, No. 6,

December 1982, pp. 540-547.

Hello, T. P,, and White, R. G., “Preparing for

High-Tonnage Press Processing Options,” lecture

notes from Incineration of L.ow-i.evcl Wastes: 1985,

conference held in Tucson, AZ, Mar. 21-23, 1985,

pp. F 1-33.

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, “DRAIT—

Risks from Lmw-bvel Radioactive Waste Disposal,” November 1987.

bduc, R. J., “Operating Experience with a High

Force Compactor, ” lecture notes from Incineration

of Low-Level Wastes: Z985, conference held in

Tucson, AZ, Mar. 21-23, 1985, pp. H 1-9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17

18.

19.

20.

21.

LindenfeM, Peter, Radioactive Radiations and Their

Biological Eflects (College Park, MD: American

Association of Physics Teachers, 1984).

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Ionizing Radiation Exposures of the Population of the United States, NCRP report 93, Bethesda, MD, 1987.

Rogers and Associates Engineering Corp., ‘Management Practices and Disposal Concepts for Low-bvel

Radioactive Mixed Waste, ’ contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,

March 1989.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, An

Evaluation of Options for Managing Greater-ThanClass C Low-Level Radioactive Waste, OTA-BP-O50, October 1988.

U.S. Department of Energy, Managing Low-Level

Radioactive Wastes: A Proposed Approach, DOE/LLW9, April 1983.

U.S. Department of Energy, “Imw-hvel Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Conceptual Designs, ”

DOE/LLW-6~, June 1987.

U.S. Department of Energy, The 1987 State-by-State

Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Received at Commercial Disposal Sites, National Imwbvel Radioactive Waste Management program,

DOE/LLW-69T, December 1988.

U.S. Department of Energy, DRAIT, Integrated

Data Base for 1989: Spent Fuel and Radioactive

Waste Inventories, Projection-s, and Characteristics,

DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 5, August 1989.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ‘Policy Statement on Lmw-Uvel Waste Volume Reduction (46

Federal Register 200), pp. 51101, October 1981.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Guidance on the

Definition and Identification of Commercial Mixed

Lmw-I..evel Radioactive Waste and Answers to Anticipated Questions, ’ Jan. 8, 1987.

University of California, Irvine, “Imw-hvel Radioactive Waste Management in Medical and Biomedical Research Institutions, ’ Luw-1-evel Radioactive

Waste Management Series, Department of Energy

DOE/LLW-13Th, March 1987.

Weber, I. P., and Wiltshire, S. D., The Nuclear Waste

Primer: A Handbook for Citizens, The Isague of

Women Voters Education Fund (New York, NY:

Nick Lyons Books, 1985).
Chapter 5

Current and Emerging

LLW Minimization and

Treatment Techniques
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Waste Minimization Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Material Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Good Housekeeping Pracices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

Treatment Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

Post-Generation, Good Housekeeping Practices Including Waste Decontamination . 103

Storing Radioactive Material for Decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104

Compaction and Shredding Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106

Waste Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Waste Packaging Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Long-Term Stability Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Types of Mixed LLW For Which No Minimization or Treatment Techniques

Are Currently Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

The Future for Waste Minimization and Treatment Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Future Disposal Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Interstate LLW Management Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Mixed LLW Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114

Risks of LLW Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Chapter 5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

Tables

Table Page

5-1. Summary of Mixed Low-Level Generation Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

5-2. A Critique of Waste Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Chapter 5

Current and Emerging LLW Minimization

and Treatment Techniques

INTRODUCTION

The management of low-level radioactive waste

(LLW), including mixed LLW, has three main

steps: waste minimization, treatment, and disposal. Waste minimization and treatment techniques

are reviewed here, while disposal technologies are

discussed in chapter 6.

We define waste minimization as in-plant practices that reduce, avoid, or eliminate the generation

of harmful waste so as to reduce risks to human

health and the environment. Waste minimization,

therefore, is applied to the pre-generation of waste.

Treatment, in contrast, is applied to the postgeneration of waste, but before the waste is disposed.

Treatment is defined in the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA)1

, Section 1004, to mean

. . . any method, technique, or process, including

neutralization, designed to change the physical,

chemical, or biological character or composition of

any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste

or so as to render such waste nonhazardous, safer to

transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable for

recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in

volume.

We broaden this definition to include techniques

that facilitate the overall management of LLW, but

may not be defined as treatment by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These techniques

include waste decontamination, storing radioactive

material for decay, compaction, shredding, incineration, and waste stabilization.

Since 1980, escalating LLW disposal costs (see

ch. 6) have forced the increased use of waste

minimization and treatment techniques. In the

future, these techniques will likely continue to

play a significant role until disposal costs stabilize.

The problem of managing mixed LLW—waste

that contains both radioactive and hazardous

constituents-has also increased the use of waste

minimization and treatment techniques. Since no

disposal option has been available for this waste

since 1985, mixed LLW generators continue to look

for techniques to avoid generating the waste. When

the waste’s initial generation cannot be avoided,

these generators use techniques to treat the waste so

that it is either solely radioactive or solely hazardous. The generator can then ship the waste to either

a LLW disposal site or a hazardous waste landfill.

Furthermore, under EPA regulations, a mixed LLW

generator is required to treat the hazardous constituent in the waste so that a specified treatment standard

is followed. However, the facility necessary to meet

these standards is often inaccessible or nonexistent.2

Once EPA has fully developed and begins to enforce

these standards, waste generators will pressure

industry to build the necessary facilities to meet the

standards, and the use of waste minimization and

treatment techniques will further increase.

From a reducing risk standpoint, waste minimization and treatment techniques are often

more critical for mixed LLW than for nonmixed

LLW. The hazardous constituents (e.g., organic

chemicals) in mixed LLW are often more likely to

migrate in a disposal site than are the radionuclides.

Furthermore, while radionuclides decay over a set

time period, hazardous constituents may not degrade

significantly. As a result, EPA requires that a certain

treatment standard be met for a particular hazardous

constituent before it is disposed.

With respect to waste minimization, substitution

techniques can eliminate or drastically reduce the

amount of radioactive material used, and in-plant

processes can be modified to reduce the quantity of

waste generated. Waste treatment techniques are

used to make LLW that is generated, including

mixed LLW, safer for storage, shipment, and disposal. Generators also frequently use treatment

techniques to reduce their handling, shipping, storage, and disposal costs.

lpub]l~ Law 94-580, &(. 21, 1W6.

i? F~emore, EpA hm ~ct t. &ve]OP ~ea~cnt S[mdwds for some mlxcd LLW, & IS di.~us~ ~]ow in (,he ~[ion on ‘‘~~s of Mixed LLW for

Which No Waste IWnimization or Treatment Techniques Are Cumndy Available. ”

-99 -
Table 5-1--Summary of Mixed LLW Generation Practices

GENERATOR COMMUNITY

Nuclear

Industrial facilities Medical/academic institutions power plants

University

TYPE OF Pharmaceutical Biotechnology Other Spent fuel Waste Medical/clinical nonmedical

MIXED LLW manufacturing manufacturing manufacturing storage processor & research research

store for decay

Declare BRC

Revise procedures

Long-term storage

Organic chemicals Substitute Justify use

nonhazardous Store for decay

materials

Revise procedures

Store for decay

Long-term storage

NA store for decay

Use nonlead Decontaminate

containers

Long-term storage

Lead decontamination NA NA

Waste Oil NA NA

Trash with oil NA NA

Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) NA NA

CFC concentrates NA NA

Aqueous corrosive liquids NA NA

Chromate waste NA NA

Cadmium waste NA NA

NA

Declare BRC

Substitute NA

environmentally

benign fluids

Store for decay

improve inventory

practices

Long-term storage

M NA

Long-term storage NA

NA

Solidification

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

waste

NA

NA

Decontaminate

Use coated lead

Filtration

solidification

incineration

NA

NA

Long-term storage

Long-term storage NA

NA NA

NA NA

environmentally environmentally

benign fluids benign fluids

Declare BRC

Revise procedures

Long-term storage

NA Education

Notification prior to

use

Justify use

Long-term storage

NA M

Use non lead Use nonlead

containers containers

Minimize use of Minimize use of

containers containers

Long-term storage Long-term storage

NA NA

NA Long-term storage

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

Long-term storage

Recycle

Substitute other

materials

Manage as

radioactive waste

Long-term storage

NA

Decontaminate

(onsite or at waste

processor)

Long-term storage

NA

Filtration

Solidfication

Incineration

Manage as

radioactive waste

Manage as

radioactive waste

Recycle solvent

Long-term storage

Manage as

radioactive waste

Delist

Long-term storage

NA

Manage as

Delist by

solidification

Manage as

radioactive waste

NA = Not applicable.

SOURCE: Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp., “Management Practices and Disposal Concepts For Low-Level Radioactive Mixed Waste,” RAE-8830-1, contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, March 1989, p. 2-17
Chapter -%--Current and Emerging LLW Minimization and Treatment Techniques ● 101

Table 5-1 lists all minimization and treatment

techniques currently in use for all 12 known types of

mixed LLW, which are discussed in chapter 4. This

table compliments table 4-3 which lists the practice(s) responsible for generating these mixed LLW

types. Where the phrase ‘‘long-term storage’ appears on table 5-1, either a minimization and/or

treatment technique used at another facility needs to

be transferred or such a technique is currently

unavailable. Examples of such cases are made in the

following sections.

Most of the minimization and treatment techniques discussed are applicable to nonmixed radioactive LLW as well as mixed LLW. However, more

examples of techniques relating to mixed LLW have

been chosen to illustrate current problems associated

with managing mixed LLW and to provide some

possible solutions. Furthermore, mixed LLW examples can encourage technical and information transfer between generating communities—something

that is not fully occurring today.

WASTE MINIMIZATION

TECHNIQUES

Material Substitution

Generators use material substitution to avoid or

reduce their use of radioactive material and, in turn,

their generation of LLW and mixed LLW. Material

substitution is used extensively on scintillation

vials, which are used in a wide variety of industrial

and medical research procedures. These vials are

glass or plastic and often contain an organic

chemical solution (e.g., toluene or xylene, both

listed as hazardous under RCRA) and a radioactive

tracer (e.g., carbon-1 4, tritium, and to a lesser degree

sulfur-35, phosphorus-32, and iodine-125). The

waste scintillation liquid is a mixed LLW if:

1. the liquid is RCRA-hazardous, and

2. the radionuclides are other than tritium or

carbon-1 4, or

3. if the amount of tritium or carbon-14 is greater

than the NRC limit of 0.05 microcuries per

gram of scintillation liquid (10 CFR Part

20.303-20.306).

Scintillation liquids are the largest contributor to

the overall volume of mixed LLW generated in the

United States, By substituting a nonradioactive

tracer (e.g., enzymes and fluorescent labels) for the

radioactive tracer. a generator not only eliminates

producing a radioactive waste but also a mixed

LLW. In such cases, the liquid waste is defined only

as a hazardous waste. Procedures using this substitution technique often lead to equivalent or superior

results (32, 10).

A waste generator can also choose to substitute its

RCRA-listed hazardous scintillation liquid with a

non-RCRA listed liquid--often referred to as an

‘‘environmentally benign’ or biodegradable scintillation liquid (20). As organic-based compounds,

these environmentally benign liquids are composed

of large organic molecules that are nonhazardous.

Once released into the environment, microbial and

bacterial activity can destroy these compounds

without production of hazardous constituents (20).

At some facilities, environmentally benign scintillation vials are now required for all new research

at some facilities. If a generator does not want to use

them, the burden is on the generator to justify why

a RCRA-hazardous fluid is essential for the procedure. There are cases where this justification can be

made. For example, it may not be scientifically

prudent to switch vials in the middle of a long-term

experiment. Some generators also claim that the

environmentally benign liquids are not completely

interchangeable with the toluene and xylene liquids

(25). In some cases, equipment or procedures need

to be changed to use the environmentally benign

liquids, In other cases, the environmentally benign

liquids may be incompatible with other materials or

processes used in the experiment or study. A major

reason why some generators want to avoid switching

to environmentally benign liquids is that they are

simply accustomed to using the toluene and xylene

liquids and do not want to learn new procedures (20).

Finally, one facility reported that they were not

confident that the environmental] y benign vials were

in fact benign (20).

In cases where environmentally benign vials are

appropriate. there are great advantages. The liquid

waste would be regulated as only radioactive if it

passed the EPA hazardous characteristic tests. A

mixed LLW stream, therefore, would be avoided.

Finally, in some cases it may be possible to use

both substitution techniques-a nonradioactive tracer

and an environmentally benign scintillation liquid—
102 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

resulting in neither a mixed LLW nor a radioactive

waste. Generators, in turn, could either send the

waste to an incinerator or, if permitted by their

license and local permits, release the material to

sanitary sewer systems.

Another example of a material substitution that

eliminates a mixed LLW stream is in the corrosion

inhibitor used in nuclear power plants’ cooling

systems. A hexavalent chromate, which is RCRAlisted as hazardous, has often been used to stop pipes

from corroding. Several plants have replaced this

type of chromate with a nonhazardous chemica13 and

thus are no longer generating a mixed LLW (20).

Dry cleaning of contaminated clothing can also

generate mixed LLW. Waste generators (e.g., nuclear utilities) will dry clean some of their protective

clothing (e.g., coveralls) that is slightly radioactive

so that it can be re-used. Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)

solvents, often referred to as freon, are used in dry

cleaning because of their decreasing capability and

are RCRA-listed as a hazardous waste. When the

cleaning solution has to be changed, a mixed LLW

is produced in the form of sludge and used filters.

Several utilities have switched to a water-based

laundry service so that hazardous chemicals are

eliminated and only nonmixed LLW is produced

(20).

Good Housekeeping Practices

Especially for biomedical and medical research

institutions, it is possible to reduce the quantities of

radioactive material used by improving the scheduling of practices that use radioactive material, reducing excess purchases of radioactive material, and

coordinating purchases through a clearinghouse.

Education of organic chemical users, for example,

has helped sensitize them to avoid generating of

mixed LLW. Organic chemicals are often used to

clean radioactively contaminated equipment, but

users are encouraged to consider alternative cleanup

methods.

Good housekeeping practices can also improve

technical procedures so that liquid wastes and solid

wastes are minimized. With respect to liquid wastes,

generators use a variety of techniques to minimize

their production and to concentrate them when they

are produced. Nuclear utilities, for example, have

made small improvements that have resulted in large

reductions in the quantity and type of liquid wastes

generated. These improvements include:

● minimizing the use of chemicals that increase

the quantity of radioactive corrosion products

in the liquid cooling system, and

. identifying and stopping leaks in the cooling

system so that the amount of contaminated

material generated is further reduced (20).

For solid wastes, LLW generators use techniques

to ensure that material that does not have to be

exposed to radioactivity remains uncontaminated.

Contaminated lead is a good example of a solid

waste that generators are trying to eliminate, primarily because it is a mixed LLW. Pharmaceutical

companies, for example, store neutron-activated

stainless steel tubes, which are used to manufacture

pharmaceuticals, in underwater storage pools (20).

These companies add lead to the aluminum storage

cans to ensure that the cans will not be buoyant. The

inside of the cans can become contaminated with

various radioisotopes. To avoid generating this

mixed LLW, companies are replacing the lead with

high-density, nonhazardous material (e.g., steel).

Lead is also used in manufacturing shielded

isotope shipping containers. These containers typically have a cavity inside for holding a bottle. At

times the radioisotope in the bottle can spill and

contaminate the lead container. This mixed LLW

can be avoided by either using a container that is not

made of lead or by placing the bottle in a plastic bag

before it is inserted into the lead container.

Lead is also used as shielding in the form of foil,

bricks, or sheets. To ensure that this lead does not

become contaminated, some generators cover it with

a plastic-like substance such as herculon (20).

TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

It is not always possible to use material substitution or a good housekeeping practice to avoid

generating a particular waste. Several treatment

techniques are, however, available to reduce the

waste volume and sometimes the toxicity after the

waste has been generated.

3A ~-v~ent c~mate that is not defined as RCRA hazardous has been USd in some Cues.
Chapter 5-Current and Emerging LLW Minimization and Treatment Techniques ● 103

Post-Generation, Good Housekeeping

Practices Including Waste Decontamination

Liquid waste can be concentrated through evaporation, ion-exchange, filtration, precipitation and

centrifuging, and distillation. For example, biomedical institutions use these techniques to separate or

concentrate their organic liquids (32). Nuclear

utilities use them on several waste streams. For

example, evaporation systems and ion-exchange

resins are used extensively to treat-concentrate and

decontaminate-the large volume of liquid wastes

generated during a plant’s normal operation. Evaporation is used to concentrate radioactive contaminants; the water is boiled off of liquid wastes,

leaving behind most of the dissolved and suspended

solids. Ion-exchange resins (demineralizers) are

used to remove dissolved radionuclides by adsorption processes. Improvements in the use of these

techniques in the nuclear power industry can lead to

a 75 percent reduction in ‘‘liquid’* waste volumes

(5).

Neutralization is another practice that could be

used to better manage some liquid wastes. Aqueous

corrosive liquids, which are mixed LLW due to their

corrosiveness, are stored today in tanks. These

liquids can be neutralized by raising their pH and

then handling them as a purely radioactive waste

(20).

One “problem’ liquid waste, which is a mixed

LLW, is contaminated organic chemicals. In some

cases, it is possible to distill the liquid and condense

the portion that contains the nonradioactively contaminated chemical. This process would enable the

chemical liquid to be reused. Nonetheless, the waste

volume would be reduced, not eliminated. The

residue would still be a mixed waste. (See section

below on “Types of Mixed LLW for Which No

Minimization or Treatment Techniques Are Currently Available.

A second problem liquid waste is used oil. Some

States consider this waste a mixed LLW, but the

EPA is currently deciding whether or not waste oil

should be a RCRA-listed hazardous waste.4 If waste

oil is determined to be hazardous, mixed LLW

volumes will increase dramatically.

Some generators are filtrating their waste oil, a

procedure that removes particulate radioactive contamination. This practice has worked sufficiently

well for some generators to allow the ‘‘clean’” oil to

be released to oil recyclers (20). The used filters are

disposed of as nonhazardous radioactive waste.

Some generators, however, have not been able to

filter their waste oil adequately to separate the

radioactive constituent from the hazardous constituent. (See section below on “Types of Mixed LLW

for Which No Minimization or Treatment Techniques Are Currently Available.”)

A third problem liquid/wet waste, which is a

mixed LLW, is CFC solvents and their concentrates,

As mentioned above, CFCs used to dry clean

contaminated clothing can be substituted with waterbased laundry systems. Nonetheless, problem CFCs

are those stored from past dry cleaning services and

those generated now or from future cleaning of

contaminated tools and equipment. The concentrates

can be distilled and heated, thereby reducing the

CFC concentration in the waste. Then the recovered

CFC solvent can be reused. The residue, however,

remains a mixed LLW unless it can be delisted by

EPA or found to be a “below regulatory concern”

(BRC) waste—waste ‘‘not subject to regulatory

control to assure adequate protection of the public

health and safety because of its radioactive content .

For solid waste, sorting can greatly reduce waste

volumes. Sorting nonradioactive from radioactive

wastes as well as sorting wastes into different

categories (e.g., combustible, recyclable, compactible) are important steps in reducing waste volumes.

These sorting techniques are well suited for lightly

dEpA eXwtS [. m~c ~ls determination in late 1989.

<The Nuclew Regula[ov commlK$lon (NRC) developd a BRC de for specific radionuclides in ~lmid CUCaSSM and Sclntll]atlon fluids In 198 I

(10 CFR Part 20 306). Tlus regulation wales that these wastes conlaifing tritium ~d carbon-14 in concentrations less ~an 0.05 microcunes per gram

can be dmpowxi of without regard to their radioactivity. This regulation enables such wastes that also contain hazardous constituents to be incinerated

(see section below on incineration’). NRC is now evaluating BRC limits for more general cases. EPA ha.. a draft LLW standard which includes limits

for BRC, The proposed hmlts by these agencm are In conflict and this conflict will have to be resolved. Refer to ch. 3 for more detail on the BRC rule.

Sec ah 51 Federal Re&ster 168, Aug. 29, 1986; and T Johnson, ‘‘Below Regulatory Concern Wastes-Identification and Impl]cat]ons for Mixed Waste

Management,” Proceedings of US Environmental Protection Agency Mixed Waste Workshop, Denver, CO, July 19-20, 1988.
104 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

contaminated dry solid materials such as paper,

glass, plastics, metals, rags, and wood. These

techniques, in fact, have been argued to achieve the

highest overall reduction in waste volumes (32). For

example, onsite, semi-automated waste sorting programs can reduce by 40 percent the volume of

radioactive dry waste generated by a nuclear power

plant (22).

A number of relatively inexpensive techniques

can be used to decontaminate radioactive materials

so that they can be reused, reclaimed, or disposed of

as nonradioactive waste. A variety of cleaning

techniques, including sand blasting, high-pressure

steam, acid baths, and electrochemical polishing,

can be used to remove surface contamination from

metal equipment and tools (e.g., condensers, turbine

blades, and scaffolding) that would otherwise be

shipped for disposal (27).

A centralized waste processing facility -Quadrex

Corp.-for example, cleaned about 6,000 pounds of

metal scaffolding over the last several years. In

1987, Quadrex processed approximately 200,000

cubic feet (2 million pounds) of metallic LLW at its

facility. Over 90 percent (180,000 cubic feet) of this

waste material was cleaned to recover its scrap metal

value or so that it could be reused.6 One estimate

places the amount of potentially recyclable metallic

LLW at about 540,000 cubic feet per year, roughly

2.5 times the current national recovery rate (14).

Practices are also available to reduce and potentially eliminate lead—the one problem solid waste

that is a mixed LLW. In some cases, contaminated

lead shielding is cleaned by wiping and rinsing. In

other cases, a high-pressure water and chemical hose

is used to decontaminate the surface. Chemicals by

themselves have also been used to remove contamination. These techniques allow 95 percent of the lead

processed to be released as nonradioactive material

(20). Lead decontamination solutions can be solidified to pass EPA leachability tests. The solids are

then no longer defined as hazardous waste and can

be disposed of at a currently operating LLW disposal

site (20).

An additional technique for decontaminating lead

is separation. If the surface of a particular lead shield

is fairly contaminated and the above techniques

cannot remove the contamination, it may be possible

to physically separate (cutting or scrapping) the

surface of the shield so that most of the lead can be

released as nonradioactive.

Finally, if surface contamination cannot be removed by the above practices, lead can be smelted

so that the contamination is distributed homogeneously throughout the metal matrix. Once EPA and

NRC agree on limits for BRC, it may be possible to

reduce the radioactivity to such a degree that the lead

is found to be BRC. At the Department of Energy

(DOE) National Engineering Laboratory’s Waste

Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF) in Idaho,

this smelting technique is used. In the Federal

Republic of Germany, ingots of these melts are used

as shielding materials at nuclear power plants.

The BRC rule could also have a significant impact

on reducing LLW volumes in general. The Electric

Power Research Institute estimates that the nuclear

utility industry alone could see a 30 to 40 percent

drop in its volumes from 1988 figures.7

Storing Radioactive Material for Decay

A large fraction of the radioactive material

generated by medical and biomedical research

institutions is composed of relatively short-lived

radionuclides. By storing these LLW materials for

time periods equivalent to 10 to 20 half-lives, the

radioactivity can decline to background levels. This

waste is essentially nonradioactive in that it can be

regulated without regard to its radioactivity.8 After

storing such radioactive waste for the necessary

period, it can be disposed of with other solid wastes

in a landfill, or it can be released into the sewer

system in regulated amounts (see 10 CFR Part

20.303).

Most of the radionuclides used in nuclear medicine have half-lives that are less than 7 days (26).

Storage for decay is typically done by collecting all

the waste generated within specific periods, usually

15Nomm ~dey, @adrex Corp., personal communication, Dec. 15.1988.

Tpa~cla Robinson, LLW program, EltXLI-IC Power Research Ins(i{ute, presentation made al The Fifih AnnIAuL Dwlslonmakers’ For-LW

Management The Available Optwns & Costs, Wild Dunes, SC, June 6-8, 1989.

sThe ~~~ Storage time need~ for a radionuc]ide 10 be al or below its concentration in the natural environment (background level) depends on its

concentration in the waste and its half-life.
Chapter 5--Current and Emerging LLW Minimization and Treatment Techniques ● 105

30-day intervals, and then storing the waste as one

unit. Each unit of waste is segregated by radionuelides. Either shielded or unshielded storage containers are used, depending on the waste. The waste

is stored until it is no longer considered radioactive.

Without storage-for-decay programs, the combustible dry waste and animal carcasses generated by

medical institutions could not be incinerated, and

approximately 30 percent of the aqueous waste

could not be emptied into the sewer. A typical

biomedical research institution can reduce the volume of LLW requiring disposal by 30 to 40 percent

through an in-house storage-for-decay program (32).

Storage-for-decay programs may also help eliminate certain categories of potential mixed LLW. For

used scintillation liquids, it may be possible to use

less radioactive material or radionuclides that have

very short (measured in minutes) decay periods.

These modifications may be possible by using

detection equipment with increased sensitivity. The

liquid waste in this example could be considered no

longer radioactive and, thereby, handled as only a

hazardous waste (32).

Two problem arise with some of these storage-fordecay programs. First, a RCRA permit for shortlived radionuclides is required for 90-day or longer

storage. 9 Furthermore, even with such a permit,

RCRA land disposal restricted waste can only be

stored if storage is for the sole purpose of accumulating sufficient quantities to facilitate proper recovery,

treatment, or disposal (40 CFR Part 268.50). Since

no treatment facilities are available that meet the

RCRA treatment standard and no disposal facilities

are available, it is unlikely that storage would be

allowed. The storage prohibition does not apply,

however, if one of the exemptions to the RCRA land

disposal restrictions are in effect.10 Some procedures

generate LLW, as well as mixed LLW, with

longer-lived radionuclides. For example, iodine125, which has a half-life of 60 days, should be

stored for about 2 years before it can be disposed of

without regard to its radioactivity. If this iodine were

mixed LLW, storage would not be allowed according to EPA. This prohibition is a particular problem

for some mixed LLW when no alternative minimization or treatment technique can alter it so that it is

either solely radioactive or solely hazardous. For

mixed LLW containing radionuclides that must be

stored longer than 2 years before they decay to such

low levels that they can be disposed, generators have

no choice but to either stop the practice responsible

for generating the waste, which can often mean

going out of business, or illegally store the waste.

Most mixed LLW generators have not yet submitted their RCRA Part A permits for storage, and EPA

has not begun to enforce its storage regulations.

Once enforcement begins, generators will have

problems handling these mixed waste streams. (See

section below on “Types of Mixed LLW for Which

No Minimization or Treatment Techniques Are

Currently Available.”)

Second, some storage-for-decay programs lack

quality control over long-term storage. Degradation

of waste packages, for example, can result in

excessive radiation exposure to workers.

Compaction and Shredding Techniques

The volume of dry LLW (i.e., trash) can be

substantially reduced before disposal by mechanical

compaction and shredding techniques. For example,

from 50 to 65 percent of the dry waste generated by

nuclear power plants can be compacted to reduce the

disposal volume (3).

In general, compactors are simple to operate and

relatively inexpensive: an exception is supercompactors which are more complex and cost between

$1 million and $5 million to purchase and install.

Compactors must be equipped with air filtration

gcen,.=rators hat q~lfy ~ conditionally exempt small quantity generators (they generate less than 100 kIIograms (kg) (220 pounds) of hazardous

waste per month) do not nexd storage permits as long as the total amo~t Of all h~-~dous waste (including mixed LLW) does not cxcced 1,000 kg (2,2oo

pounds), Generators that produce between 100 and 1,000 kg ~220 to 2,2~ ~~d~) of hm.ardous waste per month may ~orc thi~ waste onsite for up m

180 days without a storage permit, provided that the total amOWN of all h~ardous waste f including mixed LLW’) accumulated onsite does not exceed

6,000 kg (13,200 pounds). The 180-day limlt Cm be extended to 270 dav If the dist~cc tie w~te must be transported for offslte treatment, storage,

or cbsposal is 200 miles or more (40 CFR Part 262).

l~xlg~g Provlslons for exemptions ~dcr the RCRA i and disposal rest.rlctlons include a ~-year national capacity varIancc, an approved no-migrat]on

petition, or an approved case-by-case extension. Caw-by-case extensions arc only allowed if the applicant can demonstrate that he/she has entered into

a binding contract with a treatment facility operator/deveioper that will construct or otherwise provide alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal

capaaty for the entire waste stream after the extertson expires ( 1). See ch, 3 for a more dctwled discussion of storage prohlbmons and thcu relationship

to treatment standards and land ban restrictions.
106 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

units to

. “

Photo credit: Scientific Ecology Group

Before and after photos of box compaction using a 5,000-ton supercompactor

control the release of airborne contaminants

and to minimize worker exposure. An added advantage of compactors is that the processed waste is of

uniform geometry, which facilitates handling and

packaging and reduces the space needed for interim

onsite storage (21).

Super-compactors in use today are either stationary or mobile units capable of producing a force of

1,000 tons or greater. These units can crush containers of waste (55-gallon drums or boxes) into

‘‘hockey pucks‘‘ in a manner of minutes (11). These

high-tonnage systems are capable of handling a

larger fraction of the so-called noncompatible

wastes, which represent a large part of a nuclear

power plants’ waste volume (8).

Using a 5,000-ton device, centralized waste processing companies like the Scientific Ecology Group,

Inc. (SEG), a waste processing company in Tennessee, can supercompact the dry wastes from a wide

variety of generators. In 1988, SEG processed more

than 800,000 cubic feet of waste, an increase of 40

percent from 1987. Only 167,000 cubic feet of this

waste-a volume reduction of almost 80 percent—

was left to be shipped for disposal.11 Before the

waste is compacted, materials like wood and metal

that are nonradioactive or that can be decontaminated are separated from the waste stream. Liquids

that are released in the compaction process are

solidified in cement and placed with the compacted

waste.

Size reduction devices such as shredders cart also

be used to reduce waste volumes (27). Shredders

tear, rip, shatter, and/or crush waste materials into

smaller sizes. By using supercompactors and/or

shredders, it is possible to achieve up to a seven-fold

or about an 85 percent volume reduction (27).

Shredders can also provide a more uniform feed

material for incinerators.

Incineration

Incineration is one of the most efficient ways of

reducing waste volumes. The techniques discussed

below have mainly been used to treat municipal

solid waste, but they could be used to treat lowradioactivity, combustible liquid and solid dry

LLW. The major differences in applying this technology to LLW involve shielding requirements, the

use of high-efficiency filters, and methods of ash

disposal (27). Incineration can reduce waste volumes by a ratio of at least 25:1 (or 96 percent).

Although this experience indicates that it is rather

difficult to design a universal incinerator capable of

treating all the various waste types at equal efficiency and performance (7). With respect to some

1 IBud Arrow~i~, Scientific Ecology Group, Inc., personal communication, (kt. 19, 1988.
Chapter 5--Current and Emerging LLW Minimization and Treatment Techniques . 107

mixed LLW, incineration can convert the waste into

carbon dioxide and radioactive ash (7). Incineration

is likely to be inappropriate for treating LLW,

including mixed LLW, that contains radionuclides

that cannot be trapped by an off-gas system.

Types of Incinerators

Three major types of incinerators are currently

used worldwide to reduce LLW volumes: 1) rotary

kilns, 2) controlled-air incinerators, and 3) fluidizedbed incinerators.

A typical incinerator facility consists of a waste

sorting system, a waste feeding mechanism, a main

combustion chamber, often an afterburner, an elaborate off-gas cleaning system, an ash collection and

removal system, a waste conditioning unit, and

instrumentation to monitor critical operating parameters to ensure that health and safety-related limits

are met. Incinerators differ in their design based on

the amount of air used, the special characteristics of

the combustion chamber, and the form of the

incineration residue.

In a rotary kiln, waste is decomposed (oxidized)

by burning in a slowly rotating, refractory-lined

combustion chamber mounted at a slight incline so

waste gradually gravitates toward the ash discharge

point. This chamber contains more oxygen than

necessary to completely oxidize the waste. Liquid

injection units are often coupled with this design for

liquid wastes. To ensure complete combustion, a

secondary combustion chamber (afterburner) is often

used to increase the time that wastes are subjected to

high temperatures. A relatively large amount of ash

and particulate can be produced by this type of

incinerator (24).

In a controlled-air incinerator, waste is fed onto a

platform in the bottom of a combustion chamber.

This primary chamber as well as the secondary

combustion chamber can be operated under either

starved-air (pyrolytic) or excess-air conditions. The

conditions chosen depend on the waste type. With

LLW incinerators, it is common to operate the

primary chamber under pyrolytic conditions because

the amount of fly ash produced is greatly reduced.

Liquid injectors can also be attached to this chamber

to destroy liquid wastes. Particles of incomplete

combustion are then fed into a secondary highcombustion chamber that is oxygen enriched. The

advantage of this design is that less fly ash is

produced, therefore less radioactive dust is carried

out with escaping combustion gases (24, 7). Nonetheless, an elaborate off-gas system accompanies

this design (see following discussion on air pollution

control technologies).

A fluidized-bed incinerator uses a layer of small

particles (e.g., sand, limestone) suspended in an

upward flowing stream of air like a fluid (hence, the

name) to help burn highly viscous liquids and

sludges not easily burned by other incinerators (24).

The flowing particles help the mixing and the

combustion efficiency. This design can also remove

acid gases (27). A disadvantage of this design is that

combustion gases can contain high levels of particulate (24).

Two other technologies—wet air oxidation and

supercritical water oxidation—are similar to incineration but involve water. Wet-air oxidation is used

by hazardous wrote facilities to oxidize organic

contaminants in water (24). LOW temperatures can

be used with this technology because the water

modifies the oxidation reactions. and the reactor

vessel is maintained at a pressure high enough to

prevent excessive evaporation. Supercritical water

oxidization is similar, but temperature and pressure

are higher than with the wet-air oxidation process.

By raising primarily pressure and to some degree

temperature, the rate and efficiency of thermal

oxidation can be enhanced (24). Neither of these

water-based thermal oxidation processes is commercially available. The DOE Los Alamos Laboratory

has an on-going research project under its Hazardous

Waste Remedial Action Program (HAZWRAP)

using supercritical water oxidation. These technologies, particularly supercritical water oxidation,

may hold promise for destroying organic chemicals

containing radionuclides like tritium and carbon-14,

which are nearly impossible to trap in conventional

off-gas incinerator systems.12 One European report

noted a trend toward using special incineration

systems for less voluminous wastes with special

characteristics (e.g., solvents) and/or special contaminants (7).

]zfil~ ~omcn~u~ ~m ~e~hcd a[ tic Worbhop on SWerC,rltl(a/ Fluld processing of H/gh Ruk W~tes, held at tic LOS Al~o\ Xationtd Laboratory,

I.m Alamos, New Mexico, Aug. 1-2, 1989.
108 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Air Pollution Control Technologies

Air pollution technologies are used to control the

emission of gases and radioactive particulate. The

amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere

from an incinerator depends in part on the volatility

of a particular radionuclide during the combustion

process. As mentioned above, it is very difficult to

prevent the release of volatile radionuclides, like

carbon-14, tritium, and iodine-131, with current

technologies.

A small amount of the waste’s total radioactivity

is transported in particulate matter by combustion

gases leaving the chamber, while most radionuclides

are trapped in the ash or slag (melted ash) that settles

to the bottom of the combustion chamber. The

concentration of radioactivity in the fly ash can be

even higher if the volume of dust particles produced

is limited. A combination of technologies is used to

remove these radioactive particles from the combustion gases: fabric baghouses, high-temperature ceramic filters, electrostatic precipitators, and highefficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. For example, in some systems, gases pass through the

baghouses, and fly ash is collected on the outer

surface of the bags. On a periodic basis, the fly ash

is driven off of the bags by injecting a burst of

compressed air through a venturi in the top of each

bag. This burst of air knocks the fly ash off the bags

and into a hopper at the bottom of each baghouse.

This fly ash is collected, processed (e.g., solidified

using a cement waste form), and disposed of. After

gases pass through the baghouses, they are sent

through HEPA filters designed to remove over 99

percent of particles larger than 0.3 microns (2).

Operating Experience

Incineration has been used extensively in Europe

(e.g., Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden) and in

Japan since the early 1970s to treat commercial

LLW generated by hospitals, nuclear power plants,

and industry. In Sweden, more than 600,000 cubic

feet of dry active waste were incinerated between

1976 and 1983 at a central LLW processing facility

(16). During this period, less than 2 percent of the

maximum permissible amount of beta and gamma

radionuclides were released into the atmosphere via

the stack gases. A strict quality control program-to

ensure that a waste package’s manifest accurately

reflects the waste’s contents-has been found to be

critical in minimizing emissions (4).

In the United States, no commercial incinerator is

licensed to treat LLW or mixed LLW. About 100

individual licensees have incinerators for certain

combustible wastes generated at their sites, but

incinerators for commercial use are not available. In

contrast, the DOE has incinerators within its weapons complex sites that can treat both LLW and

mixed LLW, and these wastes are shipped between

weapon sites for treatment. The WERF incinerator at

the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, for

example, routinely burns LLW and on a smaller

scale bums liquid mixed LLW. The incinerator is

currently operating under RCRA interim status (27).

The DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory is planning to open in February 1990 its Toxic Substance

and Control Act (TSCA) incinerator, which will be

permitted to burn mixed LLW. Both of these

incinerators bum or will burn wastes from other

DOE sites.

The only U.S. commercial facility that is scheduled to be available in November 1989 is a

controlled-air incinerator operated by SEG in Oak

Ridge, TN. The incinerator will be capable of

burning 800 to 1600 pounds of dry solid waste per

hour. Included in the design is a system to handle

liquid wastes and a glass furnace to stabilize final

ash products. This incinerator will be permitted to

bum only non-mixed LLW

Incineration of Mixed LLW

In Europe, mixed LLW is defined simply as

radioactive waste. Operators of treatment and disposal facilities, therefore, do not have to obtain

special permits or meet special standards for this

waste.

In the United States, in contrast, there are incinerators to treat hazardous waste, but not commercial

mixed LLW. Although SEG has the technical

capability to treat mixed LLW at its soon-to-be

operating incinerator, the company has not filed for

the necessary permits.

The bulk of mixed LLW—scintillation fluids-is

incinerated because it is not regulated as a mixed

LLW. From a regulatory standpoint, most of these

fluids are below the established limits set by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be BRC and,
Chapter S---Current and Emerging LLW Minimization and Treatment Techniques ● 109

therefore, are regulated for their nonradioactive

characteristics. Most of these BRC fluids are

shipped to one company in Florida-Quadrex Corp.—

that burns them to recover their energy value. The

fluids are an energy supplement to the fuel that runs

an incinerator. The heat from the incinerator, in turn,

is used to make cement blocks. Because the incinerator is an energy recovery system, it does not require

a RCRA permit. This situation will likely change

due to the amendments EPA is currently drafting;13

EPA will likely determine that energy recovery

facilities, like the incinerator Quadrex uses, will

require a RCRA permit. Quadrex plans to use an

incinerator that has a RCRA permit, if this determination is made.

As with the BRC scintillation fluids, waste oil has

typically been burned as a fuel substitute because

usually it is only slightly contaminated. This oil is

produced in large quantities by nuclear utilities and

some industrial generators. Many generators incinerate their waste oil onsite, while others ship it to a

waste processor. SEG, for example, treats approximately 30,000 gallons of waste oil annually. ’4

The status of waste oil may soon change. EPA is

reevaluating whether waste oil should be listed as a

hazardous waste and is expected to make a decision

in late 1989. If waste oil is found to be hazardous,

then generators/waste processors will need a RCRA

permit to incinerate their waste oil. All States will

have to amend their regulations to include this

definition. If waste oil does become defined as a

RCRA-listed hazardous waste, the volume of mixed

LLW will rise dramatically. Without a RCRApermitted incinerator available, the waste oil that

cannot be successfully filtered will have to be stored.

This volume would only be reduced if this waste

falls below the yet-to-be-finalized BRC limits.

Another type of mixed LLW for which no

incinerator is available is organic chemical waste.

Several technologies (e.g., supercritical water oxidation) have been identified in the laboratory as being

able to possibly treat this waste effectively but they

have not been developed nor tested commercially

(25). (See section below on “Types of Mixed LLW

for Which No Minimization or Treatment Techniques Are Currently Available.”)

Waste Stabilization

Stabilization techniques are used to fix the

constituents of LLW, including mixed LLW, in a

solid form that is inert, that has low exchange or

release rates in water, and that can be safely

transported or stored. The solid form in which a

waste is fixed is called the waste form. For example,

incinerator ash can be stabilized in a cement-based

waste form that fixes the ash and retards the

migration of radionuclides in the waste. Several

different stabilization media are available. Finally, a

waste packaging container designed for a particular

waste form is critical to ensuring long-term stabilization of the waste and, in turn, the protection of

public health and safety and the environment during

storage, shipment, and disposal.

Technical Requirements

LLW must be stabilized

requirements (10 CFR Part

Minimum Requirements.

based on the following

61) (28, 30):

for All Classes of LLW

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Minimum packaging requirements must be met

(e.g., no cardboard boxes are allowed), but the

waste does not have to be solidified or placed in

a special container.15

Liquids are to be solidified or packaged in twice

the volume of liquid absorbent. (The use of

absorbents is, however, prohibited in some Agreement States. )

No more than 1 percent of a solid waste’s volume

shall contain liquids.

The waste must not be explosive, pyrophoric,

capable of generating harmful gases, toxic, or

infectious.

Waste should not generate gas pressure greater

than 1.5 atmospheres at 20‘C and must contain

less than 100 curies per container.

\SEpA ~s~u~ ~ ~upp\ementaI notice on Octokr 26, 1989, that requires energy rc~~vely facilities 10 be permitted. This supplemental notice IS

effectively a reproposal of a proposed rule issued on May 6, 1987. EPA plans to issue a final rule in early 1991.

IQ~owsmi~, op. cil., footnote ! 1.

151n wmhin~on ~d Souti Cwollna, ~e~aln C]ms A wfi~es (those having ra~onuclldes with half-] ives greater than 5 yCWS in concentrations greater

than 1 microcurie per cubic centimctcr) must also be stabilized (27).
110 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

6.

7.

Waste containing hazardous, biological, pathogenic, or infectious material must be treated to

reduce to the maximum extent practicable the

potential hazard from the nonradiological materials.

A process control (testing) program must be used

to ensure that the waste product is of consistent

quality.

Additional Requirements for Class B and C Waste

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The waste form must be structurally stable.

Liquid waste must be converted into a form that

contains no more than 1 percent of the waste’s

volume, when the waste is in a disposal container

designed to ensure stability, or 0.5 percent of the

waste’s volume, when the waste is processed to a

stable form.

Void spaces within the waste and between the

waste and its package must be reduced to the

extent practicable.

The gross physical properties of the waste form

must be retained for at least 300 years under all

disposal conditions (e.g., irradiation, high compressive loads, exposure to moisture, and biological degradation).

Instead of using solidification agents (e.g., cement) to fix the waste, Class B and Class C waste

may be stabilized in a suitable high-integrity

container (HIC). When a HIC is used, the

maximum amount of free liquid cannot exceed 1

percent of the waste volume.

Class C waste must be disposed of so that the top

of the waste is at least 15 feet below the surface or

disposed of with intruder barriers designed to

protect against inadvertent intrusion for at least

500 years.

Waste Form Types

Typical stabilization techniques include solidifying wastes using lime-based cements, bitumen

(asphalt), and synthetic polymers (e.g., vinyl esterstyrene and urea-formaldehyde). Wastes are also

stabilized by certain waste packages. HICs composed of organic polymers like polyethylene and

various stainless steel alloys are used to stabilize

waste,

In the United States, cement mixtures have been

preferred as stabilizing materials, while in Europe

bitumen has been used for over 20 years to stabilize

radioactive wastes.

In cement-based waste forms, waste solidification

occurs by a complex chemical hydration reaction

(i.e., water and lime are added to produce a calcium

oxide). The advantages of this waste form are that:

● it effectively stabilizes most LLW,

. it has a high structural strength,

. it is inexpensive to produce and easy to use, and

. it exhibits a low leachability for most radionuelides.

The disadvantages of cement-based waste forms are

that:

●

●

●

it, unlike bitumen, increases a waste’s volume

by 10 to 30 percent,

it is difficult, though not impossible, to use in

solidifying mixed LLW composed of untreated

detergent, oils, and other organic liquids because these substances interfere with the hydration process (27), and

it may also be incompatible with mixed LLW

composed of metallic-salts.

In a recent NRC Notice (31), other disadvantages

with cement-based waste forms were listed. These

include:

. its failure to solidify completely,

. swelling and bulging of liners, and

. disintegration over relatively short periods

following solidification.

In particular, bead resin, decontamination solutions,

berates, sulfates, and oils were listed as wastes that

had problems when solidified using a cement. The

NRC announced at one of its workshops that several

cases of full-scale and lab-scale waste forms have

had these problems (18). Likewise, the Idaho

National Energy Laboratory reported that it had

similar problems in using cement-solidified waste

forms and that the waste formed cracks during

leaching (18).

In the United States, cement is often combined

with numerous natural and synthetic sorbable materials to stabilize waste. This combination makes it

easier to stabilize some organic mixed LLW. However, waste fores that depend on sorption tech-
Chapter 5--Current and Emerging LLW Minimization and Treatment Techniques ● 1 1 1

niques are, by themselves, inadequate stabilizing

agents due to the reversible nature of most sorption

processes.

Bitumen systems are considered to be both waste

stabilization and volume reduction technologies

because the heat required to melt the mixture assists

in evaporating any liquid wastes (27). The hot

bitumen coats the waste particles, thus encapsulating the waste in a solid matrix that is impermeable

to water and structurally stable once it cools.

Bitumen can be used to stabilize almost all LLW

materials with the possible exception of certain

mixed LLW, such as those containing liquid organic

chemicals (e.g., oil). The major advantages of using

bitumen are:

. its good leach resistance characteristics,

. the low operating costs of producing it,

. the ease of handling it. and

● its high waste loading capacity.

The major disadvantages of using bitumen are:

●

●

●

●

its relatively low ignition temperature (i. e., it is

flammable),

its instability at high temperatures,

its relatively low (in comparison to cements)

structural strength, and

its susceptibility to biological degradation (27).

Polymers, in contrast, solidify wastes by a chemical reaction process called polymerization. Advantages of this waste form are that:

●

●

T h e

are:

●

●

●

wastes are very resistant to chemical leaching,

and

they exhibit high compressive strengths.

major disadvantages of using this waste form

the high material costs,

the complexity of the mixing process, and

the fire and explosive hazard posed by some of

the chemical ingredients of the polymer.

Table 5-2 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of these three waste forms. Cement has

many advantages, but its quality is inconsistent and

it produces higher waste volumes. Bitumen exhibits

the opposite characteristics, in that its quality is

consistent and it reduces waste volumes; however, it

is not as structurally strong as cement, Neither

Table 5-2—A Critique of Waste Forms

Characteristic Cement Bitumen Polymer

Leach resistant . . . . . . . . . . . . Y Y Y

High structural strength . . . . . . . . Y N Y

Not flammable nor

ignitable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y N N

Easy to use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y Y N

Consistent quality . . . . . . . . . . N Y u

Appropriate for organic

chemical mixed wastes . . . . . . N N u

Reduces waste volume . . . . . . . N Y I

Inexpensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y Y N

KEY :Y =yes

N = no

U . unknown

I = Indifferent

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1989

cement nor bitumen can adequately stabilize some

mixed LLW, particularly organic chemical waste, In

comparison to either cement or bitumen, polymer

waste forms appear to have no major advantage. A

combination of these waste forms may be most

appropriate for some mixed LLW. NRC has an

active research program in this area to improve

waste form reliability.

Waste Packaging Materials

A variety of different packaging materials are

used for LLW containers. Wooden boxes are used at

some disposal sites (in arid regions) for Class A

waste. Steel drums and steel boxes are also used for

Class A waste. HICs made from a variety of

materials (e.g., polyethylene, steel-reinforced concrete, and stainless steel) are used for Class B and C

waste. As noted, these packaging materials are

designed to retain their physical and chemical

integrity for at least 300 years (30).

In general, polyethylene is a highly corrosionresistant material, but its long-term structural integrity is of concern. Studies conducted at the Brookhaven

National Laboratory found that polyethylene containers may become brittle, crack. and rupture when

exposed to certain chemical contaminants (e.g.,

organic liquids such as oils) and to high doses of

radiation (23). The NRC allows the use of these

containers for disposal but only if the required

structural stability is provided by other packaging

materials or engineered structures (17), Containers

made of various steel alloys are also used to stabilize

LLW and some mixed LLW because of their high
112 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

structural strength and their ability to resist corrosion (though not to the same degree as polyethylene).

A number of containers on the market use a

combination of several materials to form a container

with improved stability characteristics (27). For

example, a polyethylene container within an inner

steel or concrete container has been used. Polymerimpregnated cements have also been used to reduce

the leaching of some radionuclides (e.g., cesium and

strontium) (19). As with waste forms, more research

is needed on packaging materials that may be

appropriate for various mixed LLWs.

Long-Term Stability Predictions

It is important to be able to predict how the

materials used to stabilize LLW and mixed LLW

will behave in a disposal environment over the long

term. The most common prediction methods are

based on the results from short-term laboratory tests.

Leachability, due to groundwater, is one of the most

important factors in determining the long-term

stability of a waste form or container. Leaaching tests

measure the ability of a particular waste form or

container to retard the release of specific radionuclides or hazardous chemicals. These tests are

conducted by placing a sample of the stabilized

material in water and then measuring the release

rates (of individual chemical species) over a period

of about 90 days.

Experimentally determined leaching rate predictions must be viewed with caution for several

reasons:

●

●

●

the tests are based on short-term studies (often

90 days or less);

the experimental conditions are generally not

representative of the variety of geochemical

conditions encountered in a disposal environment;16 and

very little to no quantitative information exists

on the long-term stability of containment materials under disposal conditions.

With respect to the third reason, the only longterm database available is for concrete. Two-thousandyear-old concrete structures (e.g., bridges, aqueducts, and harbors) from the Roman era are still in

existence. Studies of these structures show that the

concrete has retained most of its structural strength,

but often has undergone extensive chemical transformation as a result of exposure to ambient

environmental conditions (12). Many examples can

also be cited where modern concretes have performed satisfactorily for at least 100 years. It is

difficult to be certain, however, that concrete will

remain structurally stable and resistant to leaching

for much more than a few hundred years (12).

TYPES OF MIXED LLW FOR

WHICH NO MINIMIZATION

OR TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

A major problem for mixed LLW generators is

that no commercial facility is available to treat

their wastes. According to EPA regulations. a

particular treatment standard must be met for a

particular hazardous waste before it can be disposed.

The standard may be expressed as a specified

technology (e.g., incineration), as a total concentration in the waste, or as a concentration in the waste

extract (i.e., by using a leaching test called the

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure or TCLP)

(l). In all cases, these treatment standards are based

on the performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BDAT).

EPA treatment standards for solvents, dioxins,

and the hazardous constituents that fall on the

California List17 are in effect and apply to mixed

LLW that contains these hazardous constituents.

Therefore, mixed LLW generators are required to

treat these wastes accordingly. There are three

types of mixed LLW identified for which treatment is necessary, but a treatment facility is

unavailable.

16 Baauw of tie “~ety of ~ssible ge~hemlc~] ~ondl[lons at a site, i[ IS difficult 10 devlw a st~dardizeci leaching test that represents the potential

mobility of radioactive (or chemical) contaminants.

17~e c~lfofia List ,nc[udes free ~J,~ldcs, ~omoslves, h~.~d~us w~stc mixed wi~ poly~h[onnatcd biphcnyls ( PCB\ ), and ccrtmn melals (1.c..

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, mckel. thallium, and selenium) (RCRA sectmrrs W04[d][ 1 ], [d][? ], 42 L S.C. 6924 [d ][ 1 ], [d][2] ). For

treatment standards for these wastes, see EPA’s final rule-52 Federal Rcglster 25760, July 8, 1987.
Chapter S--Current and Emerging LLW Minimization and Treatment Techniques ● 113

First, organic chemicals, in some cases, can be

distilled and the nonradioactively contaminated

chemical can be concentrated for re-use. Nonetheless, the residue is still a mixed LLW. For the most

part, organic chemical mixed LLWs fall into the

solvent category, and the BDAT for solvents is

incineration. No commercial incinerator, however,

is available to treat organic chemical mixed LLW.

Furthermore, as mentioned, some organic chemicals

contain high concentrations of radionuclides (e.g.,

tritium and carbon-14) that would escape through a

conventional off-gas filtering system if incinerated.

Newly designed incinerators or completely new

techniques (e.g., some water-based thermal oxidation process, like supercritical water oxidation, or

some new stabilization technique) may be needed to

treat these wastes.

Second, waste oil may be a problem with respect

to treatment. If EPA decides that waste oil is a

RCRA-listed hazardous waste, the overall volume of

mixed LLW will dramatically increase, All generators of mixed LLW oil will have to meet the

established treatment standard, and the BDAT to

meet this standard will likely be incineration, Based

on comments from some generators, it appears

unlikely that filtration will successfully work in all

cases for separating radioactive particulate from

oil. Therefore, incineration will be required. As with

organic chemicals, no commercial mixed LLW

incinerator is available.

Third, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS) used in dry

cleaning of clothing may also be a problem with

respect to treatment. Even though many generators

have shifted to water-based laundry systems, CFC

solutions from past practices are in storage. Moreover, CFC solutions and sludges from decontaminating tools and equipment are in storage and will

continue to be generated. As with organic chemicals,

these solutions can be distilled and the nonradioactively contaminated solution can be concentrated for

re-use. Nonetheless, the residue is still a mixed

LLW. Because the concentration of radioactivity in

these solutions is generally very low, generators

hope to have them delisted or found to be BRC once

the standard is finalized. The BDAT for CFCS is

incineration, and, until a delisting petition is granted

or the BRC standard is finalized, generators should

be incinerating them. However, no commercial

mixed LLW incinerator is available.

All generators that have land-disposalrestricted mixed LLW for which no treatment

technique is available have no options but either

to stop the practice that generates the waste,

which in many cases means going out of business,

or to store their waste. Storage is, however, only

allowed for a period long enough to accumulate

enough volume to further manage the waste. With

no treatment or disposal capacity available, it is

unlikely that the accumulation argument can be used

by generators. They can apply for a case-by-case

extension to a land disposal restriction for up to 2

years, during which time the storage prohibition

does not apply. However, to receive the extension,

the generator must be able to demonstrate that a

good-faith effort has been made to locate and

contract with facilities nationwide to manage its

waste, and that a binding contract has been entered

into with a treatment operator/developer that will

construct or otherwise provide alternative treatment,

recovery, or disposal capacity for the waste. The

contract must ensure that this capacity will be

available at the end of the extension period.

It will unlikely be possible to provide a treatment

technique for some mixed LLW types in this

timeframe. In particular, developing techniques and

making them available for some organic chemical

solvents with long-lived radionuclides or high concentrations of radionuclides may be difficult. If

storage of such wastes extends significantly, excessive radiation exposures to workers could result if

adequate storage conditions are not maintained and

waste packages degrade (20).

Another problem with mixed LLW management is that EPA has not completed establishing

treatment standards for all hazardous wastes.

Nonetheless, it appears that treatment standards

have been established for the majority of commercial mixed LLWs (e.g., organic solvents) identified

that cannot be treated so that they are no longer a

mixed LLW. A comprehensive national survey,

however, has not been conducted to determine all the

possible mixed LLWs that are being generated. A

survey may uncover some types of unalterable

mixed LLW for which treatment standards are not

available.

A survey could also serve other needs, States

would have a database to draw on to know which
114 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

institutions/facilities are generating mixed LLW and

to know the waste types and their volumes. This

information would help States in their regulation of

mixed LLW as well as in their development of a

mixed LLW disposal facility. Furthermore, a mixed

LLW survey could provide the treatment industry

with the necessary information to develop treatment

facilities to meet RCRA standards. This industry has

often argued that it is leery of developing treatment

facilities (e.g., incinerators) because it lacks this

information. A survey could meet these needs.

A BRC standard could also help resolve some

of the mixed LLW management problems. As

mentioned above, by using a BRC standard, generators may be able to dispose of CFC residue and lead

as hazardous waste, thereby omitting these two

waste types from the mixed LLW category. Depending on the concentration of radioactivity in waste oil,

it too might be removed from the mixed LLW list.18

Theoretically, this would leave one problem

mixed LLW-organic chemicals containing high

concentrations of radionuclides that cannot be

trapped in an incinerator off-gas system. A new

treatment or stabilization technique may be

needed for these wastes.

THE FUTURE FOR

WASTE MINIMIZATION

AND TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

Future Disposal Volumes

In reaction to the volume restrictions (i.e., disposal allocations established in the Low-Level

Radioactive Policy Amendments Act of 198519) at

existing disposal sites, the slow progress in siting

new disposal facilities, and increasing disposal

costs, LLW generators have been reducing the

volumes of waste they ship for disposal. Between

1980 and 1988, these factors were responsible for a

55 percent volume reduction in commercial LLW

shipped for disposal (see ch. 4). From 1984 to 1987,

the nuclear power industry reduced its waste volume

by about 42 percent, while at the same time the

industry built 20 new reactors (6). Since the late

1970s, institutional generators have used a variety of

the technologies discussed in this chapter to reduce

their LLW volumes shipped for disposal by 94

percent (32).

Waste minimization techniques can be used

more extensively to avoid generating some LLWs

by improving technology transfer between generator communities. Once the waste has been

generated, incineration and decontamination techniques appear to have the greatest potential for

reducing future LLW volumes.

Interstate LLW Management Services

The cost of disposing of LLW will almost

certainly continue to rise in the future, due to the

increased costs of constructing the newer engineered

disposal facilities (see ch. 6). Higher disposal costs

alone, however, may not drive waste volumes down

to the maximum extent practicable, particularly if

compacts decide to prohibit interstate processing of

LLW. It probably will not be economically viable

for States and compacts with a small waste volume

to develop their own incinerators. The capital costs

of constructing an incinerator are high, ranging from

$7 million to $9 million for a system capable of

handling 85,000 pounds of waste per year, while

annual operating and maintenance costs are around

$500,000 (27). Incinerators have also been proven to

be very difficult to site and license. With no access

to an incinerator, volumes in these regions will not

decrease significantly. It appears that the overall

costs and some handling and transportation risks

(see below) can be reduced by encouraging interstate

processing of wastes.

Mixed LLW Management

The waste minimization and treatment techniques

discussed in this chapter will continue to reduce the

volume of mixed LLW. Generators will be pressured even more to maximize their use of these

techniques, once EPA enforces its RCRA regulations and requires all generators to obtain a

permit for treating and/or storing their mixed

LLW. To avoid dual jurisdiction-to avoid having

to obtain a RCRA permit in addition to the NRC or

I RBY defining ~ ~lxe. LLW ~ BRC with respect t. 1(S radioactivity, however, does not guaramec that a h~~dous wa..lc landfill will a~~cpt the waste.

The landfill may have stricter requirements in its pcrmlt and refuse the waste. In such instances, the waste generator IS left with no disposal option at

present.

19~b11C L~~ 99.’7~, J~, 15, 1986,
Chapter S---Current and Emerging LLW Minimization and Treatment Techniques ● 115

Agreement State license they currently have—

mixed LLW generators will try to change their

practices and not generate mixed LLW or will try to

treat all mixed LLW such that it is either solely

radioactive or solely hazardous.

The generation of some mixed LLWs is, however, unavoidable. Of primary concern is the

storage prohibition that applies to mixed LLW.

As a remedy, EPA could decide, in establishing its

treatment standards for the final third of hazardous wastes (due to be released in May 1990), that

the storage prohibition does not apply to generators of wastes for which no treatment capacity

and/or no disposal capacity is available. In other

words, storage would be allowed if it is not being

used in place of disposal.

An advantage of this approach is that mixed LLW

generators would have an intermediate option until

treatment capacity and disposal capacity are available. Furthermore, by generators applying for a

storage permit, EPA would have a record as to what

types and volumes of mixed LLW are being

generated. EPA could use the data to better ensure

that wastes are not being illegally disposed. The

waste treatment industry also could use the data as

a marketing tool to develop necessary waste treatment facilities, as it could with data from a national

survey.

Generators claim that dual jurisdiction is very

burdensome in that they have to meet two separate

agencies’ requirements, including filling out separate forms that often request the same information.

EPA has stated, however, that it will try and “accept,

to the extent possible, information already submitted

to the NRC when processing a RCRA permit.”20

Likewise, NRC has said that the two agencies will

work toward ‘‘resolving the difficulties of simultaneous licensing and permitting processes, making

the overall process more uniform, and exploring the

possibility of using the same application documerit, ’ but NRC notes that this effort is of low

priority compared to joint guidance efforts (13).

Even given these intentions, generators are discouraged and anxious about dual jurisdiction because of

the lack of progress they have seen the two agencies

make toward streamlining the permitting/licensing

process for the treatment, storage, and disposal

(which is discussed inch. 6) of mixed LLW.

Dual jurisdiction is likely to be difficult until EPA

and NRC agree to joint rulemaking or joint guidance

concerning several regulatory issues. In some cases,

the two agencies have different approaches and these

approaches may be in conflict. Joint rulemaking

and/or joint guidance will likely be needed on waste

package manifest requirements, waste package sampling and testing, and inspection and enforcement of

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. For sampling, EPA requires a 100-gram specimen. NRC is

concerned that this size sample is too large and in

conflict with its principle of keeping worker exposure as low as reasonably achievable. EPA headquarters has told its regional offices that, if this

conflict does arise, the office should accept smaller

samples. 21 In addition to other cases of possible

regulatory conflict and overlapping and duplicative

regulations (see ch. 1 and ch. 3), the NRC and EPA

may find other regulatory areas that will require joint

rulemaking and/or joint guidance.

Of all the types of mixed LLW discussed, three

types stand out as the most difficult for generators to

manage-organic chemicals, waste oil, and CFC

residue. Of these three wastes, organic chemicals

seem to offer the greatest challenge from a treatment

perspective. If a comprehensive survey of mixed

LLW is conducted and/or EPA develops a record

of stored mixed LLW by permitting such practices, States would have the information they

need to regulate these wastes and to develop

disposal capacity. In addition, industry would

have a clearer idea of the technology and capacity

needed to treat these three wastes.

Risks of LLW Management

Neither incineration nor decontamination—

the two most efficient waste volume reduction

techniques-will reduce the total curies generated, because curies cannot be destroyed.

Through current incineration techniques, some radioZ053 F~er~ Register 185, Sept. 23, 1988.

ZITO Ju~ify ~S d~ision, EPA regional offices can cite Section 1006 of RCRA. It StateS ‘ ‘nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to (or

(o authorize any State, interstate, or local authority to regulate) any activity or substance which is subject to [numerous laws including] the Atomic Ikrgy

Act of 1954 except to the extent that such application (or regulation) is not inconsisten~ with the requirements of such Acts. ”
116 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

nuclides (e.g., tritium and carbon-14) will be released into the atmosphere and some will be fixed in

the ash. The total radioactivity emitted from these

two pathways will be equivalent to that in the waste

prior to incineration. Likewise, the radioactivity

extracted during decontamination is equivalent to

the radioactivity in the waste prior to decontamination. It is difficult to determine which exposure

pathways have the greatest risk to humans and the

environment. Nonetheless, aside from the limited

radioactivity that escapes via stack gases, all radioactivity disposed of under either scenario (disposal

without incineration or decontamination versus

disposal following these techniques) will be the

same. Thus, the risks of environmental contamination and human exposure through disposing of

radioactive material remain the same. However,

with less waste disposed of and the waste being

more stabilized before disposal, these techniques

may reduce the number of handling and transportation accidents but not necessarily their

severity.

Waste stabilization techniques are an important

component of waste management, as is clearly

indicated by the failure of past disposal practices to

prevent radionuclide migration. NRC regulations do

not require generators to stabilize Class A LLW.

Stabilization, however, is a relatively inexpensive

method of reducing the risk of environmental

contamination. By stabilizing Class A waste, which

is about 97 percent of LLW, more assurance may

be gained in the stability of disposal sites. However, under certain environmental conditions (e.g.,

low precipitation) and given certain engineered

disposal designs, the potential gain in short-term and

long-term site stability may not justify stabilizing

Class A waste.

With Class B and C wastes, it is difficult to predict

with high certainty the long-term stability of various

waste forms and container technologies. This uncertainty is primarily due to the relatively small

database on their behavior. Furthermore, the variability in geochemical conditions encountered in a

disposal site make it difficult to model site conditions. Nonetheless, the stability of most wastes can

be significantly improved by using a combination of

containment techniques.

Stabilization of different mixed LLWs requires more research to determine which technique or combination of techniques are most

appropriate. EPA recommends monitoring the

Superfund Innovative Technologies Evaluation Program for information on new techniques (15).

The uncertainty about the long-term stability

of solidification and containment materials implies that long-term in-situ testing of waste

stabilization materials will be necessary to manage LLW disposal sites. Test results can provide

the scientific community, policy makers, and the

public with the necessary information to plan for the

next generation of disposal facilities.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES

Craig, Rhonda, “Land Ban: Its Impact on Mixed

Waste, ’ Proceedings of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mixed Waste Workshop, Denver, CO,

July 19-20, 1988.

Dalton, J. D., EG&G Idaho, Informal Report: Second

Progress Report for the WERF incinerator, contractor report prepared for the U.S. Department of

Energy, EGG-WM-8154, June 1988.

Deltete, C. P., “Dry Active Waste: Volumes, Sources

and Composition, ” lecture notes from Incineration

of Low-Lu>’el Wastes: 1985, Tucson, AZ, Mar. 21-23,

1985, pp. E1-16.

Dirks, F., and Hemplemann, W., ‘‘The Incineration

Plant of the Karlshruhe Research Center—A Regional Solution, ’ Incineration of Radioactive Waste,

C. Eid and A.J. Van bon (eds. ), published for the

Commission of the European Communities (Imndon:

Graham & Trotrnan Ltd., 1985), pp. 34-47.

Ekechukwu, O. E., Propst, R. M., Dameron, H. J.,

Ward, G. L., and Atherton, N. G., “Pretreatment and

Bed Materials for Improved Liquid Radwaste Processing, EPRI Project 2414-2, ” proceedings from

Waste Management ’88, vol. 1, Tucson, AZ, Feb.

28-Mar. 3, 1988, pp. 3-19.

Farrell, B., “A L’tility Perspective on BRC, ’ paper

presented to the Tenth Annual DOE LLW Conference, 1988.

HiId, W., “The Role of Incineration in the Management of Radwaste, ” Incineration of Radioactive

Was/e, C. Eid and A.J. khn lmon (eds.), published for

the Commission of the European Communities

(London: Graham & Trotman Ltd., 1985), pp. 5-21.

Hello, T. P., and White, R, G.. “preparing for HighTonnage Press Processing Options, ” lecture notes

from Incineration of Low-lzvel Wastes: 1985,

Tucson, AZ, Mar. 21-23, 1985, pp. F1-33.
Chapter S-Current and Emerging LLW Minimization and Treatment Techniques Ž 117

9.

10.

11.

12.

13,

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Johnson, Timothy, “Below Regulatory Concern

Wastes — Identification and Implications for Mixed

Waste Management, ” Proceedings of U.S. En\*iron -

mental Protection Agenc> Mixed Waste Workshop,

Denver, CO, July 19-20, 1988.

Landegren, U., and Kaiser, R., “DNA DiagnosticsMolecular Techniques and Automation, ” Science,

vol. 242, No. 4876, Oct. 14, 1988, pp. 229-237.

bduc, R. J., “Operating Experience with a HighForce Compactor, ” lecture notes from fncineratiun

of LOw-tivel Wastes.. /985, !vlar. 21-23, 1985, pp.

Hi-9.

Mackenzie, D. R., Siskind, B., and Piciulo, P., ‘ ‘Some

Considerations in the Evaluation of Concrete as a

Structural Material for Alternative LLW Disposal

Technologies, ” proceedings from Waste Management ’87, vol. 3, Tucson, AZ, Mar. 1-5, 1987, pp.

63-70.

Martin, Dan, ‘ ‘The NTRC Approach to Dual Regulation of Mixed Waste: Status of NRC Activities, ’

Proceedings of U.S. Eni*ir(mmentul Protection Agency

Mixed Waste Workshop, Denver, CO, July 19-20,

1988.

.McGough, M. S., and Tomlin, E. L., ‘ ‘The Recycling

Alternative, ’ 1987 Conference on Waste Isolatiort in

the U. S., vol. 3, pp. 421-422.

Miullo, Nathaniel, ‘‘Proposed Technologies for .Mixed

Waste Management, ’ Proceedings of U.S. En~ironmentul Protection” Agen(> h4&dWuste Works hop,”

Denver, CO, July 19-20, 1988,

Ohm, G., ‘ ‘Incineration of Low-b’vel DAW Operating Experience at Studsvik, Sweden, ’ lecture notes

from incineration of IJjh’-[-e\el Wa.rteL7, 1985,

Tucson, AZ, Mar. 21-23, 1985, pp. J 1-33.

Radioactive Exchange. ‘ ‘NRC Acts Against HDPE

HICS. but Says Use at Barnwell Still OK (Washington, DC: Exchange Publications), Jan, 19, 1989.

Radioacti\c Exchange, ‘‘LLW Cement Solidification Problems Detailed at NRC Workshop’ (Washington, DC: Exchange Publications), Apr. 28, 1989.

‘ ‘Radioactive Waste Disposal: LAJW and High Level,’”

Pollution Technology Revie~, No. 38, William R.

Gilmore (cd. ) (Park Ridge, NJ: Nojes Data Corp.,

1977), pp. 104-164.

Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp., “Management Practices and Disposal Concepts for Low-l~vei

Radioactive Mixed Waste—A Background Report, ’

contractor report prepared for the L] .S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment, May 1989.

21.

z?

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Sathrum, C. H,, and Stember, D. L., “Volume Reduction of Dry Active Waste by a Mobile Supercompactor System, ” lecture notes from Incineration (rf

bw-1-evel Wastes: 198-5, Tucson, AZ. Mar. 21-23,

1985, pp. G1-2.

Schulte, J. H., and McNamara, P., ‘‘The Development

and Implementation of a Dry Active Waste Sorting

Program at Catawaba Nuclear Station, proceedings

from Waste Management ’88, vol. 1. Tucson, M,

Feb. 28-Mar. 3, 1988, pp. 423-427.

Soo, P., “The Effects of Chemical and Gamma

Irradiation Environments on the Mechanical Roperties of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), ’ proceedings from Waste Munagernertt ‘88, VOI. 1,

Tucson, AZ, Feb. 28-Mar. 3, 1988, pp. 619-625.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Ocean incineration: lts Role in Managing H(lz(~rdous Wastes, OTA-O-313 (Washington, DC: LT

. S.

Government Printing Office, August 1986).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Workshop on Mixed Waste, Washington, DC, Dec.

15 & 16, 1988.

U.S. Department of Energy, ‘ ‘Managing ~mw-LE\el

Radioactive Wastes: A Proposed Approach, ’ National Lmw-hvel Radioactive Waste Management

Program, DOE/LLW-9, Apr. 1983.

U.S. Department of Energy, ‘‘Low-l~Ye] Radioactive Waste Reduction and Stabilization Technologies

Resource Manual, DOE/L LL$’-76T, December 1988.

Lr.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ‘ ‘Branch

Technical Position on Waste Form, ’ rev. 0, May

1983.

L’.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Management of Radioactive Mixed Waste in Commercial

Imw-hvel Wastes, ” Brookhaven National Laboratory, BhTL-hTUREG-5 1944. January 1986.

IJ.S. N’uclear Regulatory Commission, ‘h Low-~vel

Waste Form Stability,” Draft Regulator>’ Guide,

November 1986.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ‘ ‘NRC Information h“otic~ N’o. 89-27. Limitations on the Use of

Waste Forms and High lntegrit~ Containers for the

Disposal of I-mw-bvel Radioactive Waste, ’ Mar. 8,

1989.

University of California. Irvine. bjw-h]el Radioactive Waste Manugernent in Medic ‘al and Bi[)rnc~iical Research institutions, L-ow-hvel Radioactive

Waste Management Handbook Series, DOE/LI.W

r

-

13T, March 1987.
Chapter 6

Disposal Technologies
CONTENTS

Page

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Historical Background . . . . . . . .

Early Experience . . . . . . . . . . .

Significance of Past Problems

Generic Disposal Technologies

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Above-Ground Disposal in Concrete Vaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Near-Surface Underground Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intermediate-Depth Disposal in Augered Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deep Disposal in Geologic Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Near-Surface Disposal Tecchnologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Facility Siting-Natural Site Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waste Form and Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Engineered Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Designs of Near-Surface Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Developing Site-Specific Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selecting an Appropriate Facility Design for LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selecting an Appropriate Facility Design for Mixed LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Development Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phased Facility Development in Humid Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Remediating Leaking Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preventive Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Removing Waste From Disposal Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Long-T&n Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Potential Areas for Technology Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Disposal Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figures

Figure

6-1. Waste Disposal Using Shallow-Land Burial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-2. Above-Ground Disposal in Concrete Vaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-3. Intermediate-Depth Disposal in Augered Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-4. Schematic of Deep-Geologic Repository Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-5. Layout of a Typical Disposal Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-6. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Overpack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-7. TypicaI Multilayered Cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-8. Below-Ground Vault Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-9. Above-Grade Tumulus Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-10. Perspective View of an Earth Mounded Concrete Bunker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-11. Effects of Waste Volume on Unit Disposal Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tables

Table

6-1.

6-2.

6-3.

6-4.

6-5.

6-6.

6-7.

Amounts of Commercial LLW Disposed of Through 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Levels of Certainty About Disposal Facility Performance

in Regions of High Precipitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optimistic Schedule for Developing a Disposal Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surcharges for LLW Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Approximate 1988 Disposal Costs for Class A LLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Approximate Unit Disposal Costs Without Surcharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of Financing on Unit Disposal Costs for Shallow-Land Burial

and Below-Grade Vaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

121

121

122

122

124

125

125

125

127

127

127

130

130

130

135

136

138

140

141

141

142

142

142

143

143

144

146

Page

123

126

128

128

129

131

133

137

137

138

146

Page

124

140

142

145

145

145

146
Chapter 6

Disposal Technologies

OVERVIEW

Most low-level radioactive waste (LLW) generated in the United States over the last 40 years has

been disposed of by shallow-land burial. Unfortunately, at three of the Nation’s six commercial

disposal facilities, water infiltrated into the shallow

trenches and in some cases caused radioactive

contaminants to migrate into the surrounding environment. Preventing water infiltration into disposal units is the key to safe disposal of LLW and

mixed LLW.

Disposal facilities that are well-designed, wellconstructed, and well-maintained should be able to

safely isolate LLW and/or mixed LLW for a few

hundred years, and even longer if they are wellmaintained throughout the operating period and

post-closure care period. The disposal industry’s

ability to construct water-tight disposal facilities

will certainly improve with experience, primarily

from budding new facilities and monitoring their

long-term performance. Since the integrity of these

facilities will degrade over time, long-term monitoring may be advisable for as long as the waste

remains harmful.1

Gently sloping covers to the facilities, called caps,

can be made of a variety of natural materials (e.g.,

clay) and man-made materials (e.g., synthetic membranes). In humid areas, these caps are generally

composed of multiple layers of these various materials so that precipitation is kept from entering

disposal units. If the cap leaks, below-grade facilities buried in impermeable clay may fill with water,

unless they are pumped, thereby creating a “bathtub’ ‘ effect. Water infiltrating into above-grade

tumuli and earth-covered vaults can be drained (via

gravity) into external collection basins and then

monitored.

Unit disposal costs for most Class A LLW in 1989

average just over $40 per cubic foot. These costs will

probably rise in 1990 when the surcharge to these

States, allowed under the Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 198 5

(LLRWPAA)2, increases from $20 to $40 per cubic

foot. Unit disposal costs at new disposal sites will

undoubtedly be higher than today’s costs for several

reasons: 1) the presence of more small-scale disposal

facilities with higher per unit disposal costs, 2) the

use of more expensive technologies for waste

packaging and disposal, 3) host community compensation packages, and 4) extended long-term care

periods.

The development of better combinations of soil

layers and synthetic membranes in multilayered

caps could improve the long-term performance of

disposal facilities. In-cap monitoring systems also

could be more widely used so that leaks in the cap

can be located and the cap repaired quickly.

INTRODUCTION

The goal of disposal is to isolate LLW and

mixed LLW during the the time it poses an undue

risk to humans and the environment. Since the

toxicity and longevity of risk associated with

different waste constituents varies, the required level

and time period of containment depend on the

concentration of the particular waste constituents.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires that Class A LLW be contained for up to 100

years, Class B for 200 to 300 years, and Class C for

up to 500 years. These requirements are based on the

half-life of the radionuclides in the waste, the types

of radiation emitted, and potential pathways to

humans. These containment periods and the structural stability requirements of the waste are designed

to ensure that an inadvertent intruder would not be

exposed to radiation that poses an undue health risk

to the individual. The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) does not set similar containment

periods for hazardous waste. It does, however,

require that no migration occur during the postclosure care period—a period that lasts 30 years

unless monitoring data support that this period be

shortened or lengthened. However, unlike LLW, the

toxicity of some hazardous waste (e.g., heavy metals

and some synthetic organic chemicals) does not

significantly decrease with time.

Disposal technologies for LLW and mixed LLW

generally involve burial of the waste beneath the

Earth’s surface. Disposal technologies typically

l~teminlng tie h~fu] ~n~ ~11 de~nd on tie IOng.tem \oxlcity of [he radioactive ~d h~~do~, M defined under the Resource Conservation

and Recove~ Act, constituents in the waste.

z~b]ic Law 99-240, J~. 15, 1986.

~ +/,()~ - W - ‘) : [)L 1

-121-
122 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

provide waste isolation in two different ways. First,

shielding of the radioactive material is provided by

concrete and/or layers of earth. Second, disposal

facilities are designed to minimize the infiltration of

water into the waste and any subsequent migration

of dissolved waste constituents into the surrounding

environment. Infiltration can be minimized in

three ways: by locating the disposal site in a

relatively dry environment; by designing the

disposal facility so that any precipitation quickly

runs off the site, rather than percolating into the

facility; and/or by surrounding the waste with

water-resistant material, such as concrete coated

with a waterproofing material.

Mixed LLW was included with other LLW and

disposed of at commercial LLW disposal sites until

November 1985. Since that time, mixed LLW is

required to be disposed of at facilities designed to

meet both NRC regulations for LLW and EPA

regulations for hazardous waste. However, no such

disposal facilities yet exist. Since waste disposal

facilities for mixed LLW will probably require at

least another few years to construct and license, most

mixed LLW will have to remain in storage until the

States and compacts develop mixed LLW disposal

facilities. If it is assumed that 3 to 10 percent3 of the

LLW volume generated a year is mixed LLW and

that all of this waste is stored,4 about 130,000 to

430,000 cubic feet of mixed LLW will be in storage

by the end of 1992.

After a brief history on LLW disposal, various

waste isolation technologies will be described with

emphasis on the near-surface, underground disposal

techniques now being developed for both LLW and

mixed LLW. Much of this material addresses the

suitability of different disposal facility designs for

different regions of the United States, particularly

the humid regions in the East and the arid regions in

the West. The last section of this chapter addresses

disposal costs.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Early Experience

Between the mid-1940s and the late 1970s, the

majority of commercial LLW (as well as defense

LLW) was stacked in shallow trenches and

subsequently covered with several feet of soil.

This disposal technique, which is illustrated in

figure 6-1, is commonly called shallow-land burial

(SLB). In the 1950s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) established interim-disposal sites for

commercial LLW at unlicensed, federally owned

defense facilities near Oak Ridge, TN, and Idaho

Falls, ID, until commercial facilities could be sited.

By the early 1960s, there were three commercial

disposal facilities operating at Beatty, NV; West

Valley, NY; and Maxey Flats, KY. Within the next

10 years, three more facilities were opened at

Richland, WA; Sheffield, IL; and Barnwell, SC.5

See table 6-1 for the volumes of LLW disposed of at

each of these facilities.

The late 1970s saw the closing of three commercial SLB sites, two due to radionuclides

leaking from burial trenches. At West Valley, NY,

some trench caps failed and the trenches filled with

water to the point that water spread over the ground

surface. The site was shut down in 1975. The earthen

caps covering some of the burial trenches at Maxey

Flats, KY, also failed, and water filling the trenches

eventually spread as surface run-off. The trench

water was pumped out and treated, and the site was

closed in 1977. The Sheffield, IL, site was closed in

1978 when it reached its licensed capacity. Tritium

migration has since been detected at Sheffield, but

no health and safety hazard was or is deemed to exist

(17). Remedial action, such as maintaining trench

caps and pumping water from the trenches, is now

occurring at all three sites.6 To date, monitoring

efforts have not found significant amounts of

radionuclide migration beyond the boundaries of

these three inactive disposal sites (17).

sAs n. n~iom] smey has&nconducted, s t. 10 percent is an estimate based on ad hoc surveys. If waste oil is listed by EpA ~ hti-mdous wa-stc,

this estimate would rise dramatically.

4M hw StakSweys ~dindustry Suneys i~lcatethat the cumulative volumes of mixed LLW in general are holding steady ad not increasing

as woutd be expeeted since no disposal capacity has been available since November 1985. Some mixed LLW may be slipping through brokers and waste

processors and entering LLW disposat sites undetected.

Sof ~] LLW ~ fw dl~p~ of by tie u~t~ States, ]ess ~~ one.ten~ of one ~rcen[ (89,472 drums) was dumped into the ocean. AU drums were

deposited within 220 miles of our coastline during the 1946-70 time period when ocean dumping was practiced. Few reeords of these activities were

kept, but sporadic monitoring of the few known sites has detected no adverse ecological impacts from these activities (8). Ocean dumping of LLW is

not a politically viable option; it would require that art ocean dumping permit be approved of by EPA and both Houses of Congress within 90 days after

receipt of an application.

6Bo~ Maxey Flats and West Valley continue to ‘‘receive’ wastes generated by onsite cleanup and water treatment operations.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, “Conceptual Design Report Alternative Concepts Of LOW-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal,” prepared by Rogers and

Associates Engineering Corp. for the National Low-Level Waste Management Program, DOE/LLW-60T, June 1987.

4 --- -

Photo credit: Gretchen McCabe

These two photographs illustrate the difference in disposal

practices used at the humid site in Barnwell, SC (above)

and at the and site in Richland, WA (right), Both

technologies are shallow-land burial for Class A waste, but

the low precipitation in Washington does not necessitate

stacking of Class A waste containers to minimize

radionuclide migration.
124 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Cumuklative amounts

Disposal site Years in operation in 106 cubic feet

Barnwell, SC ----------- 1971 -present 20.6 45

Richland, WA ---------- 1965-present 10.8 24

1963-1977 4.8 10

4.0 9

Sheffield,IL -.:::::::::: - 3.1 7

West Valley, NY . . . . . . . . 1963-1975 2.5 5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.8 100

SOURCE: U.S. of Energy, Draft, Integrated Data Base for 1989: Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste

,and Characteristics, DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 5, August 1989.

Significance of Past Problems

Radioactive waste at land-based disposal sites can

pose a human health hazard in firer ways. First,

radionuclides can be leached out of the waste by

infiltrating water thereby contaminating groundwater and/or surface water supplies. Second, radionuclides may be released in gaseous form into surrounding soils and ultimately to the atmosphere.

Third, workers can be exposed to radiation from the

waste during waste emplacement. Finally, humans

may inadvertently uncover waste from a disposal

facility at some time in the future The relative

importance of these release modes, which are

discussed in more detail in ch. 4, vary considerably

from one disposal facility to another.

Past environmental problems at the disposal

facilities in Illinois, New York, and Kentucky can be

traced to one or more of the following:7

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

inadequate disposal facility designs;

inadequate waste compaction prior to disposal;

inadequate packaging of LLW containing liquids and highly mobile radionuclides, such as

tritium;

haphazard stacking of waste packages in disposal trenches;

poor cap construction and/or maintenance;

poor drainage of surface runoff; and

an inability to monitor, detect, and remove

infiltrating water from disposal trenches.

NRC’s regulations for disposal sites (10 CFR Part

61) are aimed at minimizing water infiltration by

avoiding these mistakes.

Many engineers familiar with past and present

disposal practices believe that a well-designed

and well-constructed disposal facility for LLW

and/or mixed LLW can safely contain the waste

for a few hundred years and probably longer.

Disposal facilities at Richland, WA, and Beatty, NV,

have both operated since the mid-1960s without any

significant radionuclide migration. The disposal

facility at Barnwell, SC, has operated successfully

since 1971 despite its wet climate. Therefore, past

problems with the disposal of LLW should not be

interpreted to mean that LLW cannot be safely

disposed of in near-surface facilities.

The performance of any LLW disposal facility

will naturally reflect the disposal site characteristics,

as well as the facility’s design, construction, and

management. Unfortunately, it is not possible to

accurately predict how long a particular disposal

facility will perform at an acceptable level for two

reasons. First, the longevity of hazard associated

with LLW and mixed LLW can range from several

decades to a few hundred years and even longer for

some wastes. These time periods extend well beyond

the few decades of disposal site developers’ experience. Second, many of the materials (e.g., impervious plastic membranes) and current facility designs

have only been developed over the last several years

and have yet to be subjected to long-term testing.

Given the Nation’s limited experience with the

design of LLW and mixed LLW disposal facilities

relative to the length of risk from the waste, it is

important to recognize that uncertainties about

the long-term performance of disposal facilities

can be significant. Disposal sites may contain

minor undetected flaws. Facility designs may not

behave exactly as predicted. Climate patterns may

change. Institutional problems and mismanagement

in the construction, operation, and maintenance of

disposal facilities may occur and are often difficult

7Sjmi]U ~blems wi~ wa~r infil~ation and radionuclide migration have also occurred at several Department of Energy (DOE) defe~ sites in he

United States, as well as at SLB facilities in Canada and in the United Kingdom (3).
Chapter 6--Disposal Technologies ● 125

to detect. These uncertainties generally increase

with time. Long-term monitoring programs supported with long-term care funds can compensate

for these uncertainties.

GENERIC DISPOSAL

TECHNOLOGIES

Four generic disposal technologies are described

below based on their location relative to the Earth’s

surface, Several recent reports have compared these

technologies in great detail using about two dozen

different factors, including the level of technology

development, degree of waste isolation, long-term

stability and maintenance, worker safety, cost, ease

of monitoring, and waste removal in the event of

unacceptable contaminant migration, licensability,

etc. (19, 9, 5).

All four generic disposal technologies, if properly

implemented, could probably provide acceptable

levels of waste isolation. Although no single disposal technology can be unequivocally judged

“best” for all situations, most States and/or

compacts have chosen some type of near-surface,

underground disposal technology as the most

appropriate for isolating LLW and mixed LLW.

For ease of explanation, near-surface, underground

disposal will be used as a baseline for evaluating the

other three generic technologies.

Above-Ground Disposal in Concrete Vaults

With this technology, isolation is provided by a

reinforced-concrete building constructed on the

Earth’s surface. As shown in figure 6-2, the building

would not be covered with earth, but instead would

simply have a flat or gently sloping concrete roof.

Walls and the roof would probably range in thickness from 2 to 3 feet. The waste in the building

would be isolated from humans and the environment

as long as the integrity of the building is maintained.

Some Canadian utilities presently use similar above-

-ground vaults for storing low-level and higher-level

radioactive wastes for later disposal.

Although above-ground vaults can be easily sited

and monitored, they have several disadvantages

relative to near-surface, underground disposal facili -

ties discussed below. First, above-ground facilities

lack the protection of an earthen cover, thus leaving

them exposed to degradation by wind, rain, and

freeze-thaw cycles throughout most of the United

States; long-term maintenance could be a problem.

Second, since these facilities would be located above

ground, there would be no surrounding soil to

mitigate releases of radioactive material when the

structure ultimately deteriorates. Third, inadvertent

human intrusion is more likely; therefore, institutional control measures must be stronger.

Near-Surface Underground

Disposal Facilities

Near-surface underground disposal technologies

have been used for most LLW and mixed LLW so far

generated in the United States. With most of these

technologies, waste packages are disposed of within

a few tens of feet of the Earth’s surface and are

capped with about 5 to 20 feet of soil, as illustrated

in figure 6-1. To minimize cap subsidence and the

subsequent infiltration of water, waste can be

compacted and/or packaged in a stabilized form

prior to disposal.

Well-designed and well-constructed nearsurface disposal facilities can provide adequate

levels of waste isolation if the waste can be kept

dry. Ideally, a facility should be sited in an area

away from surface water (including flash floods) and

where travel time of any infiltrating precipitation to

the groundwater table would be long and the travel

of groundwater slow.8 In areas where the groundwater time-of-travel is not long, concrete vaults can be

used to increase the level of isolation and the

stability of the disposal facility. Vaults also minimize the possibility of water infiltrating the waste.

The most commonly discussed near-surface disposal concepts include: trenches and below-grade

vaults; above-grade tumuli and earth-covered

vaults; and earth-mounded concrete bunkers, a

combination of tumuli on top of below-grade vaults.

These technologies will be discussed in more detail

in the next section on near-surface disposal technologies.

8EpA ~es tie term ‘‘groundwater time-of-travel to Judge the vulnerability of groundwater. It depends on precipltmon rates, soil composition.

orientation of sediment and rock layers, and depth to groundwater. EPA requires that the time for infiltrating water to reach the groundwater table and

move 100 feet in any direcuon be greater than 100 years. Areas with a shorter groundwatcr time-of-travel are defined as hawng vulnerable hydrogeology

and should be given special attention in dcslgnlng a site (15).

23-496 - 89 - 6 : QL 3
126 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Figure 6-2-Above-Ground Disposal in Concrete Vaults

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, “Conceptual Design Report: Alternative Concepts of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal,” prepared by Rogers and

Associates Engineering Corp. for the National Low-Level Waste Management Program, DOE/LLW-60T, June 1987,

Photo credit: Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. Photo credit: US Ecology, Inc.

The above two photographs illustrate the disposal site layout at a humid site (left) and at an arid site (right).

Two-thirds of the site (in the foreground) at the arid site is for hazardous waste.
Intermediate-Depth Disposal in Augered Holes

LLW could be buried at intermediate depths of

several tens of feet below the Earth’s surface using

augered holes. As shown in figure 6-3, this technology typically involves boring holes—measuring 8 or

more feet in diameter—into the ground and possibly

lining these holes with concrete or cement grout,

typically measuring about 1 foot thick, After the hole

has been filled with waste to within about 10 feet of

ground level, grout is poured around the waste to

form a solid cement-waste matrix inside the hole. A

concrete cap is then placed on top of the waste, and

the hole is backfilled with soil (2).

Over the last several years, augered holes with

typical depths of 20 to 50 feet have been used on an

experimental basis for the disposal of LLW and

transuranic wastes at the Department of Energy’s

(DOE’s) Savannah River National Laboratory, Nevada Test Site, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

To maximize waste isolation, augered holes are

normally located well above the water table.9

Augered holes would probably be acceptable for

commercial LLW disposal; however, this option is

not optimal for three primary reasons relative to

near-surface disposal. First, the additional protection gained by disposing of the waste at depths of

more than a few tens of feet below the Earth’s

surface is not necessary. Second, suitable sites may

be difficult to find in some regions of the United

States due to the presence of groundwater. Third,

monitoring and possible removal of emplaced waste

in the event of unacceptable levels of contaminant

migration generally becomes more difficult as burial

depths increase.

The use of augered holes is being phased out at the

Savannah River National Laboratory in favor of

buried concrete vaults, which are easier to operate

and result in less worker exposure.

Deep Disposal in Geologic Repositories

Deep geologic repositories, located at depths from

a few hundred to a few thousand feet below the

Earth’s surface, are generally favored most by the

scientific community worldwide for disposing of

high-level and transuranic radioactive waste. The

geologic formations surrounding a repository provide natural barriers to the migration of radionuclides by groundwater over the long-term. Engineered barriers, such as the waste form and waste

package, enhance the isolation of the waste during

the first few thousand years (13). After the excavated

rooms in a repository are filled with waste, all shafts

and tunnels are backfilled and sealed. A schematic

view of a repository is shown in figure 6-4.

Several European countries plan to use geologic

repositories for the disposal of low-level and intermediatelevel waste. Sweden has developed a repository

about 200 feet under the Baltic Sea. Finland plans to

dispose of similar waste from its nuclear power

plants in repositories about 300 feet beneath each

plant. The United Kingdom is proposing to dispose

of its low-level and intermediate-level waste in a

repository 1,000 feet underground. West Germany

disposed of some LLW in the Asse Salt Mine

between 1967 and 1978. In the United States, DOE

is presently planning to use deep geologic repositories constructed at depths of a few thousand feet for

the disposal of commercial spent fuel and high-level

and transuranic wastes generated from defense

activities.

Geologic repositories for the disposal of LLW and

mixed LLW is not optimal relative to near-surface

technologies for several reasons. First, the additional

protection gained by disposing of the waste at such

depths below the Earth’s surface is not necessary.

Second, suitable repository sites may be very

difficult to find in many regions of the United States,

especially in the East where the time-of-travel of

groundwater is short. Third, developing repositories

of the small size required by most States or compacts

would be prohibitively expensive. Finally, monitoring and waste removal from a backfilled repository

(in the event of leaking waste or other problems)

would be very difficult.

NEAR-SURFACE DISPOSAL

TECHNOLOGIES

Near-surface technologies involve disposing of

waste packages within a few tens of feet of the

Earth’s surface and capping the waste with 5 to 20

feet of soil. As shown in figure 6-5. disposal sites

encompass: the actual waste disposal facilities, such

as trenches or tumuli; any facilities for waste storage

9Mlke O’ReM, us Dep~enl of Ener~, Savmti Rlvcr Na~ional La~rato~; Ro~fl S]ccmcn, U.S. ~p~cnt of Encr~ , C)ak R]dgc National

Laboratory; and Robert Dodge, Reynolds Electric Enqnccring Corp., separak personal communications, June 1988,

IOM]ke O’Rem, U.S. ~p~rnen[ of Energy, Savannah River National Laboratory, personal communication, June 16, I ~~~.
128 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Figure 6-3-intermediate-Depth Disposal in

Augered Holes

Concrete cap Concrete surface

w ‘1 drainage ditch

Backfill

(free-draining)

.. Drainage layer

Liner

. /

. 

Waste packages ,

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Alternate Methods for

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes: Technical Requirements for Shaft Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,”

contractor report prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Waterways Experiment Station, NUREG/CR-3774, vol. 5, October 1985, p.22.

and/or treatment; catchment basins for drainage

water from the site; and unused buffer zones around

and under the disposal units for monitoring and

naturally dispersing any releases of waste constituents from the disposal units. Private firms will most

likely operate these facilities; however, State governments will retain title to the land. During the

two-to-four decades of site operation, disposal

activities will be conducted in accordance with the

general conditions of a facility license issued by

NRC or an Agreement State.

On the one hand, there may be advantages to

disposing of Class A, B, C, and mixed LLW in

separate disposal facilities (at the same site). First,

the disposal requirements for different types of

Figure 6-4-Schematic of Deep-Geologic

Repository Design

SOURCE Courtesy of U S Department of Energy.

waste are often quite different. Second, disposal

units containing Class A waste will probably require

monitoring for about 100 years; disposal units

containing Class B, C, and mixed LLW may require

monitoring well beyond that timeframe. Third, if

different types of waste are separated, problems with

one type of waste can be handled without the

involvement of other waste types. On the other hand,

there may be advantages to disposing of different

types of wastes in the same facility. For example,

Class B and C waste can be emplaced in the bottom

of disposal trenches and covered with stabilized

Class Awaste.11 This arrangement minimizes worker

exposure to Class B and C waste and is less

expensive than disposal in separate units.

1 INRC d~~ not ~]~w ~~~blli~ed c]~s A wmtc 10 be disposed of in tic s~e mit witb Class B or Class C (10 CFR Pm 61 ,7[b][2]).
Chapter 6--Disposal Technologies . 129

Figure 6-5-Layout of a Typical Disposal Site

x

*Y. .**. .. J* *J* * ~–-* * .

4

1

T T

I LEGEND I

’ I I

[

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, “Conceptual Design Report:Alternate Concepts of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal,” prepared by Rogers and

Associates Engineering Corp. for the National Low-Level Waste Management Program, DOE/LLW-60T, June 1987
130 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Facility Siting-Natural Site Characteristics

Selecting an appropriate site for a waste disposal

facility involves a general regional screening of

many sites, eliminating unacceptable sites, and

examining in more detail a few potentially good

sites. In selecting a disposal site, NRC regulations

(10 CFR Part 61 .50) require that:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Primary emphasis be placed on site suitability

in isolating the waste.

The site be capable of being characterized,

modeled, analyzed, and monitored.

The projected population growth and future

development shall not affect site performance.

Areas of known natural resources must be

avoided if their exploitation would damage

the site performance.

The site must be well-drained, free of ponding, above the 100-year flood plain, and away

from coastal high-hazard areas or wetlands.

Upstream drainage areas must be minimized

to decrease the amount of run-off that could

erode a disposal unit.

The site must provide sufficient depth to the

water table so that groundwater does not

intrude waste packages.

Groundwater shall not be discharged to the

surface within the disposal site.

Areas of active tectonic processes (e.g., faulting, folding, seismic activity, or volcanism)

shall be avoided.

Areas of active surface geologic processes

(e.g., erosion and slumping) shall be avoided.

The site shall not be located where nearby

facilities or activities would damage performance of the site.

EPA has very similar siting criteria that they call

location standards (14). Although these standards

have not been finalized, NRC and EPA developed

joint siting guidelines for commercial mixed LLW

disposal. In addition to siting criteria listed above,

the joint guidelines stipulate (22):

1. The site should provide a stable foundation for

engineered containment structures. 12

2. Areas of highly vulnerable hydrology should be

given special attention. Disposal sites located

in such areas may require extensive, sitespecific investigations that could restrict or

modify a facility’s design or operating practices. However, finding a site located in an area

of vulnerable hydrogeology alone is not considered sufficient reason to prohibit siting.

Waste Form and Packaging

In the past, water infiltration into waste disposal

trenches has been caused or aggravated by the

compaction and settling of physically unstable waste

after disposal and by the consequent collapse of the

overlying cap into disposal trenches. Compacting

the volume of all LLW and mixed LLW to the

maximum extent practical prior to disposal will

prevent many of these problems. (See ch. 5 for

waste minimization and treatment techniques.) NRC

regulations require that Class B and C waste remain

physically stable for at least 300 years. Some States

and compacts may require that Class A waste be

stabilized too.

High-integrity containers (HICs) and concrete

‘‘overPacks’ containing several waste canisters are

used to provide added structural stability, water

resistance, and shielding for the waste (see figure

6-6). These containers also simplify the loading of

waste into a disposal facility and the removal of

waste from a facility should removal ever become

necessary or desirable. These containers have wall

thicknesses ranging from several inches to 2 feet,

depending on shielding requirements. Structural

stability of the waste is less important if the waste is

either encased in grout after emplacement or placed

in a concrete vault.

Engineered Features

Disposal Unit

After volume reduction and waste preparation, the

waste is transferred to a disposal unit, which may

have a dirt floor, a concrete loading pad, or an

enclosed containment vault located in a trench (i. e.,

below-grade) or at ground level (i.e., at-grade). The

loading surface of disposal units is typically sloped

gently toward one or more sumps, which collect any

infiltrating water. The loading surface may be

underlain by a layer of gravel and an impermeable

12cefi~n ~1]~ ~d ~]oglc ~ttlngs (e.g., k~st) may ~ prone 10 subsi&nCe or shifting when soil rnoist~e Or gro~dwalcr conditions change. 1t is

not clear what types of soil are most desirable for a disposal facility. In permeable soils, infiltrating water can become contaminated and slowly percolate

downward into groundwater aquifers. In impermeable soils, infiltrating water can fill disposal facilities like a bathtub and overflow into adjacent surface

water supplies. EPA modeling studies indicate, however, that LLW disposal facilities situated in soils with low pcrmeablli[ies may be safer than

comparable facilities situated in well-draining, high-permeability soils (1 ).
Figure 6-6--Low-Level Radioactive Waste Overpack

SOURCE Courtesy of Westinghouse Electric Corp.

barrier that slopes toward additional water collection

sumps.

Disposal units generally cover an area of several

hundred to 1,000 square feet, with waste stacked a

few tens of feet high, For small volume disposal

facilities, disposal units may be sized to hold a year’s

supply of waste. Adequate space between disposal

units may ease monitoring and waste removal

should it become necessary. After a disposal unit is

filled with waste, the unit can be surrounded by a

layer of gravel to promote drainage of infiltrating

water to collection sumps.

If concrete vaults are not used, soil, sand, or gravel

can be used to fill the space between the waste

packages. This type of fill material allows water to

rapidly drain through the waste but helps to stabilize

the waste packages in the disposal unit, Added

stability could be important over the long-term as the

waste packages degrade and the cap settles. These

fill materials also allow easy removal of the waste,

if such action ever became necessary after disposal.

Another alternative for stabilizing waste in a

trench or tumulus involves injecting cement grout

into and around the waste packages. On the one

hand, grouting increases the stability of the stacked

waste packages over the short- and long-term and

helps prevent any infiltrating water from percolating

around or through the waste (at least over the

short-term), On the other hand, grouting makes it

much more difficult to remove the waste from the

Photo credit: US Ecology, Inc.

LLW packages being transferred onto the dirt floor of a

shallow-land burial trench,

disposal unit should such action ever become

necessary.

Concrete containment vaults add structural stability to the disposal unit, help to prevent any infiltrating water from coming in contact with the waste. and

provide an intrusion barrier around the waste. Walls

are typically 2 to 3 feet thick; ceilings may range

from 3 to 6 feet thick. Waste containers may be

loaded into a vault through an open side or top,

which is sealed after the vault has been filled. Vaults

are designed to support their own weight. as well as

the weight of the enclosed waste and overlying soil

cover.

To evaluate the suitability of concrete for such

vaults, DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory
132 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Photo credit: Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.

Stacked fill material being moved over waste containers in

a shallow-land burial trench.

conducted an in-depth analysis of both ancient and

contemporary concretes used throughout the world

(6). The study found that some ancient concretes

have performed adequately for 2,000 years or more.

Although modem concretes have not been in use for

much more than a century, there are many examples

of these concretes performing adequately for periods

spanning several decades and a few for periods of

about 100 years (6).

Considering the harsh conditions that ancient

concretes have withstood and the relatively benign

conditions expected at most near-surface disposal

facilities, it should be possible to make concrete

durable enough to last for a few hundred years

and perhaps longer (6). Some predictive models

even indicate that concrete will last longer than

1,000 years; however, beyond about 500 years, the

uncertainty of such predictions increases.13

After waste is emplaced in a vault, the space

between the waste packages can be left open or filled

with soil, sand, gravel, or cement grout if added

stability is needed.14 Added stability could be

important over the long-term as the vault degrades

and the cap settles. Emplacing fill material between

waste packages is quite easy for top loading vaults,

but somewhat more difficult for side loading vaults

where working space is needed between the uppermost layer of waste and the vault ceiling.

Cap

After a disposal unit is filled with waste packages,

it is covered with a gently sloping, single- or

multi-layered cap. The cap is the barrier with the

most potential for diverting the greatest amount

of precipitation away from disposal units. In

addition, it is the feature of the disposal facility

that is easiest and cheapest to repair, replace, or

to cover over if infiltration does occur. The

long-term integrity of a cap is dependent on the cap

design as well as the stability of the material

underneath the cap, including the waste, the disposal

unit, and the backfilled material around the disposal

unit.

As shown in figure 6-7, caps maybe composed of

multiple layers of different soil types and one or

more interspersed impermeable synthetic membranes. These membranes can provide an excellent

barrier against infiltrating water for the lifetime of

the membranes, which typically spans a few decades. During this time, layers of compacted clay

(e.g., bentonite) within the cap will naturally consolidate, thereby providing a long-term and hopefully

permanent barrier against infiltrating water. Layers

of gravel overlying the clay allow for drainage and

lateral transport of water to surface drainage ditches

adjacent to each disposal facility. A layer of

cobblestones within the cap can provide a barrier to

intrusion by burrowing animals. All these layers

would probably be protected with a 2- to 3-foot

surface layer of native soil.

The thickness of the cap may range from 3 to 6

feet for Class A and B waste. A cap thickness of at

least 16 feet is required over disposal units containing Class C waste. Alternatively, a thinner cap can

be used if the Class C waste is covered by an

intrusion barrier (e.g., concrete slab) with a lifetime

of at least 500 years. Due to the adverse effect of

freezing on clay minerals, layers of clay have to be

buried a few feet below the lowest level of frost

penetration, which ranges from less than a foot in the

mild climates of some southern States to 4 or 5 feet

in some northern States. As the thickness of the cap

increases, the required strength of a vault and the

height and breadth of the cap have to be increased.

130TA Workshop On disposal technologies, Salt Lake City, Utah, Mar. 6, 1989.

14Gmuting, howev~, ~11 m~e w~e removal very difficult if such action eVer ~comes nece~q.

15~ ~d re@onS, d] of these layers would likely & unnecessary.
Chapter 6--Disposal Technologies ● 133

Figure 6-7—Typical Multilayered Cap

INTERIM FINAL

COVER SYSTE M COVER SYSTEM

. . . . # .

‘. ,* . . . . .’ . “ . .

[

4 . / . , . ‘ “:

‘ d “ ; 0 “’ 4: “ -.. ‘. $ ‘: , ~ ~ ‘ . . “. ~. , “.

. . . -* .

*

/ -

“ @ : , ‘ . 0 ‘. d . —- TOP SOIL

. . . xl

u“ . t \ . 4 .,”; ‘“ “o” w “ “

.h ● ,“. . .

. .

NATIVE SOIL “ “~ “. .0 0 ‘

,.

(REMOVED BEFORE PLACEMENT .

‘h — SAN D

OF UPPER LAYERS

OF FINAL COVER SYSTEM ) . ‘5 — PEA GRAVEL

— GRAVE L

LiNE OF

INTERIM COVER

GEOTEXTILE FABRIC

SAND

SOURCE U S Department of Energy, “Prototype License Application: Safety Analysis Report Belowground Vault, Vol. II: Appendices AH, ” app. B,

prepared by Rogers & Associates Engineerig Corp.for the Nuclear Energy Low-Level Waste Management program, DOE/LLW-72T October

1988

Most caps have surface slopes ranging from a few support vegetation on the cap. Rip rap (medium-size

degrees on top of the disposal unit to a maximum of gravel) may be used to prevent erosion from

about 15 degrees along its sides.16 Gently sloping infrequent flash flooding. The cap itself usually

cap surfaces may be planted with shallow-rooted extends laterally a few tens of feet beyond the

vegetation, In arid regions it may be difficult to disposal unit and terminates at impervious lateral

16EpA [ec~c~ @d~Ce LX1]S for a more gradudslope+ne that ranges between 3 and 5 percent and the ermon rate IS ICSS than L tons per acre

per year ( 16).
134 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Photo credit: Gretchen McCabe

A contrast of the cap used over shallow-land burial trenches in humid regions (left) versus that used over arid regions (right). The

cap on the left is at the Barnwell, SC and the cap on the right is at the Richland, WA site. The clay cap in Barnwell is monitored for

subsidence for a few months and then covered with topsoil and planted with vegetation.

drainage ditches that carry surface runoff either

offsite or to onsite retention ponds for monitoring,

possible treatment, and subsequent offsite discharge.

Monitoring System

Past problems with radionuclide migration highlight the need for long-term monitoring of disposal

facilities and sites. NRC or the respective Agreement State can independently monitor sites at its

own discretion to ensure the accuracy of measurements taken by site operators. At a minimum, the site

operator or custodial agency must continue periodic

monitoring during the 100-year institutional period

following site closure.

A monitoring program during site operation may

include monthly or quarterly measurements of

radiation levels in open and filled disposal units and

periodic measurements of radionuclides in surrounding soil, vegetation, wildlife, air, surface

water, and groundwater. The number of monitoring

stations at a site and the sampling frequency may

depend in part on the amount of annual precipitation

and the past performance of the facility—the lower

the rainfall and the better the performance, the less

frequent the monitoring needs to be.

The best means for tracking the potential

migration of waste constituents is to monitor the

movement of precipitation over, around, and

perhaps (in worst cases) through disposal facilities. As facilities are currently designed, the vast

majority of precipitation falling on a disposal site is

diverted away from the buried waste by the cap

covering each disposal unit. Any migration of

contaminants from the waste would be associated

with small amounts of water that might infiltrate

through the caps; if there is no leakage through the

cap, there should be no migration of contaminants

(assuming the disposal site is far removed from

groundwater). 17

Three primary locations for collecting and monitoring infiltrating water are often included in new

disposal facility designs in humid regions. Sumps in

the loading pads or vault floors collect water moving

downward through the disposal units. Sumps in the

gravel layers under the loading pads or vault floors

collect water moving through the backfilled material

surrounding the disposal units. Monitoring wells are

also typically located around the perimeter of

disposal sites. However, disposal facility designs

have yet to incorporate a monitoring system into the

lower layers of a cap so that leaks in the cap can be

quickly detected and repaired before much water

enters a disposal unit.

To minimize the migration of contaminants

away from disposal units, any infiltrating water

must not be allowed to accumulate in the disposal

units and to saturate the waste. Infiltration can be

prevented by pumping accumulated water out of

disposal units or passively draining water (via

gravity) to collection basins for monitoring, possible

treatment, and offsite discharge. Most disposal site

engineers believe that passive drainage that minimizes the dependence on human or mechanical

17~c ~ewlatiom ~rohibl[ tie dispos~ of Wmtes wl~ mater ~~ 1 yrcent of fr~ ]iquldS; dl liquids must & evaporated, solidified, or retained

in absorbent material prior to disposal. Some States may also restrict the use of absorbent material and require the .wabilizauon of all wastes.
Chapter 6-Disposal Technologies ● 135

measures is preferred. In some facility designs, the

internal drainage collection pipes all run into a

6-foot-diameter concrete monitoring gallery under

the site with a monitoring port for each drainage

collection pipe. The more sumps there are, the easier

it is to pinpoint the source of any leaks. However, it

may be more difficult to maintain a more complex

drainage and monitoring system.

Other Engineered Features

Many other engineered features can be incorporated into disposal facility designs to minimize the

infiltration of surface water and to keep the waste as

dry as possible. For example, the outside of concrete

vaults can be covered with synthetic membranes,

epoxy resins, bentonite panels, etc., to increase their

resistance to water. The insides of vaults and

concrete containers can be coated with epoxy resins,

asphalt, synthetic liners, or other waterproofing

materials. Open disposal units can be covered with

some sort of mobile roof during filling to shelter the

waste from precipitation.

General Designs of Near-Surface

Disposal Facilities18

Most engineers who are familiar with the disposal

of LLW and hazardous wastes believe that acceptable near-surface disposal facilities for LLW and

mixed LLW can be developed anywhere in the

country using readily available materials and

widely applied construction techniques. Furthermore, they believe that significant breakthroughs

in technology are not necessary, imminent, or

worth waiting for. The probability is high that

disposal facilities that are well-designed, wellconstructed, and well-maintained can safely isolate LLW and/or mixed LLW for a few hundred

years and perhaps even longer. Incremental improvements will come from construction experience

and the long-term monitoring of facility performance.

Disposal facility designs now being developed by

States and compacts often incorporate many of the

natural site characteristics and engineered features

described above. The use of these features to

prevent water infiltration, especially at sites

located in humid regions, tends to increase the

level of public confidence in the long-term performance of disposal facilities. However, facilities

that do not incorporate these features, especially

those facilities in arid regions, should not necessarily be considered unacceptable.

Although disposal facility designs have improved

over the last decade, States must create an institutional process to ensure the proper siting, design,

construction, and management of disposal facilities. Using a more sophisticated and/or expensive

facility design will not necessarily improve the

long-term containment of the waste if the facility is

not properly developed and managed. The consequence of inadequate design and shoddy construction and/or management may not be evident for

many decades after a disposal facility has been

closed. Moreover, adapting a good general design to

fit the natural characteristics of a specific disposal

site can be as or more important than choosing the

general design itself.

Below-Grade Facilities

With below-grade facilities, the elevation of

adjacent surface drainage channels is above the

highest level of buried waste. (See figure 6-8. )

All commercial LLW disposal facilities in the

United States have used trenches, a disposal technology commonly referred to as shallow-land

burial (SLB) (see figure 6-1). Typical trenches may

be 20 to 60 feet wide, 20 to 40 feet high, and several

hundred feet long. Trench floors are usually sloped

a few degrees toward pumpable sumps located along

the sides and at the ends of the trenches and are

covered with a uniform layer of gravel for internal

drainage. Once a portion of the trench has been filled

with waste, it is normally covered with 3 to 10 feet

of compacted soil from a newly excavated portion of

the same trench or another. In many cases, a

multilayered cap may be constructed over this fill

material. Depending on the site characteristics,

trenches may be spaced as close as 15 feet apart.

In light of the inadequate performance of SLB

facilities in New York, Illinois, and Kentucky,

nearly 80 percent of States and compacts have

banned or restricted the use of SLB for isolating

LLW (20). “Improved” SLB is now practiced at

l13This di~ussion IS bad primarily on reformation from the U.S. Depanment of Energy, “Conceptual Design Report: Altematlve Concepts for

Lmw-Level Radloacuve Waste Disposal, prepared by Rogers & Assoclatcs Engineering C’orp, for the Nalional bw-bvcl Waste Managemcn( Program,

DOE/LLW-60T, June 1987; and from the Ncw York State Energy Research and Development Authori~y, < ‘Handbook oi Disposal Technologies for

bw-1-evel Rachoactive Waste, ” June 1987.
136 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

the three existing commercial disposal facilities

in South Carolina, Washington, and Nevada. The

primary improvements mandated by NRC’s 10 CFR

Part 61 regulations involve segregating Class A, B,

and C waste, stabilizing Class B and C waste, and

using an intruder barrier or deeper burial for Class C

waste. To date, there has been no offsite migration

of radionuclides at any of these three facilities.

Due to past problems with SLB, some States and

compacts have expressed much interest in using

below-ground vaults. As shown in figure 6-8,

below-ground concrete vaults are underlain with a

layer of gravel, and typically have sumps and a

pump-out capability for removing infiltrating water.

After the vaults have been filled with waste and

sealed, the trenches are backfilled and typically

covered with a multilayered cap.

Below-ground vaults measuring 100 feet long, 50

feet wide, and 20 feet high have been used at DOE’s

Savannah River National Laboratory for the disposal

of defense LLW, which is comparable to commercial Class B and C waste.19 Below-ground vaults

have also been used for the retrievable storage of

transuranic and other LLW at the Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, in Canada, and in other foreign

countries.

Above-Grade Facilities

With above-grade facilities, the elevation of

adjacent surface drainage channels is below the

lowest level of buried waste. (See figure 6-9.)

An above-grade tumulus is now being used on a

demonstration basis for the disposal of Class A

waste at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. A

concrete pad measuring 100 feet by 65 feet was first

poured at ground level on top of a layer of gravel.

Compacted waste is being placed into reinforced

concrete containers measuring about 5 feet by 6 feet

by 7 feet. These containers are then placed in two

layers on the concrete pad. The stacked containers

will be covered with layers of clay, an impermeable

membrane, and soil to form a low-gradient mound

with a relief of about 20 feet. Vegetation will be used

to prevent cap erosion.20

A tumulus has also been proposed (see figure 6-9)

for the disposal of Class B and C waste generated by

the cleanup of a now-defunct spent fuel reprocessing

operation located at the West Valley, New York,

facility. According to present plans, the final dimensions of the tumulus over the vault will measure

about 30 feet high, about 250 feet across at the base,

and about 500 feet long. Slopes on top of the tumulus

will be a few degrees; slopes along the sides of the

mound will be about 15 degrees.21

In cases where additional long-term stability is

required, the waste can be disposed of in earthcovered, above-ground vaults. With this type of

facility, the waste is placed inside a concrete vault

constructed at ground level. Once the vault is

covered with a cap, the facility will have the contour

of a gently sloped tumulus. Such facilities have been

proposed for waste disposal in humid regions of the

United States, especially for Class B, C, and mixed

LLW.

Earth-Mounded Concrete Bunkers

Earth-mounded concrete bunkers (EMCBs) have

been developed and successfully used in France over

the last two decades. Trenches are first filled to

ground level with Class B and C waste, which is

encased in concrete. Reinforced concrete is poured

over the uppermost layer of waste, thereby forming

large monoliths. Metal drums and/or concrete containers of Class A waste are then stacked on top of

the concrete monoliths and covered with soil, giving

the facility its tumulus shape. (See figure 6-10.)

There are two potential problems with this disposal scheme. First, EMCBs may have to be

monitored and maintained for the 500-year lifetime

of the Class C waste in the trenches even though

Class A and B waste will have decayed within 100

years and 300 years, respectively. Second, dealing

with potential problems with Class B and C waste

might necessitate removal of the overlying Class A

waste.

DEVELOPING SITE-SPECIFIC

DISPOSAL FACILITIES

There are probably many acceptable ways in

which different features can be incorporated into

site-specific disposal facility designs. Due to differences in site characteristics, especially annual

lgO’Rear, Op. cit., foomote 10.

z~o~a Slmmen, us. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, personal communication, June 16, 19M.

zlHe~ Walter, tJ.S. ~p~ent of Energy, personal communication on scpt. *8, 1989.
Chapter 6-Disposal Technologies ● 137

Figure 6-8-Below-Ground Vault Cross Section

Figure 6-9—Above-Grade Tumulus Cross Section

I— 204 FT

I I

COMPACTED CLAY

DOLOS UNIT INTRUDER B A PRIER

COMPACTED CLAY
138 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Figure 6-10--Perspective View of an Earth Mounded Concrete Bunker

REINFORCED CONCRETE BLOCKS

CLASS ‘A”& "B"- WASTES \

TOPSOIL

_ “. , NATIVE VEGETATION

PERVIOUS LAYER

ABILITY BACKFILL

A perspective view of the Earth Mounded Concrete Bunker depicts the approximate Iocations of wastes which are separated according to level of activity

Class “C” wastes are embedded in concrete monoliths belowground while Class ‘B’ wastes and stabilized Class ‘A’ wastes are stored above-ground

in earthen mounds over the concrete monoliths. A drainage network is provided within and around the structure to prevent the contact of water with

the wastes and to provide collection and monitoring capabilities

SOURCE. U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Alternative Methods for Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Technical Requirements for an Earth

Mounded Concrete Bunker,” contractor report prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment station. NUREG/CR-3774,

Vol. 4, Oct. 1965, p.6.

precipitation and time-of-travel of groundwater,

there is no one disposal facility design that is

optimum for all regions of the country. For

example, a facility design that might be suitable for

a site in an arid region might be inappropriate for a

site in a humid region, and visa versa.22 With

increasing experience and long-term monitoring,

some disposal facility designs will undoubtedly

prove superior to others.

Selecting an Appropriate Facility

Design for LLW

Both below-grade and above-grade facility designs have advantages and disadvantages when used

in regions of the country with high or low precipitation. Regardless of the design chosen, it is of utmost

importance to keep LLW and mixed LLW dry.23

JZW1nd ~ro~lon ~d in(enw ~riods of rainf~] Me ~on~ems in Mid environments, An ab~vc.grade s~~(urc ma) rc,qulrc more active m~ltlt~nMl~c In

arid climates than a below-ground structure. Furthermore, a clay cap used in humid regions may dry out and crack m and rcgmns.

Z~Mmy o~her Pwmc(ers cm ~ Used [0 ~va]uate ~c dcslrabl]lty of dls~s~ facility designs, nese p~~ctcr$ include: pro(ccllon Of the genera]

population, protection of inadvertent intruders, worker protection, land requircmcnts, costs, long-term stability, development IIMC, prcvlous operating

experience, momtorability, licensability, ability to remove the waste after disposal, etc. More dctallcd comparisons of disposal faclllty designs arc

provided in U.S. Department of Energy, “Conceptual Design Report: Alternative Concepts for Low-bvel Radioactive WAC Dqmsal,’ prepared by

Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp. for the National I.mw-Lvel Waste Management Program, DOE/LLW-60T, June 1987; Ncw York State Energy

Research and Development Authority, ‘‘Handbook of Disposat Tldmologies for Iaw-Level Radioactive Waste, ” June 1987, and Illinms Department

of Nuclear Safety, ‘ ‘Technical Considerations for bw-hvcl Radioactive Waste Disposal in Illinois, ” draft summary, November 1987.
Chapter 6--Disposal Technologies ● 139

Regions With High Precipitation

As engineered features decrease the potential for

water infiltration, many of these features will likely

see extensive use in humid regions of the United

States, principally the East. In fact, the level of

public confidence in the long-term performance of a

waste disposal facility may depend on incorporating

more of these design features, Design engineers

generally agree that “passive” features, such as

natural down slope drainage, are generally more

reliable over the long-term than “active” features, such as pumps.24

If a disposal site is located in an area with a long

groundwater time-of-travel and far from flood-prone

areas, infiltration of precipitation will be the most

likely cause of buried waste coming into contact

with water. Therefore, a well-designed and wellmaintained cap is used to prevent this scenario. If the

cap is 100 percent effective, there should be no

post-disposal migration of waste constituents from

either below-grade or above-grade facilities. However, if infiltration occurs, the facility design will

likely affect the rate at which water accumulates

inside the facility, the rate at which contaminants

leach from the waste, and the subsequent migration

of contaminated water from the waste disposal

facility.

Precipitation leaking into below-grade trenches

tends to accumulate in sumps located at the ends or

sides of the trenches. If water accumulating in the

sumps is not pumped out, the trenches can fill with

water like a “bathtub.” Water in the trenches will

eventually saturate the waste and will leach contaminants from it, Contaminated water will then percolate through the floor and walls of the trench into the

groundwater and/or overflow at ground level. The

same sequence of events can occur with below-grade

vaults, but perhaps to a lesser degree. Any water

pumped from trenches or below-ground vaults can

be monitored and treated for contaminants and

subsequently discharged offsite.

The “bathtub” effect is not a problem with

above-grade tumuli or earth-covered, above-

-ground vaults. Instead. any water infiltrating

through the cap is usually collected above an

impermeable barrier (e.g., concrete loading pad, or

a synthetic liner/clay layer below the disposal unit)

that prevents downward migration of water below

the lowest level of waste. Rather than accumulating

inside the facility and saturating the waste, this

collected water is typically channeled passively (via

gravity) through buried pipes to external collection

ponds, where it can be monitored, treated if necessary, and subsequently discharged offsite.

The ability to account for any water that infiltrates

through the cap and into the disposal facility also

varies between below-grade and above-grade facilities. With above-grade facilities, precipitation will

either run off the cap, drain through the facility and

into external collection basins, or remain inside the

facility. With below-grade facilities, infiltrating

water might also leak laterally through the vault or

trench walls or downward through the vault or trench

floor, if it is not immediately pumped out. Only

monitoring wells around the disposal site perimeter

would be able to detect any such leakage. Lining

trenches and vaults with impervious natural or

synthetic material will probably help contain infiltrating water inside below-grade facilities. but liners

may also aggravate the bathtub effect and increase

the likelihood that the waste will become saturated

with water.

As shown in table 6-2, certainty about the

performance of a disposal facility is high if the cap

sheds all precipitation from the facility. However, if

the cap is less than 100 percent effective, the

potential for accurately determining the fate of

infiltrating precipitation is high for above-grade

facilities with a good monitoring system, moderate for below-grade facilities with a good monitoring system, and low for any facility with a poor

monitoring system. In addition, in-cap monitoring

systems would significantly improve engineers’

ability to evaluate both the effectiveness of caps and

the overall performance of above-grade and belowgrade facilities.

Since the bathtub effect is an unlikely problem

for above-grade facilities, they probably have a

greater potential for keeping buried waste dry if

the cap leaks. Given comparable monitoring systems, above-grade facilities also provide a higher

level of certainty about disposal facility performance than do below-grade facilities. However,

above-grade facilities do have disadvantages relaZqsomc dl$w~ exw~s ~]icvc tia( Including too many engineered features Into a faclllty design simply adds to its complexity ~d cost wlhout

nwessarily improving its long-term performance. However, given the limited experience with dlffcrent facility designs, engineers do not know at what

pmnt a facility may be considered overdes]gned.
140 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Table 6-2—Lsvels of Certainty About Disposal Facility

Performance in Regions

of High Precipitation

Good monitoring Poor monitoring

Facility performance good Facility performance good

Disposal facility design not Disposal facility design not

critical critical

High certainty about facility Low certainty about facility

performance performance

Facility performance poor Facility performance poor

Above-grade facilities: Above-grade facilities:

High certainty about facility Low certainty about facility

performance and the need to performance and the need to

treat infiltrating water treat infiltrating water

Below-grade facilities: Below-grade facilities:

Moderate certainty about the Low certainty about the

nature of surface and/or nature of surface and/or

groundwater contamination groundwater contamination

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989

tive to below-grade facilities. First, disposal sites

with above-grade facilities occupy about 70 percent

more land area than sites with below-grade facilities

(10), as shown by the wider cap in figure 6-9. Due to

increased land requirements for above-grade facilities, unit disposal costs are higher. Second, the

broader surface area and steeper side slopes for

tumuli could be more prone to erosion. Third,

eventual unrestricted use of the disposal site may be

limited by the ridge-swale topography.

Regions With Low Precipitation

Where there is no precipitation, there will be no

infiltration of precipitation and no migration of

waste constituents from either an above- or belowgrade facility. In regions of the country where

annual precipitation is very low today and will

probably remain so over the next few centuries,

principally in the West, there seem to be no

technical reasons for using the more elaborate

above-grade facilities to dispose of LLW; belowgrade facilities are adequate and likely preferable25 in most arid regions.

Selecting an Appropriate Facility

Design for Mixed LLW

As described in chapter 3, NRC’s 10 CFR Part 61

regulations emphasize physically stabilizing LLW

to minimize cap subsidence and the subsequent

infiltration of water. However, NRC-licensed facilities are not expected to contain all the waste (i.e.,

‘‘zero release’ for any period of time. Instead, the

hydrogeologic environment surrounding the disposal facility is expected to dilute, disperse, and

adsorb any leaking contaminants to acceptable

levels during facility operation and after facility

closure. NRC requires an institutional care period of

up to 100 years following site closure (10 CFR Part

61.59). This period is to ensure that no undue risk is

posed to public health and safety from the disposal

site.

EPA controls the disposal of hazardous wastes in

landfills through its regulations found in 40 CFR

Part 264. The goal of EPA’s regulations is to totally

contain hazardous wastes. To do this, the bottom and

sides of EPA-licensed facilities are lined with layers

of clay and double synthetic material, forming a

double-lined bathtub. Leachate collection systems

are situated between the double liners to prevent any

leaking contaminants from escaping into the surrounding environment. If leaks develop in both

liners during operation or pose-closure, pumping

and treating contaminated water from remediation

wells surrounding the site can hopefully be used to

control the migration of waste constituents. In such

a case, EPA would likely require extension of the

standard 30-year post-closure care period (40 CFR

Part 264. 117).

Over the last few years NRC and EPA have

developed joint guidelines and joint guidance for

siting and designing mixed LLW disposal facilities

(22, 23), These guidelines propose an abovegrade facility as an acceptable design. A multilayered cap forms an ‘‘umbrella’ over the waste, rather

than a bathtub under the waste. EPA’s double liners

and leachate collection systems are located beneath

the waste where they can intercept infiltrating water

and channel it via gravity to collection basins for

monitoring, possible treatment, and offsite discharge. 26

A few humid eastern States are planning to use

earth-covered, above-ground vaults for mixed

LLW disposal, since these facilities appear to be

more reliable for isolating waste in humid areas

than below-grade facilities..

Xl-he ~cate~t envlromen~ risk t. ~ arid site may be from wind erosion and intense periods of rainfall; therefore, an above-gade structure would

more likely be damaged than a beiow-ground faeiiity.

~State and cornp~t pm~ssin &VdOping mixed LLW disposal units is generally well behind their progress in developing disposal units for their

nonmixed LLW. There are several technical and political factors causing this delay,
Chapter 6-Disposal Technologies . 141

Arid States seem to prefer less elaborate, belowgrade facilities rather than above-grade facilities. If

precipitation is not a problem, there seems to be

no technical reasons for using above-grade facilities rather than below-grade facilities, or for

using double liners and leachate collection systems beneath the waste, as required by EPA’s

regulations. In fact, an above-grade facility could be

inappropriate in arid regions due to wind erosion

and/or water erosion from periods of intense rainfall

that could damage it much more than a belowground facility .27

Development Schedules

Designs for nonmixed LLW facilities must be

approved by NRC or by Agreement States; designs

for mixed LLW facilities must be approved by NRC

or by Agreement States, and by EPA, or by a State

with mixed waste authorization. Most host States are

planning to obtain licensing/permitting authority

from NRC and EPA for both LLW and mixed LLW

facilities, since this approach appears to be the most

expeditious. An optimistic schedule for developing

a waste disposal facility, barring nontechnical

obstacles, is shown in table 6-3. U

Regardless of the general disposal facility design

chosen, there are no technical obstacles preventing all States and/or compact regions from

finding acceptable sites within their borders and

designing, constructing, and licensing waste disposal facilities for LLW and mixed LLW. There

are, however, institutional and political obstacles

hindering facility development. This is particularly true for mixed LLW facility development.

Potential regulatory conflicts and inconsistencies

and regulatory overlap and duplication between

NRC and EPA have hindered mixed LLW disposal

facility development (see chs. 1 and 3). Lawsuits

have and likely will further delay development of

both nonmixed and mixed LLW disposal units.

Phased Facility Development

in Humid Regions

Multilayered caps have the greatest potential

for diverting the vast majority of precipitation

away from waste disposal facilities. However, caps

must be compatible with site-specific facility designs and climatic conditions. For example, shallowrooted surface vegetation must have an appropriate

amount of precipitation and/or soil moisture for

survival and growth.29 Layers of clay within the cap

also have to be buried a few feet below the lowest

level of frost penetration to maintain the cohesiveness of the clay minerals.

It should be possible to develop a multilayered

cap that is 100 percent effective in diverting

precipitation away from a disposal facility for

many decades or even centuries. However, developing such a cap may require experimenting with

different combinations and arrangements of natural

soils and synthetic membranes. The results of

generic research could be applied nationwide. However, subjecting prospective cap designs to several

years of testing under actual conditions would have

to be conducted at or near actual disposal sites. In

fact, it may require a decade or so to find the most

appropriate cap designs for a particular humid region

of the country.

Development of waste disposal facilities in humid

regions need not be delayed while the performance

of caps is tested in site-specific, long-term demonstration projects. Waste disposal units can be COVered with a cap that could be replaced or covered

over later if an alternative cap design proves more

durable. If vaults are used, it may be possible to

leave them uncovered until a cap that has performed

well in a demonstration project is constructed. When

effective caps are constructed and their performance

verified over a few decades, it may be possible to

eliminate some engineered features from later disposal units, thereby reducing future disposal costs.

ZTEpA ~llev~~ ~~t dou~~e ~~ers ~d ]eacha[e col[~(ion systems we necessq in ~d qjons &,ause of few, but intense periods of ralnfali (written

comments from Glen Galen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sept. 13, 1989). In comrast, arid site developers bel~evc that these features will

unnaturally trap water and increase contaminant migration (comments from Tom Baer, US Ecology, Inc., OTA Review Panel, Washington, D. C., Aug.

18, 1989).

zgIt ~ould b noted fiat Iawsui@ will likely impede this schedule significantly.

z!?Riprap may have t. & us~ instead of vegetation on st~per, highly erosive slopes or in places where pWlpltNIOn is insufficient to suPPofl

vegetation.
142 . Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Table 6-3-Optimistic Schedule for Developing a Disposal Facilitya

Year

Development activity o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Screen State and select numerous sites

for evacuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0- – – –-o

Select most appropriate site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : o

Characterize site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : o- – –

Develop conceptual designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :

Develop operating plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :

Perform safety analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : oDevelop detailed designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :

Prepare license application and environmental report . . . : :

Submit license application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :

NRC/EPA/State reviews license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :

Preliminary licensing decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :

License granted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :

Prepare site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :

Construct facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :

Begin operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :

o--D

: o—-o :

o- -– –- - o

o-–– – – 7-o o-–– -- o“

o

; — -

0

o

- -—.. 0

o-– – – - 4

0

W IS likely that Iawsults WIII be filed and that this optlmlstlc schedule WIII be slgrmflcantly delayed

SOURCE: U S. Department of Energy, “Conceptual Design Report Alternate Concepts for Low-Level Radloactlve Waste Disposal,’ prepared by

Rogers & Associates Engmeermg Corp. for the National Imw-Level Waste Management Program, DOE/LLW-60T, June 1987

REMEDIATING LEAKING

DISPOSAL FACILITIES

Preventive Measures

Waste constituents that leak from disposal sites

into the environment are often very difficult and

expensive to cleanup. Under certain contamination

scenarios, the waste may have to be removed from

the facility, treated, and “redisposed” in a new

facility. To prevent waste migration and costly

redisposal operations, it will likely prove cost

effective to invest in any one of the following,

sequential activities:

1 Careful facility development: Waste disposal

facilities will perform best if they are properly

sited, designed, and/or constructed in accordance with widely accepted engineering practices. Whenever possible, ‘‘passive’ features

(e.g., downslope drainage) should be used

instead of “active’ features (e.g., pumping). If

a disposal facility has not been properly developed, correcting some problems with available

engineering techniques may be possible (18);

otherwise, a facility may never function as

intended.

2. Monitoring and improving the cap: Monitoring operations that quickly detect any leaks in

a cap can avoid costly redisposal operations.

Since a cap is only a small percentage of the

cost of an entire disposal facility, a cap can be

improved or replaced at a fraction of the cost of

removing the waste from an inadequate facility

and redisposing the waste elsewhere. Repairing, replacing, or recapping leaking caps (or

sections of caps) is probably the best route to

long-term remediation.

3. Water removal and treatment: If the bathtub

effect saturates below-grade trenches, it may be

necessary to periodically pump the water out

and treat any contaminated water with available water treatment techniques prior to offsite

discharge.

The likelihood that a facility will need remediation increases where the annual precipitation is

higher and when waste remains harmful longer.

Although longer-lived radioactive wastes and mixed

LLWs with environmentally persistent hazardous

constituents account for only a small percent of all

LLW, it may be prudent to build into the disposal

fees the costs of potential remediation.

Removing Waste From Disposal Units

The public’s acceptance of a waste disposal

operation will generally increase if the waste can be

removed from a disposal facility at a later date if

necessary, Waste packed in high-integrity containers or concrete overpacks would make removal

easier. However, the more isolated the waste is after

disposal, the more difficult and expensive removal

becomes. Overall, the ease and cost of waste

removal depends largely on the design and size of
Chapter 6--Disposal Technologies ● 143

the disposal units and the timing of the removal .30 In

general, the removal of waste from a capped

disposal facility should be considered only as a

last resort.

Disposal Units Without Concrete Vaults

Waste containers are easily removed from a

trench or tumulus prior to the emplacement of a

permanent soil cap. After this time, the ease with

which the waste can be removed depends largely on

the integrity of the containers holding the waste.

High-integrity containers and/or concrete overpacks

will generally make waste removal easier for the first

few decades after disposal; much later, however,

waste removal will be increasingly difficult as the

waste containers or overpacks gradually degrade.

Cement grout can be poured or injected into and

around all the waste packages or overpacks emplaced in a trench or tumulus. Although grouting

will increase the stability of the waste packages and

help prevent any infiltrating water from percolating

around or through the wrote, grouting makes it very

difficult to remove waste from a disposal unit.

Disposal Units With Concrete Vaults

It is usually quite easy to remove ungrouted waste

from a concrete vault before vault closure. If the

vault is designed to be loaded through an open side,

the waste can be removed in the same manner in

which it was emplaced. However, removing a

specific container of waste from inside the vault may

require first removing many containers around it.

For top-loaded vaults, a stack of waste containers

can usually be easily removed before the roof is

emplaced. 31

Removing ungrouted waste from a vault after

closure may be relatively easy or very difficult. For

top-loaded vaults with roof segments that can be

lifted off (he vault with a crane, waste removal may

be quite easy. For most other vault designs without

removable roofs, waste removal would involve

breaking through a 2 to 3 foot thick concrete roof or

vault wall. Waste removal would also involve

stripping away all or part of the permanent cap.

For vaults where the space between waste packages or overpacks is grouted, waste removal would

be extremely difficult. Grouting, however, probably

would not be necessary because of the high level of

stability provided by the vault itself.

Long-Term Monitoring

NRC regulations require up to 100 years of

institutional control of disposal sites after closure to

ensure that the disposal facilities are performing as

designed and to provide some protection against

inadvertent intrusion (10 CFR Part 61.59). At the

end of this post-closure period, the license will be

terminated and the site released for restricted or

unrestricted use, depending on the nature of the

disposed LLW and past performance of the site.

According to EPA regulations, land disposal facilities for hazardous wastes must be monitored and

maintained for 30 years after facility closure. Depending on the performance of the site, this period

can be shortened or extended by EPA.

The level of public confidence in the long-term

performance of waste disposal facilities can be

increased by long-term monitoring. Since Class B,

C, and some mixed LLW will remain harmful

well beyond 100 years, some States plan to

monitor the disposal facilities containing these

wastes for as long as the waste remains harmful.

Disposal facilities, especially those in humid

regions, may perform well over the short-term

but may deteriorate after a few decades. The

frequency of monitoring disposal facilities may have

to be increased with time as the concrete and other

structural components used in the overpacks and

vaults degrade with age. It may be prudent to

incorporate any assumptions about the necessity for

long-term monitoring into the disposal costs for

these long-lived wastes.

POTENTIAL AREAS FOR

TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT

Due to the low cost of caps and their accessibility

(compared to other components of a waste disposal

~~~e Iem ~e~r~eka} ~OmmOn]y ~cfcr$ t. the rcmo~,al of Was[c from a dlsp[>~a] unit prior to tic insta]~:l[i~n Of a ~>rn]ancn{. nlullt]a} crcd L’ap During

this time, wrote containers or overpacks would probably rcmaln Intact. Ea\y rcmcvab]ll[y provldcs the optlorr of rcmo~lng [hc u a\Ic from a dIspo\al

umt If ~he waste needs to be moved tor some reason. Reco~ery commonly refers to the rcmo~al of w astc from a disposal unit M \omc IImc after d

permanent, multilayered cap has been cmplaccd and usually well after closure of the disposal faclllty. Depending on t-he t]mmg of recove~, wiis(c

containers or o%erpacks may or may nol be totally intact,

~ I Slncc ~aulti ~,111 ~r~bably Prol ~dc al] the s(abl[lt> nccess~ for a di~powd fac[ltt}, the usc of high-rn[cgrit! conwwi for w ~~~c packagc~ mv hunnecessary. However, high-mtcgrlt) contalncrf may make rt wmewhat easier [o load or unload the waslc,
144 . Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

facility), it is relatively inexpensive to repair, recap,

or replace a leaking cap. However, to begin with, cap

designs should be tailored to regional climate

conditions. Developing better combinations of soil

layers and synthetic membranes, particularly for

humid regions, probably holds the greatest potential for improving the performance of past and

future near-surface disposal facilities. These development efforts as well as long-term, onsite

demonstrations may also benefit from advances in

containment systems for hazardous waste landfills.

Additional studies could also focus on improved monitoring systems that can be located

inside the lower portion of a multilayered cap so

that leaks in the cap can be identified and

repaired as quickly as possible. In addition, if

settling of a facility was significant, the integrity of

any drainage pipes that run under disposal units to

monitoring ports could be damaged or completely

crimped so that they are rendered useless. If this

problem occurred, any water migrating from a

disposal facility without an in-cap monitoring system would not be discovered until it reached the

monitoring stations surrounding the facility.

Small-scale or prototype disposal units at each

disposal site offer an opportunity for long-term,

onsite demonstrations. In addition, closely monitored test facilities may be useful to better evaluate

the overall and long-term performance of all disposal units within a site.

DISPOSAL COSTS32

The average cost per cubic foot of waste, or unit

disposal cost, has increased significantly for all

LLW over the last two decades, For example, unit

disposal costs for most Class A LLW steadily

increased from about $1 per cubic foot in 1975 to

about $15 per cubic foot in 1980; disposal costs

tripled between 1980 and 1986 (1 1). These cost

increases stem primarily from two causes. First,

compliance with NRC and State regulatory requirements developed in the early 1980s added to

disposal costs. Second, the LLRWPAA created an

optional schedule of increasingly higher surcharges

for waste originating outside a disposal site’s

compact. As shown in table 6-4, there are additional

penalties for generators if their respective compacts

do not meet the milestones established in the

LLRWPAA.

At the beginning of 1988, the minimum fees

(including surcharges) charged by the three different

LLW sites ranged from about $38 to $46 per cubic

foot for dry Class A LLW (see table 6-5).33 Disposal

costs will likely increase substantially in 1990

when the surcharge increases from $20 to $40 per

cubic foot.

Unit disposal costs are especially sensitive to the

facility design, the annual waste capacity of the

disposal facility, and the mode of financing used for

facility development. As shown in table 6-6, more

elaborate facility designs can cost almost twice as

much as shallow-land burial now used at all three

commercial sites. Table 6-6 also indicates that unit

disposal costs increase significantly as the capacity of the facility decreases. For example, unit

disposal costs increase by a factor of two as facility

capacities decrease from 350,000 to 150,000 cubic

feet per year. Moreover, as shown in figure 6-11, unit

disposal costs increase by a factor of four as facility

capacities decrease from 60,000 to 10,000 cubic feet

per year. Finally, private financing will increase

disposal costs about 10 to 31 percent over public

financing, depending on the design and capacity of

the facility (see table 6-7).

Unit disposal costs for LLW will undoubtedly

increase over the next few years for four reasons.

First, as shown in table 6-4, the surcharges on waste

disposal will increase before States and compacts

develop new disposal facilities. Second, as LLW

volumes decrease, unit disposal costs at disposal

sites will increase to cover fixed operating costs.

Third, unit disposal costs at new disposal facilities

may be higher, especially if: 1 ) more expensive

disposal technologies are used, 2) new disposal

facilities are smaller, and/or 3) waste packaging

requirements are more stringent. Fourth, disposal

costs for Class B, C, and mixed LLW may increase

due to a recognized need for long-term monitoring

and potential remediation.

Unit disposal costs will probably vary significantly from one State or compact to another for

three reasons. First, the volumes of LLW generated

320Va~I dispos~ costs cover the following items: disposal facility construction and operation; any surcharges (table 6-4); and extended custodial

care, monitoring, possible remediat action, and administrative costs, The LLRWPA and its 1985 amendments do not set legal limits on fees that a disposal

site may charge.

qq~ew fms n= drarnatica]]y with increased radioactivity in the wste.
Chapter 6--Disposal Technologies . 145

Table 6-4-Surcharges for LLW Disposal (dollars per cubic foot)

States achieving milestones States failing milestones

Normal Revised

Milestone Year surcharge Year surcharge

7/06 ... , . . . . . 1986-1987 $10/ft 3

1/86 to 7/86 $10/ft3

7/86 to 1/87 $20/ft 3

l/87—site access

may be denied

1/88 . . . . . . . . . 1988-1989 $20/ft 31/88 to 7/88 $40/ft 3

7/88 to 1/89 $80/ft 3

l/89-site access

may be denied

1/90 . . . . . . . . . 1990-1992 $40/ft 3

1/92 . . . . . . . . $80/ft 3

$120/ft3

1/93 . . . . . . . . . Site access States take title to LLW or refund to generators

denied 25% of surcharges paid during previous

3 years.

1/96 . . . . . . . . . States take title to LLW.

NOTE: See also table 2-1

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment, 1989

Table 6-5-Approximate 1968 Disposal Costs for Class A LLW (dollars par cubic foot)

Volume disposed

Site location (ft3 for 1988) Disposal charge Surcharge Total cost

Richland, WA , . . . . . . . . . . . . 403,303 $18 $20 $38.00

Barnwell, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931,602 26 20 46.00

Beatty, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,852 24 20 44.00

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,435,757 Average $42.67

SOURCE Lawrence P Matheis, Nevada State Health Division, letter to Leonard SIosky, Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Board, Feb. 29, 1988

U S Department of Energy, Draft, “Integrated Data Base for 1988: Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and

Characteristics,” DOE/RW-0006, Rev 5, August 1989 p. 157.

Table 6-6-Approximate Unit Disposal Costs Without Surcharges (dollars per cubic foot)a

Facility capacity in thousands of cubic feet/year

Disposal facility 10 60 50 230 350

Below-grade facilities

Shallow-land burial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $460 $110 $55 $40 $30

Concrete containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Concrete vaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $590 $140 $ 8 0 $55 $40

Above-grade, earth-covered facilities #

Concrete containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .

Concrete vaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $670 $160 $ 9 0 $65 $50

Above-ground vaults (no earthen cover)

Earth-mounded concrete bunkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . $780 $180 $105 $75 $55

aCosts assume pubhc financing of the disposal facMy.

SOURCE” U S Department of Energy, “Conceptual Design Report: Alternative Concepts for Low-Level Rad~oactwe Waste Disposal,” prepared by

Rogers & Associates Englneermg Corp. for the National Low-Level Waste Management Program, DOE/LLW-60T, June 1987, pp. 12-24, p. 25, U.S

Department of Energy, “1 987 Annual Report on Low-Level Radloactwe Waste Management Program,” August 1988, pp 17-19; EG&G Idaho,

“Facthty Life Cycle Cost and %erage User Fee Projections for Small-Volume Low-Level Radtoactwe Waste Dwposal Faclllttes,” DOE Contract No

DE-AC07-761D01570, February 1989; Rogers & Assoaates Engmeermg Corp , “Conceptual Designs and Prel!mlnary Economic Analyses of Four

Low-Level Rachoactwe Waste DlaposalFacMes,” October 1987; US Ecology, Inc., “Proposal for Development and Operation of the Appalachian

States LfIw-bwel Radloactlve Waste Compact Regional Disposal FacMy,” prepared for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvama, Vol. 1[: Executive

Summary, p. 18, and Vol Ill” Techmcal Presentation, October 19fM; Juhe Conner, EG81G Idaho, personal communi~tlon, May 1989,
146 ● Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Figure 6-1 l—Effects of Waste Volume

on Unit Disposal Costs

Dollars per cubic foot

800

600

400

‘\

0 ’ ”

,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cubic feet per year ■ (x 1,000)

80

--- Above-grade vault – - Below -grade vault

Modular concrete canister --– Shallow-land disposal

SOURCE: EG&G Idaho, Inc., “Facility Life Cycle Cost and Average User

Fee Projections for Smell-Volume Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facilities,” prepared under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-

76D01570, February 1969.

by different States and compacts vary considerably.

As shown in appendix A, the Southeast Compact

generates about 500,000 cubic feet per year, whereas

the Rocky Mountain Compact generates about 4,000

cubic feet per year. Second, disposal facilities

located in humid regions will probably be more

expensive than facilities in arid regions of the

country due to the added design features required to

minimize the infiltration of precipitation. Third,

disposal facility costs vary according to local

economic conditions, such as land values and labor

and material costs, and according to State and local

regulations .34

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES

1.

2.

Bandrowski, M. S., Hung, C. Y., Meyer, G. L., and

Rogers, V. C., ‘‘Summary of EPA’s Risk Assessment

Results From the Analysis of Alternative Methods of

Low-hvel Waste Disposal, ” Proceedings from

1987 Conference on Waste Isolation in the United

States, vol. 3, 1987, pp. 495-501.

Cook, J.R., “New Imw-bvel Radioactive Waste

Storage/Disposal Facilities for the Savannah River

Plant,’ Proceedings from 1987 Conference on Waste

Isolation in the United States, vol. 3, 1987, pp.

411-414.

Table 6-7-Effect of Financing on Unit Disposal Costs

for Shallow-Land Burial and Below-Grade Wults

(dollars per cubic foot)

Facility capacity in thousands of

cubic feef/year

Financina 10 60 230

Shallow-land burial:

Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $360 $ 9 0

Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . $460 $110 E;

Incremental cost of

private financing ... , . . 28°7” 22% 18%

BalowgWe vaults:

Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $450 $110 $50

Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $590 $140 $55

Incremental cost of

private financing . . . . . . 31 ”/0 270/. 10%

SOURCE. U.S. Department of Enerav, “Conce~tual DesIan Recmrt Aiter3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

natwe Concepts for Low~~vel R~loactive Waste “Disposal, ”

prepared by Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp. for the

National Low-1.wel Waste Management Program, DOE/LLW6OT, June 1987, pp. 12-24, p 25; EG&G Idaho, “Faclllty Life

Cycle Cost and lwerage User Fee Projections for Small-Volume

Low-kvel Radio@tve Waste Disposal Fachtles,” DOE Corrtract No. DE-AC07-761D0157, February 1989.

Devgun, J. S., and Charlesworth, D. H., “Impact of

Past-Experiences on Engineering a Shallow-Land

Disposal Site, ” Proceedings from 1987 Conference

on Waste isolation in the United States, vol. 3, 1987,

pp. 205-212.

EG&G Idaho, “Facility Life Cycle Cost and Average

User Fee Projections for Small-Volume Lmw-hvel

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities, ” DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761 D01570, February 1989.

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, “Technical

Considerations for I.mw-kvel Radioactive Waste

Disposal in Illinois, ” draft summary, November

1987.

MacKenzie, D. R., Siskind, B., Bowerman, B. S., and

Piciulo, P. L., “Some Considerations in the Evaluation of Concrete as a Structural Material for Alternative LLW Disposal Technologies, ” Proceedings

from 1987 Conference on Waste Isolation in the

United Slates, vol. 3, 1987, pp. 63-70.

Matheis, Lawrence, Nevada State Health Division,

letter to Isonard Slosky, Rocky Mountain Imwbvel Radioactive Waste Board, Feb. 29, 1988.

National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA), Nuclear Waste Management

and the Use of the Sea, a special report to the

President and Congress, April 1984.

New York State Energy Research and Development

Authority, “Handbook of Disposal Technologies for

I.mw-hvel Radioactive Waste, ” June 1987.

3411 is fi~~~ [O Ho@= that ~i( dlspos~ coss are influenced by assumptions about specific characteristics of sites and facility designs, cost

of capital, inflation, liability insurance, tax rates, operating lifetime of the facility, and many other factors incorporated into various cost models. Duc

to the variation among disposal facility development costs, each State or compact will need to obtain site-specific cost estimates for its respective

site using updated and realistic financial assumptions.
0 ,

11.

12,

13.

14,

15.

16,

Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp.. “Conceptual Designs and Preliminary Economic Analyses of

Four Low-hvel Radioactive Waste Di~posal Facilities, ” October 1987.

L1niversity of California, Irvine, ‘‘ Low-I~vel Radioactive Waste Management in Medical and Biomedical Re~earch institutions, Low- hvel Radioactive

Waste !vlanagement Series, {.S. Department of

Energy, DOE/LLW-l 3Th, March 1987.

US Ecology, Inc., “Proposal for Development and

Operation of the Appalachian States Low-bvel

Radioactive Waste Cotnpact Regional Disposal Facility, ” prepared for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, October 1988.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Managing the Nation’s Commercial High-L&~wl

Radiouctivc Waste, OTA-O-171 (Springfield, VA:

National Technical information Service, March 1985).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Permit

Writers’ Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste

Land Storage and Dispo~al Facilities, Phase I:

Criteria for Location Acceptability and Existing

Applicable Regulations, Final Draft, ’ Office of

Solid Waste, February 1985.

CJ. S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Criteria f o r

Identifying Areas of Vulnerable ilydrogeology Under

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, ”

Office of Solid Waste, July 1%36.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Technical

Guidance Document: Final Covers on Hazardous

Waste Landfills and Surface Impoundments. ’ Office

of Solid Wa$te, EPA/530-SW-89-047, July 1989.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

z~.

23.

U.S. Department of Energy, ‘ ‘Managing I,UR -ILVCI

Radioactive Wastes: A Proposed Approach, DOE/-

LLW-9, April 1983.

U.S. Department of Energy, ‘‘bw-Ii~cl R~dioa~-

tive Waste .Nlanagement Handbook Seriei: Corrective Measures Technology for ShallcJW -1 and Burial, 9 DOE/LLW-13Te. 1984.

U.S. Department of Energy, “C’onceptuaI I]e$lgrl

Report: Alternative Concepts for LA)M- [~~el Radioactive Waste Disposal, ’ prepared b> R(lger~ &

Associates Engineering Corp. for the Natic)rltil Imw -

bvel Waste Management Program, DO[i/I. I. W60T, June 1987.

U.S. Department of Energy, ‘‘ 1987 AnllU:d ~qx.)rt on

Low-bvel Radioactive Wa$te Management Progress, ” DOE/NE-0094, August 1988.

U.S. Department of Energy, DRA171_ “lntcgrated

Data Base for 1988: Spent Fuel and I-radioactive

Waste 1nventones, Projections, and C’haracteri~tic\,

DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 5, August 1989.

LT.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis~ion and (1. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, ‘ ‘Combined N’Rc’-

EPA Siting Guidelines for Disposal of Mixed IJ~W -

kvel Radioactive and Hazardous Waste. ’ .Mar. 13.

1987,

U.S. ?Juclear Regulatory Commission tind L,S.

Environmental Protection Agency, ‘ ‘Joint Guidance

on a Conceptual Design Approach for C’ommerclal

Mixed Low-Uvel Radioactive and Hazardous Waste

Disposal Facilities, ” Aug. 3, 1987.
Appendixes
Appendix A

Volumes of Commercial LLW Shipped for Disposal by State

(as reported by disposal site operators)a

Annual volume in thousands of cubic feet

State 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Northeast Compact

New Jersey (H) . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 116 66 56 50 38

Connecticut (H) . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 58 63 56 40 40

Subtotal . . . . . 195 174 129 112 90 78

Appalachian Compact

Pennsylvania (H) . . . . . . . . . . . 270 219 262 188 145 145

Maryland b 

. . . . . . . . ., . 47 42 38 19 20 26

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 263 302 209 166 172

Southeast Compact

Tennesseeb 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 240 237 81 239 161

South Carolinab . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 255 136 121 118 96

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 98 147 71 68 64

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 166 100 102 82 79 62

Alabamab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 151 102 58 70 51

Georgia b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 87 78 48 30 39

Florida b 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 89 59 60 46 31

Mississippi b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 15 22 19 14 18

Subtotal . . . . . . . ., . . . 1!013 1,035 883 540 664 522

Midwest Compact

Michigan (H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 38 55 36 35 25

Ohio ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 19 34 16 19 20

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 70 47 28 20 14

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 11 24 23 10

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 16 6 9 18

Iowa b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 12 30 10 19 7

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <1 3 1 0 2 2

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 178 194 120 127 96

Central Midwest Compact

lllinois b (H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 227 360 227 190 126

Kentucky b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 4 4 <1 2

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 229 364 231 191 128

Central States Compact

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 11 50 83 28

Louisiana b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <1 <1 11 23 28 18

Nebraska b (H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 31 37 20 17 13

Arkansas b 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 33 25 4 20 7

Kansas b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 7 5 5

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 71 86 104 153 71

Rocky Mountain Compact

Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 10 1 4 3

New Mexicob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 0 1 <1

Nevadab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 <1 0 <1 <1

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 14 1 6 4

(H) =States plannlng tohost adlsposaJfacMy

aPre-1980 volumes are inaccurate In that waste brokers dtd not attribute the waste they shipped fordlsposal back to the orlglnal waste generator

-151-
152 ● Partnership Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Annual volume in thousands of cubic feet

State 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Northwest Compact

Oregonb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 60 58 109 82 84

Washingtonb (H) . . . . . . . . . . . 45 45

Utahb 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63 53 38 36

3 5 5 3 3 5

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 1.1 2 3 4

Idahob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 6 1 0 <1 <1

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <1 1 <1 1 <1 0

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 <1 0

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 120 139 168 129 129

Southwestern Compact

Californiab (H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 159 251 114 99 74

Arizona b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 4 5 17 28

North Dakotab . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 <1 0

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <1 0 <1 <1 0 0

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unaffilliated States

New Yorkb (H)... . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts (H) . . . . . . . . .

Texas b (H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maine(H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshireb . . . . . . . . . . .

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . .

133

199

167

57

22

12

2

2

3

160

147

193

13

13

12

1

2

2

255

161

106

11

20

13

1

2

1

119

107

67

4

12

8

1

2

<1

116

70

55

69

8

5

1

<1

<1

102

65

47

9

7

6

1

<1

<1

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 315 201 208 135

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,709 2,619 2,681 1,805 1,845 1,436

(H) -States planning to host a disposal facility.

W@eementStates.

SOURCE: Datafor1983 through 1987takenfrom The 1987State-by-State Assessmentof~w-level Radioactive WastesReceivedat CommercalDisposal

Sites, National Low-level Radioactive Waste Management Program, December 1988, DOE/LLW-69T, pp. 141. Data for 1988 taken from tables

prepared by EG&G Idaho m May 1989 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Integrated Data Base for 1Q99: Spent Fuel and Radioactwe Waste

hventoms, Propdions, and Characteristics, RW-0006, Rev. 5, 1989.
Appendix B

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants

Although most nuclear power plants are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate for 40 years,

there is no absolute age at which they become unsafe or uneconomical to operate. In fact, it may be possible to

economically extend the operating lifetime of many reactors simply by replacing aging internal components. Once a plant

has been shut down, it can be decommissioned (e.g., dismantled) within a few years, placed in safe storage for 30 to 50

years prior to decommissioning, or permanently entombed.

There are two reasons for delaying decommissioning once a reactor has been shutdown. First, as shown in the table

below, the overall radioactivity of the LLW from decommissioning will decrease by 30 to 45 times, if decommissioning

is deferred five decades. Deferral could therefore reduce worker risks and decrease dismantling costs. Second, the volumes

of Class A, B, and C LLW generated from immediate decommissioning can be reduced by about 10 times if

decommissioning is deferred five decades.

Effects of Delayed Decommissioning on the LLW Generated by

Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

Plant type 30-year 50-year

[1 ,175 GW(e)] No delay delay delay

Radioactivity of all LLW in thousands of curies:

Boiling-water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,600 180 140

Pressurized-water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,900 210 160

Volume of all LLW in thousands of cubic fact:

Boiling-water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670 670” 60”

Pressurized-water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630 630” 65*

“Includes wastes from both preparation for storage and decommissioning

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Integrated Data Base for 1988. Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories,

Projections, and Characteristics, DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 4, September 1988, p. 185.

For these reasons, many of the 113 operating nuclear plants, especially the approximately 70 plants that are colocated

with other units, may be placed in “SAFESTOR” for five decades prior to decommissioning. It is not clear, however,

that decommissioning of all nuclear plants will be deferred. If costs for LLW disposal continue to rise as they have over

the last 15 years, it may be more economical to immediately decommission some plants. For example, older plants (i.e.,

constructed prior to 1970) that do not have well-documented designs and are not colocated with multiple units may be

more economically decommissioned shortly after permanent shutdown before plant engineers are reassigned or retired.

-153-