Jump to first page

High Level Waste Management

Chapter 10

Section 3

Dr. John Ringle

NE 112

Jump to first page

I. Radioactive Waste

A. Classification & Characteristics of Radioactive Waste

B. Quantities of Waste

C. Sources of WasteD. Current Location

Jump to first page

II.Radioactive Waste Management

A. PrinciplesB. ResponsibilityC. HLW - Disposal OptionsD. HLW Acts - CongressE. Characteristics of a Good

Geologic RepositoryF. Hazards of Deep Geologic

DisposalG. HLW Activity in Other CountriesH. LLW -Disposal OptionsI. Hazards of LLW DisposalJ. LLW Acts - CongressK. LLW Activity in Other CountriesL. TRU Waste Disposal

Jump to first page

I. Radioactive WasteA. CLASSIFICATION &

CHARACTERISTICS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

CLASS

DEFINITION

CHARACTERISTICS

High Level Waste (HLW)

fission and activation products resulting from reprocessing of spent fuel

high heat, high γ activity, fairly short tH

SPENT FUEL (SF)

non-reprocessed spent fuel

high heat, high γ activity, α emitters; fairly short tH for γ, long tH for α

Transuranic (TRU)

Z > 92 tH > 20 yr Act. > 100 nCi/g

low heat, α emitters, long tH

Mill tailings

residue of U mills

natural radioactivity, Ra & Rn, α emitters

Low Level Waste (LLW)

all else - none of the above

low heat, moderate γ activity, short tH

Defense vs. Commercial waste - depends on the origin of the waste and the nature of the activity that created the waste

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

B. QUANTITIES OF WASTE (as of 12-31-96)

TYPE

VOLUME (m3)

ACTIVITY (MCi)

DEPTH ON FOOTBALL FIELD (ft.)

HLW - Commercial

2000

23.6

1.6

HLW - Defense

345,350

878

254

SF - Commercial

13,808

30,000

10.3

SF - Defense

1091

n.a.

0.85

TRU - Defense

238,000

2.74

174

LLW - Commercial

1.75 x 106

5.1

1286

LLW - Defense

3.39 x 106

12.1

2500

Mill Tailings

119 x 106

n.a.

87,600

Jump to first page

C.SOURCES OF WASTE

HLW - Defense

Hanford; Savannah River (SR), SC; Idaho National Engineering Lab (INEL)

HLW - Commercial

none recently; formerly produced at West Valley, NY

SF - Defense

none (fuel is reprocessed)

SF - Commercial

Civilian power plants around U.S.

TRU - Defense

Hanford, SR, INEL, Rocky Flats

TRU - Commercial

none

LLW - Defense

Hanford, SR, INEL

LLW - Commercial

power plants, industry, hospitals, universities around U.S.

Jump to first page

D.CURRENT LOCATION HLW - Defense

stored at Hanford, SR, INEL; vitrify and transfer to commercial repository ~ 2010

HLW - Commercial

West Valley, NY; vitrify and transfer to commercial repository ~ 2010

SF - Commercial

stored at power plants; transfer to commercial repository ~ 2010

TRU - Defense

stored at Hanford, SR, INEL, Rocky Flats; transfer to Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), NM ~ March 1999

LLW - Defense

Hanford, SR, INEL, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos

LLW - Commercial

2 sites now: Hanford; Barnwell, SC In a few years: 2-5 regional sites (?)

Mill Tailings

No operational mills; 6 mills on standby status. 26 total tailings storage areas in western U.S.

Jump to first page

II. RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

A. PrinciplesB. ResponsibilityC.HLW - Disposal OptionsD. HLW Acts - CongressE.Characteristics of a Good

Geologic RepositoryF.Hazards of Deep Geologic

DisposalG. HLW Activity in Other

CountriesH. LLW -Disposal OptionsI. Hazards of LLW DisposalJ. LLW Acts - CongressK. LLW Activity in Other

CountriesL.TRU Waste Disposal

Jump to first page

II. RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

A. PRINCIPLES • Time • Isolation (Distance, Shielding)B. RESPONSIBILITY • U.S. Government: HLW, TRU,

Spent Fuel, defense LLW • States: Commercial LLWC. HLW -- DISPOSAL OPTIONS1. Deep geologic repositories2. Subseabed3. Space4. Ice sheet5. Transmutation6. Very deep hole7. Island burial

Jump to first page

D. HLW ACTS -- CONGRESS

NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982

NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1987

Deep geologic disposal chosen

same

2 repositories: 1 in Western U.S.

1 in Eastern U.S.

1 repository: Yucca Mtn.,

Nevada

Fee: 1 mill/kWhr

reviewed annually

same

Timetable: 1st repository

begins accepting waste by 1998

fuel acceptance delayed (to ~2010)

MRS - If Congress says yes

MRS - yes

Financial incentive to states with MRS or repository: None

Financial incentive:

$10 M/yr for MRS $20 M/yr for repository

DOE designs & builds repository

same

NRC licenses repository

same

EPA sets radioactive release limits

same

Jump to first page

E. CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY

Very little (or no) groundwater in host rock.

Slow water travel time in host rock.

Low seismic activity. Non-corrosive environment. High absorptive properties for

radionuclides. Good heat dissipation

characteristics. Strong enough to support mining

activity. Few fractures or cracks. No commercial interest in host

rock. Isolated area. Dry climate.

Jump to first page

F. HAZARDS OF DEEP GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL 

Transportation of HLW or SF to repository Shipping casks very important

Release to ground water.  Barriers:

Waste form (glass or ceramic) Waste canister (metal) Backfill (host rock/clay) Host rock

Jump to first page

G. HLW ACTIVITY IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Reprocess HLW disposal Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, China,

France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, former USSR states

No reprocessing SF disposal Canada, Sweden, United States

Storage of HLW (vitrified) or SF in water or dry storage

Investigate geological repositories

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Waste Package for 21 Pressurized Water Reactor Uncanistered Fuel Assemblies

Jump to first page

Waste Package for Five-Canister, Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste/DOE-Owned Spent Nuclear Fuel Assembly

Jump to first page

Emplacement Drift Section at Waste Package Support Location

Jump to first page

Engineered Barrier System Options for the Viability Assessment

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

H. LLW -- DISPOSAL OPTIONS

1. Shallow-land burial. 2. Earth-mounded tumulus. 3. Concrete structures—

above grade & below grade.

4. Deep trenches. 5. Augered shaft. 6. High-integrity container. 7. Hydrofracture. 8. Underground mines &

rock cavities.

Jump to first page

I. HAZARDS OF LLW DISPOSAL

1. 1. Transportation of LLW to disposal site.

2. 2. Leakage of LLW via groundwater.

3. 3. Inadvertent intrusion.

Jump to first page

J.LLW ACTS -- CONGRESS

LOW LEVEL WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1980

LOW LEVEL WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1985

LLW disposal is a state, not federal responsibility

same

Encouraged states to join together in regional compacts to deal with LLW

same

By 1-1-86, each state shall have disposal mechanism in operation to handle its LLW.

By 7-1-86, non-compact state must ratify compact or enact legislation to provide for operation of instate LLW facility by 1-1-93. By 1-1-88, compacts or states must select LLW sites. By 1-1-90, license application must be filed for LLW facilities. By 1-1-93, access to existing LLW facilities ceases for states outside of the 3 compacts operating these sites. From 1986-1992, existing sites can charge increasing surcharges to waste from outside the compact. Rebates (25% of surcharge) returned to states or compacts meeting above deadlines.

Jump to first page

K. LLW ACTIVITY IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Very similar to U.S. Many using shallow-land

burial. France -- earth-mounded

tumulus. Canada -- augered shafts. W. Germany --

underground mine. Sweden, Canada, Finland,

Britain -- rock cavities.

Jump to first page

L. TRU WASTE DISPOSAL

Very similar in most aspects to HLW disposal.

Repository is selected and constructed: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, near Carlsbad, NM.

Repository is 2150 ft. below surface in bedded salt.

Test phase of WIPP started in 1994.

Repository began accepting TRU waste March 1999.

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page

Jump to first page