Alternative High-Level Waste Treatments at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
9 Constraints Imposed by Disposal Options, Regulations, and Cost
9 Constraints Imposed by Disposal Options, Regulations, and Cost
Pages 81-90
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 81... ...
In the absence of other clear and concise criteria and guidance, a driving consideration in deciding on a radioactive waste management strategy should be the comparative risks of the alternatives being considered (including those of limited or no processing)
|
From page 82... ...
and its Amendments, but also hazardous chemical constituents, as defined and regulated in RCRA. While these regulations are briefly discussed below, this discussion does not encompass all relevant regulations, such as the EPA's MACT rule providing air quality permitting restrictions.2 Radioactive Waste Classification and Consequences The AEA regulation and classification of HLW requires that the ultimate disposal of the high-level fraction be in a geologic repository, whose waste acceptance criteria must be met.
|
From page 83... ...
DOE plans show the first repository to be filled by 2035, with an undetermined amount of INEEL HLW included in this first repository's inventory (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, 1998: pp. 7, 1~11; Wichmann et al., 1996: p.
|
From page 84... ...
Unduly restrictive or lenient WAC could have significant consequences in setting the processing specifications for the waste form to be produced from the INEEL HLW calcine. The second potential problem is that the Yucca Mountain WAC exclude RCRA constituents (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, 1998: pp.
|
From page 85... ...
As noted previously, DOE plans (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, 1998, p.
|
From page 86... ...
Some of these uncertainties such as the solid waste form for DOE HLW and the equivalency between the measure (MTHM) used for commercial SNF and that for DOE defense waste co-disposed with it-seem to be matters of DOE policy only and if so, adjustments would not require any change of law.
|
From page 87... ...
Transuran~c Waste: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WD3P) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, is the DOE repository for defense-related TRU wastes, and would be a suitable disposal site for INEEL waste streams that meet this classification.
|
From page 88... ...
LLW Disposal at the NTS The DOE LLW disposal site at the NTS can in general accept LLW from other DOE sites, but currently waste equivalent to the commercial category of Greater-than-Class C is accepted only on a case-by-case basis (DOE, 1997: p. 3-7; Russell et al., 1998, Vol.
|
From page 89... ...
This may be because of uncertainties in whether these repositories will be available for INEEL waste products and/or whether the INEEL wastes are properly qualified to meet the WAC. Only the LLW disposal sites, and WIPP for TRU LLW, are operational at present.
|
From page 90... ...
TRU waste could go to WIPP, which has recently opened, but which faces capacity limitations due to the amount of defense wastes at other sites. LLW in principle could go to commercial disposal sites in Washington or Nevada, but both of these sites have capacity and regulatory problems to contend with.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.