• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

B.10.0 HIGH-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL AT THE POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY

B.10.1 WASTE ACCEPTANCE

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a national policy for disposal of HLW and commercial spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository and required the President to evaluate the use of commercial repository capacity for the disposal of defense high-level nuclear waste. In February 1985, the Secretary of Energy submitted a memorandum to the President recommending that DOE proceed with plans and actions to dispose of defense waste in a commercial repository. In an April 1985 Presidential Memorandum, the President approved proceeding on the basis of the recommendation. Subsequently, in September 1988, DOE issued DOE Order 5820.2A, which stated requirements to process and dispose of DOE's new and readily retrievable HLW in a potential geologic repository and to consider options such as in-place stabilization or retrieval, processing and disposal in a potential geologic repository for permanent disposal of a singly contained tank waste.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987 ordered termination of activities for all potential geologic repository candidate sites other than Yucca Mountain site and required that the Secretary of Energy report to the President and Congress between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2010 on the need for a second repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act prohibits emplacement in the first repository of a quantity of spent fuel containing in excess of 70,000 mt (77,000 tons) of heavy metal of a quantity of solidified high-level radioactive waste resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel until such a time as a second repository is in operation. It is recognized that current projections for spent nuclear fuel and HLW exceed the 70,000-mt (77,000-ton) limit for the first repository; however, this issue will not be resolved prior to addressing the need for a second repository. The EIS is based on the assumption that the potential geologic repository or a second repository could accommodate all of the HLW produced by any of the alternatives. Therefore, the current planning basis for disposal of DOE's new or readily retrievable HLW is for disposal at a geologic repository, which may be Yucca Mountain should that site be shown to be acceptable and approved as a potential geologic repository.

In support of the potential first geologic repository, DOE has issued a Waste Acceptance Systems Requirements Document (DOE 1994g) describing functions and technical requirements for a system that would accept HLW and spent nuclear fuel into the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System. The Waste Acceptance Systems Requirements Document sets forth the criteria established for waste forms reviewed and judged acceptable for disposal. All radioactive waste (both spent nuclear fuel and HLW) that would be accepted into the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System would be required to meet either existing waste acceptance criteria or waste acceptance criteria developed for a specific waste form. The current waste form acceptance criteria include the following requirements:

• Radioactive waste shall be in solid form;
• Particulate waste forms shall be consolidated (e.g., by incorporating the waste into an encapsulating matrix) to limit the availability and generation of particulates;
• Combustible radioactive waste shall be reduced to noncombustible form unless it can be demonstrated that a fire involving the waste packages containing combustibles will not adversely affect other waste packages, any structures, systems, and components important to safety, or the repository's ability for waste isolation.

The three criteria previously listed are in response to requirements of 10 CFR 60.135(c).

• The waste form shall not contribute to free liquid in the waste packages to an amount that could compromise the ability of the waste package to achieve the performance objectives related to containment of the waste form or result in spillage and spread of contamination in the event of waste package perforation during the period through permanent closure. This criterion is in response to the requirements of 10 CFR 60.135(b) (2).
• The waste form shall not contain explosive, pyrophoric, or chemically reactive materials in an amount that could compromise the repository's ability for waste isolation or the repository's ability to satisfy the performance objective. This criterion is in response to the requirements of 10 CFR 60.135(b)(1).
• The waste shall not exceed the repository limit for defense waste in terms of metric tons of equivalent heavy metal (DOE 1995q).

Establishing acceptance criteria for other HLW products (waste form plus the packaging system) would involve identification of the candidate waste product. The candidate waste form product would then be judged for acceptability. If the candidate waste form product is judged to be an acceptable candidate for repository disposal, waste acceptance criteria would be established. All HLW waste sent to the repository would meet a set of waste acceptance requirements defined for that product.

At present, the Waste Acceptance Systems Requirement Document (DOE 1995q) assumes that the standard HLW form to be accepted will be vitrified borosilicate glass. The borosilicate glass is to be sealed inside an austenitic stainless-steel canister. The assumption of the standard form is intended to provide guidance to proceed with waste acceptance activities. It is based on informed technical opinion, preliminary study results, and accumulated institutional experience. The standard form assumption is subject to further resolution in subsequent revisions of the Waste Acceptance Systems Requirements Document.

Throughout the TWRS EIS, Yucca Mountain is referred to as the potential geologic repository. Currently, Yucca Mountain is the only site being characterized as a geologic repository for HLW. If selected as the site for development, it would be ready to accept HLW no sooner than 2015. The potential environmental impacts that would occur at the geologic repository from the disposal of HLW from TWRS are not addressed in this EIS. Potential impacts at the repository are being addressed in an EIS that DOE will prepare to analyze the Site-specific environmental impacts from construction, operation, and eventual closure of a potential geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and HLW at Yucca Mountain. Detailed evaluations to support decisions on the disposal of HLW from the Hanford Site would be made following the completion of the repository EIS. The repository EIS will also assess the impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and HLW from various storage locations to the potential geologic repository.

Each of the ex situ alternatives addressed in this EIS include sufficient interim onsite storage facilities to store all of the immobilized HLW produced while awaiting offsite transport and disposal at the potential geologic repository. This would allow each of the alternatives to operate independent of the acceptance schedule for the potential geologic repository. Schedules for shipping HLW to the potential geologic repository were developed for each alternative. The assumed shipment schedule would begin at approximately 2020. This is five years after the scheduled opening of the repository and would allow DOE to ship a backlog of HLW from other sites. To address concerns regarding the scheduled acceptance of the Hanford Site's HLW at the repository, the impacts of interim onsite storage have been assessed for a 50-year period.

The range in number of canisters that would be produced under the different alternatives varies widely based on the amount of separations and does not agree with the current technical planning basis for the geologic repository. The current geologic repository design is based on acceptance of approximately 7,100 standard sized canisters (1,800 HMPCs) of HLW from the Hanford Site. The number of canisters and waste packages that would be produced under the different alternatives is subject to change during waste package design and optimization. Using the larger canisters would reduce the number of waste packages requiring storage, transportation, and disposal at the potential geologic repository.

Subsequent to issuing the current Waste Acceptance Systems Requirements Document (DOE 1995q), DOE determined that the potential first geologic repository will accept only spent nuclear fuel and HLW that does not include components regulated as hazardous waste under RCRA. As most of the Hanford HLW contains hazardous or characteristic components, the HLW would have to be treated and/or delisted to be disposed of in the potential first geologic repository.

B.10.2 HIGH-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL COST

Repository fees for alternatives that include shipping HLW to the potential geologic repository are based on analysis performed by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management in support of the TWRS EIS (Milner 1996a). This analysis was performed using a consistent methodology as used by the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program in developing the Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost (TSLCC) of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program of September 1995 (DOE 1995u). Lifecycle cost estimates for four alternative scenarios were provided for disposal of vitrified HLW from the Hanford Site. The four alternatives varied the volume and HLW canister sizes from the 1995 TSLCC estimate basis. The analysis included estimates for two new HLW waste package designs, two new transportation cask designs, and estimates of changes to repository surface facilities, subsurface impacts, transportation, and other program cost elements. The analysis provided scoping level detail scaled from the detailed point estimate reported in the 1995 TSLCC analysis.

Estimates of the total defense share, based on application of the 1987 Federal Register methodology, were provided in the cost estimate report. Allocating the defense share between the Hanford Site and other defense sites was estimated by multiplying the defense share by the ratio of the number of Hanford Site waste packages to the total number of defense waste packages. A waste package consists of up to four canisters of HLW and is equivalent to an HMPC for Hanford Site waste from a numerical standpoint. Repository fees for alternatives that were not addressed in the Office of Civilian and Radioactive Waste Management report were estimated by extrapolating data from the estimate (Jacobs 1996). The estimated disposal fees for placement of HLW in the potential geologic repository are shown in Table B.10.2.1.

Table B.10.2.1 HLW Disposal Fees

The 1995 TSLCC forms the baseline for comparing disposal cost between alternatives and for allocating the defense share for each alternative. The 1995 TSLCC assumed 2,465 waste packages of HLW from the Hanford Site would be disposed of with approximately 2,050 waste packages of HLW from other DOE sites and the West Valley Demonstration Project. These waste packages were assumed to be commingled with waste packages of commercial spent nuclear fuel containing approximately 84,000 mt of U. The 1995 TSLCC assumed disposal in a single repository, with the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada serving as a surrogate to allow estimation of TSLCC. The design concepts assume emplacement of waste packages containing HLW canisters in the spaces between commercial spent nuclear fuel packages in a special arrangement with a high thermal load.

The methodology collects direct cost, allocates certain indirect cost elements based on piece count and areal dispersion factors, and then assigns remaining cost based on factors derived from relative direct and allocated cost. Unassigned cost comprises a significant portion of the total system cost due to high development and evaluation cost compared to construction and operation.

A methodology to specifically evaluate extreme variations from the 1995 TSLCC basis of 2,465 waste packages from the Hanford Site was not developed. For these reasons, there is a higher level of uncertainty in the estimates for the Ex Situ Extensive Separations and Ex Situ No Separations alternatives.

All of the ex situ alternatives except Ex Situ No Separations (vitrification and calcination) were able to maintain 1995 TSLCC design assumptions for the repository thermal loading approach and emplacement of HLW waste packages in the space between hot spent nuclear fuel packages. The Ex Situ No Separations alternative would require an additional area that would have a low thermal loading, dedicated to excess Hanford Site HLW. The number of HLW packages produced by the Ex Situ No Separations alternative exceeds the number of available openings in the high thermal load repository.

Development, evaluation, and other program costs were evaluated and were assumed to be essentially constant for all ex situ alternatives except for Ex Situ No Separations. Significant increases in development, evaluation, and other program costs would occur for Ex Situ No Separations due to additional repository area and licensing and significant extension of waste acceptance and transportation operations.

The estimated repository fees are at a scoping level of detail, scaled from TSLCC data and estimated through use of TSLCC models. The estimates are consistent with the 1995 TSLCC. Results are not based on engineering studies of the specific alternatives and do not represent detailed point estimates. Changes in the repository system baseline will have system impact and will affect cost estimates.