Greater-confinement disposal of low-level radioactive wastes Page: 2 of 8
This article is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Wastes of the first type include some of
the wastes generated by DOE and other
government agencies as a result of defense
activities, uranium-enrichment activities,
and research and development activities as
well as some of the wastes generated in
commercial activities such as nuclear
power production, manufacturing, medical
applications, and research. Wastes of the
second type are largely those containing
naturally occurring radionuclides--e.g.,
mill tailings or raffinates, equipment,
contaminated soils, and decommissioning
rubble that remain at sites that were used
for processing or storage of uranium and
thorium ores and compounds.
The major reason that GCD is being
considered for these types of wastes is
the potentially unacceptable risks associ-
ated with releases to the environment and
with human intrusion into the wastes if
government control of the disposal sites
were to cease in the future. Possible
reasons for cessation of control are loss
of funds and catastrophic events.
The methods for greater confinement
can be grouped according to modifications
to the disposal cell or modifications to
the wastes or packaging. (The term ’•cell"
is a general term indicating an individual
hole, trench, shaft, or structure in which
wastes are emplaced for disposa1.) Modifi-
cations to the disposal cell include
augered shaft, deep trench, and engineered
structure. The special disposal technique
of hydrofracture is also being considered
as an example of greater confinement.
Modifications to the wastes and packaging
are commonly referred to as improved waste
form and high-integrity container (H1C),
respectively.
PURPOSE
The purpose is to present an overview
of the factors that must be considered in
planning the application of methods pro-
posed for providing greater confinement of
low-level wastes, to present methods for
evaluating existing and conceptual disposal
units that would provide greater confine-
ment of low-level wastes, and to review
the characteristics of a limited set of
designs that have emerged from these
several efforts as the most promising for
providing the confinement that may be
required for these waste types.
APPROACH
The characteristics and expected
volumes of wastes that might require
greater confinement were derived from data
bases that have been collected by DOE
contractors. In general, these wastes
could not be disposed by technologies
referred to in 10 CFR 61 regulations.
Greater confinement for even larger
volumes than these is being requested by
some citizen groups despite the fact that
the characteristics of the wastes might
permit less sophisticated and less costly
disposal technologies. Current regulations
on low-level wastes are purposefully not
prescriptive with respect to technology;
however, they do refer to SLB but not to
any of the designs discussed here. Cri-
teria expressed by the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (9)
are used in this work as minimum indica-
tions of the performance objectives that
greater confinement must achieve. The
possibility is explored of expressing
performance assessment, i.e., analysis of
the behavior of the technology and its
compliance with performance objectives, in
terms of risk analysis. The role of cost
and benefit in selection of disposal
technology by potential operators is also
considered. Several design options were
selected for this assessment, and these
options are examined to identify the basic
elements in each option that will support
the performance objectives. The advan-
tages and disadvantages associated with
each option are also discussed.
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
One problem encountered in this work
was the brevity of information available
for some disposal unit concepts, especially
the engineered structures. The expected
performance of some disposal unit alterna-
tives was difficult to evaluate because of
the incomplete state of development of
some of the concepts. Regulations on
low-level waste disposal such as 10 CFR 61
and DOE Order 5820.2 are not restricted to
SLB; for example, the U.S. Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission (NRC) maintains that it
could assess the licensability of alterna-
tive disposal units by the 10 CFR 61
guidelines. Nevertheless, these regula-
tions—although only recently finalized—
were developed before the even mere recent
surge of interest in alternatives to SLB.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Trevorrow, L. E.; Gilbert, T. L.; Luner, C.; Merry-Libby, P. A.; Meshkov, N. K. & Yu, C. Greater-confinement disposal of low-level radioactive wastes, article, January 1, 1985; Illinois. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1064797/m1/2/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.