K.K.S. Pillay, Project Leader for Waste Management, NMT-DO
Over the past five decades, the Congress of the United States has
promulgated numerous environmental statutes applicable to all sectors of
the U.S. economy. In 1969 the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
initiated revolutionary changes to reduce waste generation and prevent
environmental pollution. A series of laws and regulations following NEPA
has increased pressure on both industry and the government to be
responsible managers of the environment. After extensive public debate
resulted in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, there have been many
positive developments directed at long-term management of radioactive
wastes in the U.S. Although several amendments to 1982's landmark
legislation have changed the scope of the efforts, the ultimate goal
continues to be isolation from the biosphere of long-lived radioactive
nuclides in wastes. Waste management of plutonium (and other actinide)
processing is a subset of these and other regulatory requirements. The
specific topic addressed in this editorial is the management of primary
waste generated from plutonium processing.
During the past 55 years, the plutonium inventory in the U.S. increased from half a microgram to nearly 400 M tons. The U.S. defense sector produced an estimated 111.4 M tons of plutonium between 1944 and 1988, and about 4% of that now exists in numerous waste forms. This estimate does not include the plutonium that was released to the environment during nuclear explosions and is now part of the natural background worldwide. It is estimated that the 100,000 m3 of transuranic wastes now stored at six DOE sites contain 3.4 M tons of plutonium. Approximately 2 M tons of plutonium and other actinides are present in high-level liquid wastes currently stored at three DOE sites. A significant positive inventory difference of nuclear materials within the DOE complex includes an additional 2.8 M tons of plutonium. At least some of this plutonium is likely to end up in transuranic (TRU) waste streams. The majority of TRU wastes is expected to be transferred to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), and the high-level wastes at two sites (Savannah River and West Valley) are being vitrified for eventual geologic disposal. Ongoing environmental restoration, decontamination, and decommissioning of DOE facilities coupled with future operations within the weapons complex, even though they will be limited, are expected to generate another 78,000 m3 of TRU wastes during the next two decades. Current plans are to place all TRU wastes, both contact-handled and remote-handled, in the WIPP facility in Carlsbad, New Mexico, when the facility becomes available. It is now scheduled to open in April 1998, almost 19 years after WIPP construction was authorized by the U.S. Congress. The opening of WIPP is contingent upon DOE receiving EPAšs certificate of compliance and a favorable Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-related decision by the State of New Mexico.
Although many programs specifically address the legacy wastes at the DOE sites, facilities that routinely generate wastes from continued operation have been placed in an awkward position.In conformance with all applicable mandates from the U.S. Congress and the President, all federal facilities are required to reduce waste generation by 50% by 1999, using baselines established several years ago. However, corrective actions mandated by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for safety issues, as well as insufficient financial resources, have limited their ability to comply with the above laws and regulations in the near term.
An unexpected new source of TRU wastes headed for WIPP will result if one of the DOE sites declares a large portion of its actinide residue inventory as waste. The alternatives proposed for managing the plutonium residues at Rocky Flats have a common feature: packaging and shipping from 3.1 M tons to 6.3 M tons of plutonium from Colorado to New Mexico in the most expeditious manner. This approach, if it takes place, will merely transfer the problems of material chemistry, confinement, and storage from the present location to another location outside Colorado. It seems that the only criterion used in developing the strategies is a reduction in the mortgage for on-site storage. The relative abundance of plutonium in these residues would also pose serious nuclear material safeguards concerns. The alternatives presented by Rocky Flats have the potential to increase the plutonium content of WIPP wastes by at least 100% (possibly 200%) of the previous estimates. This dramatic change in the role of WIPP to that of a dump for excess plutonium has the potential to create additional problems and delays for opening WIPP.
Although there are large allocations of resources to manage legacy wastes, the management of newly generated wastes has been relatively neglected in DOE's planning. The present and future operating plans for plutonium facilities within the DOE complex require compliance with all existing environmental regulations and the special regulations that are applicable only to federal facilities. Following the passage of the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act, both the EPA and DOE have proposed a variety of waste minimization and pollution prevention goals. The U.S. industry has demonstrated significant progress in pollution prevention through major process changes, resource recovery and recycling, and investments in new technologies. Because the DOE was late in adopting the mission of environmental management, a new strategy is necessary to hasten progress in waste minimization within the DOE weapons complex.
According to recent reports by the General Accounting Office and the National Research Council, the ambitious plan now pursued by DOE for waste minimization and pollution prevention is eclipsed by internal organizational problems and unrealistic expectations. An operating facility such as the Plutonium Processing Facility at Los Alamos must comply with all environmental regulations and other mandates. However, the Defense Program Office of DOE, which uses the facility, has invested very little in new technologies needed to meet these mandates. Governments may regulate, environmentalists may agitate, but it is only the technology experts who can innovate to solve the problems of waste generation. Let us hope that they will be listened to and their advice taken.
NMT |
LANL |
DOE
Phone Book |
Search |
Help/Info
L O S A L A M O S
N A T I O N A L
L A B O R A T O R Y
Operated by the University of California for the US Department of
Energy
Questions? - Copyright © UC 1996 - Disclaimer 26 June 1996