Put Title Here Put SubTitle Here

Nuclear Waste and the Defense Nuclear Legacy: An Overview of the Challenge in the United States

November 7, 2013 1

David S. Kosson, Ph.D. Cornelius Vanderbilt Professor of Engineering

Vanderbilt University

• Many of the slides used were provided by DOE – Office Environmental Management.

• I am not representing the DOE in any manner and any opinions expressed are solely my own.

• DOE-EM provided support for my participation here through CRESP.

Acknowledgement & Disclaimer

2

3

National Agencies and Organizations

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission • Environmental Protection Agency • Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board • Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board • National Research Council of The National

Academies • Advocacy organizations

4

www.energy.gov/EM 5

Atomic Energy Commission – Mid 1950’s to Mid 1960’s

Linking Legacies, DOE-EM, 1997

D. Huizenga, EM-1, FY 13 Budget Request, 2-2012

D. Huizenga, EM-1, FY 13 Budget Request, 2-2012

www.energy.gov/EM 8

Sites Remaining in 2012AK

HI

PR

EM Historical Cleanup Sites

Completed cleanup on 90 of 107 former nuclear weapons and research sites

EM Has Significantly Reduced Risks to the Environment and Public

A. Williams, Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary For Environmental Management, 10-30-2013

D. Huizenga, EM-1, 2-2013

D. Huizenga, EM-1, 2-2013

D. Huizenga, EM-1, 2-2013

D. Huizenga, EM-1, 2-2013

K. Picha, EM-DAS, 12-2012

K. Picha, EM-DAS, 12-2012

K. Picha, EM-DAS, 12-2012

Graphics courtesy of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

D. Huizenga, EM-1, 2-2013

Hanford Groundwater Plumes and Site Layout

Graphics courtesy of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

D. Huizenga, EM-1, 2-2013

20 Courtesy of K. Smith, Mgr., Office of River Protection

Hanford High Level Waste Tanks

Single Shell Tank (SST) Double Shell Tank (DST)

149 SSTs (constructed 1943-1964), 28 DSTs Typical: 23m diameter , 9 to 16m tall; 200 to 3,800 m3

22 Courtesy of K. Smith, Mgr., Office of River Protection

23 Courtesy of K. Smith, Mgr., Office of River Protection

Hanford Regional Stakeholders

• Local and Regional Public • State of Washington, including Depts. of Ecology

and Health • State of Oregon • 4 Tribal Nations • Elected Officials • Hanford Advisory Board • Local and regional advocacy groups • Contractors and Unions

26

www.energy.gov/EM 27

Environmental Management Priorities

• Activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in the EM

complex • Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and disposal • Spent nuclear fuel storage, receipt, and disposition • Special nuclear material consolidation, processing, and

disposition • High risk soil and groundwater remediation • Transuranic and mixed/low-level waste disposition • Soil and groundwater remediation • Excess facilities deactivation and decommissioning

A. Williams, Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary For Environmental Management, 10-30-2013

www.energy.gov/EM 28

Tank Waste

SNM/SNF

TRU Waste

LLW & MLLW

Facility D&D, Soil & Groundwater

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

Year

of E

xpen

ditu

re D

olla

rs (B

illio

ns)

Year

The Life-Cycle Cost of the EM Program: Approximately $200 Billion in Costs to Go

• The EM legacy cleanup program is forecasted to continue past 2060 with “to go” costs of up to $209 billion.

• Tank waste activities are the most costly of EM’s cleanup activities.

• Facility D&D, soil and groundwater activities represent the second most costly cleanup activity.

A. Williams, Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary For Environmental Management, 10-30-2013

www.energy.gov/EM 29

Compliance, Risk, and Priority Setting

• Environmental Compliance: One of EM’s top program drivers • Different environmental statutes drive different removal

end points • Location of points of compliance (risk envelope)

• Risk prioritization: Existing processes provide the framework • Sequence and schedule – Federal Facility Agreements and

Consent Orders • Remedy Selection – CERCLA Nine Criteria and Waste

Determinations/Disposal Authorization Statements • Decisions regarding cleanup priorities need to be risk-informed

to provide a balanced approach • Protection of human health and the environment • Consideration of future use and sustainability –

environmental, social, and economic

A. Williams, Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary For Environmental Management, 10-30-2013

www.energy.gov/EM 30

Risk-informed Decision Making

Savannah River Tank 5 Heel Removal (Tank Interior)

• Manage environmental contamination and waste in a manner that balances protection of human health and the environment and cost effectiveness for current and future generations

• Will be necessary to leave residual waste in place • Allows for natural attenuation • Integrates stewardship into holistic, life-cycle

management options • Requires further development of predictive

modeling and visualization, and monitoring and sensor technologies

• Recognizes U.S. Government’s long term commitment to monitoring and other institutional controls

Natural attenuation of uranium contamination at the 300 area , Hanford site A. Williams, Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary

For Environmental Management, 10-30-2013

www.energy.gov/EM 31

• How do we take a more comprehensive and integrated approach to balancing impacts of addressing environmental contamination risk? • Short-term and long term impacts? • Worker and community impacts? • Local and global impacts? • Cost and risk mitigation? • End states and future use?

• How do we (or should we) change the basic question of “How clean is

clean?” to “How much residual waste can remain and still ensure protectiveness?”?

• How do we expand our thinking about risk and sustainability to best manage existing risks and execute our mission?

Challenge

A. Williams, Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary For Environmental Management, 10-30-2013

Risk Informed Decisions

Human judgment further informs decisions

Community views/Congressional Mandates, etc. Always Augment the Analysis

Risk Characterization

Risk Management

Put Title Here Put SubTitle Here

David Kosson (PI)1 , Charles Powers (Co-PI)1 The CRESP III Management Board Craig Benson8, Joanna Burger2, James Clarke1, Michael Greenberg2, Kathryn Higley3, Kimberly Jones4, Steve Krahn1, Shlomo Neuman7, Ron Rousseau9, Richard Stewart5 and the Co-PI’s 1Vanderbilt University, 2Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 3Oregon State University, 4Howard University, 5New York University, 6Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 7University of Arizona, 8University of Wisconsin- Madison, 9Georgia Institute of Technology

Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation

Put Title Here Put SubTitle Here

Certainty

Credibility Capability

Confidence in environmental

management decisions

Support safe, effective, publicly-credible, risk-informed management of existing and future nuclear waste from government and civilian sources through independent strategic analysis, review, applied research and education.

www.CRESP.org

CRESP Provides Unique Capability Focus on assisting decision making for DOE strategic planning and investments: • Consideration of and input from broad range of

stakeholders • Developing proof-of-concepts with multi-disciplinary

teams – Science & Engineering – Safety, Health & Environment – Policy, Economics & Law

• Independent review & assessment 35

CRESP Provides Unique Capability

• Practical solutions to complex challenges that are scientifically sound and unbiased

• Examples: – Oak Ridge risk-informed prioritization – Fish consumption fact sheet – Landfills management – Amchitka ecological assessment – Low-level waste disposition

36

Develop a reasonable and credible set of tools to predict the structural, hydraulic and chemical performance of cement barriers used in nuclear applications over extended time frames (e.g., up to and >100 years for operating facilities and >1000 years for waste management).

Inflow

Outflow

R

Stagnant zone Radial Diffusion

Inflow

Outflow

Diffusion

Advection

www.CementBarriers.org

A Substantial New Literature On Nuclear Waste Law, Policy

and Public Perception

38

Nuclear Waste Management Policy

and Strategy

Stakeholder Engagement and Communication

Current Activities

• Nuclear safety support – Safety Culture, Use of PRAs, Integration of chemical

and nuclear safety • Cementitious Barriers Partnership

– Saltstone system performance issues – Waste form evaluation & selection – Tank integrity and closure performance – Impacts of cracking, carbonation, oxidation

• EPA Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework implementation wrt DOE-EM

Waste Processing & Special Nuclear

Materials

Current Activities

• Crystallization and Particle Technology – In-situ/ in-process particle size distribution

measurement – Sulfur separation

• Cross-flow filtration – Strategies to minimize fouling during waste

processing • Glass formulation review • TRA guidance update support (EM) • TRA development for NE

Waste Processing & Special Nuclear

Materials

Current Activities

• Landfills Partnership – Engagement with state & federal regulators, sites

(NRC, EPA, West Valley, Paducah, Portsmouth) – Full-scale field performance of landfills (validity of

PA assumptions) – Cover and liner barrier performance prediction

• Long-term performance of near-surface isolation systems – Impact of site-specific factors and

climate change on design requirements and long-term performance

Remediation, Near Surface Disposal &

Long-term Stewardship

Opportunities for AIChE - NuClean • Education

– Nuclear Environmental Engineering as part of undergraduate and graduate curricula

– Professional development – Public Education and Outreach

• Leadership regarding nuclear chemical processing & safety

• Advocating for applicable research – Nuclear chemical processing – Waste processing – Environmental clean up