science for em cleanup? kevin d. crowley director board on radioactive waste management the national...

SCIENCE for EM Cleanup?

Kevin D. CrowleyDirector

Board on Radioactive Waste ManagementThe National Academies

Presentation to BERAC, December 4, 2002 2

National Academies’ EM Science Program Studies

+ One more report to come (Nuclear Materials)

The opinions expressed in this presentation are personal views informed by this work

Photo credits: National Academies Press


“Intractable” Problems Defined

It depends on who the audience is …

Scientist: Knowledge/technology does not exist to address the problem

Policymaker: Problem cannot be addressed within available time or budget constraints

Regulator: Problem cannot be addressed without exposing workers/public to unacceptable risks or violating other regulatory requirements

… Science can help to address all three types of problems


The DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex ...

Over 100 sites & 5,000 facilities

5 “high-cost” sites: Hanford INEEL NTS Oak Ridge Savannah River

Figure credit: American Scientist


Some Basic Facts About Cleanup

It’s not about complete contaminant removal … Goal is to put waste/contaminants into a more stable

form—not to remediate sites for unrestricted release Over 100 sites will not be cleaned up completely—

some will require indefinite stewardship Work on most difficult problems has been postponed

It’s not about science either … Program is driven by over 7,0000 milestones and is

budget constrained There is a strong bias toward baseline approaches There is “never enough time” to do the necessary

science


Cleanup Challenges: Hanford Example

Large waste volumesDiverse physical/chemical formsRadioactive and toxic waste

Poor storage conditionsEnvironmental releases

Figure credits: American Scientist


Accelerated Cleanup = Less Time For Science

Goals of DOE’s Accelerated Clean-Up Initiative: Reduce the $220B-$300B program cost by $100B Reduce program completion by 40 years, from 2070

to 2030 Accelerate shipment of waste to disposal sites, and

also reduce amount of waste to be shipped. Focus science and technology on “critical path” (to

site closure) and “high-risk” problems Eleven sites have signed letters of intent to accelerate

cleanup: http://www.em.doe.gov/cri.html Detailed plans are under development Bottom Line: There will be less time for new science to

be developed and used


Intractable Problems … A 30,000’ View

Problem #1: High-Level Waste 340,000 cubic meters, 2.4 billion curies, ~$55B

(DOE) Stored in underground tanks at Hanford (177)

and Savannah River (49) and in stainless steel bin-sets/concrete vaults (5) at INEEL

INEEL waste is in solid form in robust storage Hanford and Savannah River waste is in

liquid/solid form in aging underground tanks 76 tanks (67 Hanford, 9 Savannah River) are

known “leakers” Some tanks are potentially vulnerable to

accidents, acts of God, and terrorism


HLW: Should it all be retrieved? Will retrieval lead to additional environmental contamination?

Technical Challenges: Characterization Retrieval Immobilization

Photo credits: Bottom: DOE-Hanford; Top: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory


HLW Tanks: How clean is clean enough? How should tanks be dispositioned?

Technical Challenges: Characterization Contaminant stabilization

Photo credit: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Figure credit: DOE-Hanford

Photo credit: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory


Intractable Problems, continued

Problem #2: Buried Waste 6.2 million cubic meters, 50 million curies, $??? TRU, LLW, hazardous waste Solids & liquids Haphazard shallow-land burial (most < 30 m

depth) Hundreds of sites across the complex Poor records of locations and contents Many burial sites are leaking contaminants to

the environment


Buried waste: Remove orstabilize in place?

Technical challenges: Characterization Contaminant stabilization Remediation Monitoring

Photo/figure credits:Left and center: DOE-Savannah RiverUpper right: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory


Intractable Problems, continued

Problem #3: Contaminated Soil/Groundwater 29 million cubic meters contaminated soil 36 million cubic meters of mill tailings 4.7 billion cubic meters contaminated groundwater Chemicals, metals, and radionuclides Thousands of release sites across the complex Contaminant concentrations may exceed drinking

water standards at some sites for hundreds of years Complete contaminant stabilization/removal not

feasible with current technologies Perpetual monitoring, periodic re-remediation?


Soil/GW contamination: Where? How much? How to remediate?

Technical challenges: Characterization Stabilization Remediation Monitoring

Photo credits:Upper Right: DOE-HanfordUpper left: DOE-Savannah RiverLower left: DOE-Oak Ridge


Honorable Mentions

Deactivation and Decommissioning: Expensive, time consuming, potentially hazardous to workers, but not intractable

Orphan Waste Streams & Materials (e.g., DU): These exist across the complex but are not long-term program “show-stoppers”

Radiation Effects: A good first-order understanding exists; research is not likely to lead to changes in standards in time to affect the clean-up program

Long-Term Stewardship: A potential “elephant in the living room,” especially if the clean-up program cuts corners; technical and institutional concerns


Science: Needed for Cleanup

Solving problems associated with remediation baselines—but may not know what these are until failures occur (e.g., SRS alt. salt project)

Developing alternative approaches—e.g., new HLW forms that meet waste-acceptance criteria but can accommodate a wider range of waste compositions and loadings (reduce baseline plan for 19,000 HLW glass canisters @ $1M-$2M each)

Understanding the consequences of action or inaction—e.g., What happens if buried waste is left in place? What happens if HLW leaks into the subsurface during retrieval?


Concluding Thoughts

What kind of a program does ERSD want to be? A traditional bottoms-up DOE research program? Or a top-down program that anticipates needs

and is proactive in addressing them? An anticipatory, proactive program needs to be

inside the EM “fence” and in-synch with clean-up schedules and plans to be maximally effective

The challenge will be to incorporate the best of both top-down (program-driven) and bottoms-up (investigator-driven) approaches

Are there other research programs that can serve as guides for ERSD?

science for em cleanup? kevin d. crowley director board on radioactive waste management the national...

Documents

savannah river waste

ineelineel waste

disposal sites

shipment of waste

new science

cleanup challenges

b program cost

em cleanup