Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

3.46
An eighth issue area is the transportation of nuclear waste material. Concerns about
accidents, sabotage, and thefts of material in transit are at the core of these concerns and
so relate to the issues previously mentioned.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently in a rulemaking process con-
cerning transportation of high-level nuclear wastes (45 FR 7140). Further, current regula-
tions of both DOT and NRC are considered to adequately protect public health and safety
(49 CFR, Parts 173 and 177).
The irreversibility of geologic waste disposal is the core of a ninth issue. The argu-
ment has been made that because of its apparent irreversibility we should delay implementing
geologic isolation until we are more certain that the wastes will not be used now or in the
future. Other arguments for delay include keeping the wastes retrievable for 20 to 30 years
in case something goes wrong in the repository or in case a better method is devised in this
period. However, the argument has also been made that disposal methods that are technically
impossible to reverse offer the best solution to isolating the wastes from man.
In its Statement of Position (DOE-NE-0007) of April 1980, the Department outlined its
"step-wise" approach. This conservative approach would store a limited quantity of material
under well understood conditions and then proceed in a series of small steps so that the
material could be retrieved should unanticipated problems make the system unacceptable. NRC
has also reflected this approach in a recently issued draft of possible technical regula-
tions which would require the capability of retrievability for 50 years after emplacement
operations have ceased. The ability to retrieve the wastes during the initial periods of
operation is seen as one of the main advantages of mined geologic repositories.
The tenth issue area involves the distinction drawn between commercial and military
wastes. Some have argued that no distinction should be made on the constraints of the man-
agement of the two wastes, while others have argued that they should be kept distinct
because of the very different physical nature of the wastes.
The Presidential message of February 12, 1980 specifically directs that the radioactive
waste management program seek to isolate and dispose of wastes from both civilian and mili-
tary activities.
International responsibilities form an eleventh area of concern. The waste issue is
larger than U.S. boundaries because of technology export and import of wastes and because
of possible international solutions to the waste problem. Worldwide releases of radio-
activity may cause health and genetic problems which respect no national boundaries. Fur-
ther, concern has been expressed that in lesser developed countries, cost concerns could
lead to an inadequate waste management plan. Since much of the nuclear waste is now pro-
duced in foreign reactors, some of which are U.S. exports, the argument has been made that
the U.S. must show leadership in solving the nuclear waste problem. An international waste
management authority has been proposed to handle these problems.
The Department of Energy is mindful of international responsibilities for nuclear waste
and is participating in a number of bilateral and multilateral programs to deal with nuclear
waste. Examples are a cooperative investigation with Sweden at a mine in Stripa, Sweden, a