The 12th International Conference on Environmental ... - Events

Abstracts Session 4
<strong>The</strong> strategy is founded on the Waste Management Hierarchy. It focuses on the avoidance and minimisation of waste, and the
implementation of a range of techniques/approaches to process and dispose of generated waste. <strong>The</strong> strategy does not dictate where
the capability should be developed, rather that it should be developed, in accordance with the national strategy, and should be supported
by business cases and environmental justifications. A phased implementation approach is anticipated, with the ultimate aim
being a suite of capabilities that enable practical, cost-effective application of the WMH. <strong>The</strong> main aspects are
• Increase the focus on waste avoidance
• Further develop the characterisation function
• Develop a sorting and segregation capability
• Develop a thermal treatment capability
• Develop a metal decontamination capability
• Develop a specified landfill capability
• Review the requirement for additional on-site / near site landfill
4) REGULATORY REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY SAFETY ASSESSMENT
FOR THE BAITA BIHOR REPOSITORY, ROMANIA - 16031
Enrique Biurrun, Bernt Haverkamp, DBE Technology GmbH, (Germany);
Klaus-Jürgen Röhlig, Clausthal University of Technology, (Germany)
In the framework of a PHARE project DBE TECHNOLOGY GmbH carried out a regulatory review of the preliminary Safety
Assessment Report for the near surface LILW repository Băiţa-Bihor, Romania.
During the review process several shortcomings of the PSAR from the regulatory point of view were identified. Main findings
concerned shortcomings in regard to the operational safety, especially in the field of mining safety. From the regulatory point of
view, the long-term calculations appeared to lack a sufficient level of conservatism and the necessary clarity and traceability that
would be required to allow a proper evaluation of the concept used for calculating the long-term radionuclide migration and the
particular results of the PSAR.
Respective recommendations were drafted for the Romanian regulator about the changes that should be implemented in the
next version of the PSAR.
Another focus of this project was an investigation on the potential implementation of the Hydraulic Cage Concept for Băiţa-
Bihor. This concept, which originally was developed by DBE TEC for implementation at the Richard Repository, Czech Republic,
helped to decrease the potential future radiological impact for the Richard repository. As the geological situation and the condition
of the waste packages are similar for the two repositories, the Hydraulic Cage Concept or some adaption of itseemed be an obvious
choice to improve the safety of the Băiţa-Bihor repository should that turn out to be necessary. During execution of the project,
it was found that depending on the outcome of the next revised version of the PSAR it seems rather probable that some kind
of measure might be needed to reduce the potential radiological impact. According to the outcome of the project, an adapted simplified
Hydraulic Cage System would be a possible solution to limit the potential future radiological impact.
5) AN OVERVIEW OF US EPAS CURRENT RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND GENERAL RADIATION PROTECTION EFFORTS – 16104
Tom Peake, Loren Setlow, Daniel Schultheisz, Ken Czyscinski, US Environmental Protection Agency, (USA)
<strong>The</strong> United States Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Radiation Protection Division is the portion of EPA (or the
Agency) that develops environmental standards for radioactive waste disposal in the United States. One current issue of concern is
the disposal of low activity radioactive waste (LAW), including wastes that would be produced by a radiological dispersal device
(RDD), for which current disposal options may be either inconsistent with the hazard presented by the material or logistically problematic.
Another major issue is related to the resurgence in uranium mining. Over the past several years, demand for uranium for
nuclear power plant fuel has increased as has the price. <strong>The</strong> increase in price has made uranium mining potentially profitable in the
US. EPA is reviewing its relevant regulations, developed primarily in the 1980s, for potential revisions. For example, in-situ leaching
(also known as in-situ recovery) is now the technology of choice where applicable, yet our current environmental standards are
focused on conventional uranium milling. EPA has two actions in process, one related to the Clean Air Act, the other related to
revising the environmental standards that implement the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). Separately,
but related, EPA has developed over the last several years uranium mining documents that address technologically enhanced
natural occurring radioactive materials (TENORM) from abandoned uranium mines, and wastes generated by active uranium
extraction facilities.
Lastly, in 1977 EPA developed environmental standards that address nuclear energy, fuel fabrication, reprocessing, and other
aspects of the uranium fuel cycle. In light of the increased interest in nuclear power and the potential implementation of advanced
fuel cycle technologies, the Agency is now reviewing the standards to determine their continued applicability for the twenty-first
century.
6) ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR
LOW ACTIVITY RADIOACTIVE WASTE – 16192
Keith Anderson, ECC (USA)
U.S. Government and Private decommissioning and remediation activities at nuclear sites and facilities often generate in large
volumes and mass radioactive waste that is of low activity. In large part, the low activity radioactive waste generated from decommissioning
and remediation activities are below regulatory limits for low level radioactive waste, while not meeting site specific
dose and risk-based cleanup criteria. Policies and strategies for the remediation, management, and disposal of low activity radioactive
waste in these circumstances often explore alternative options to fully licensed disposal. Primary goals in exploring alternative
disposal options are protection of the public and the environment, while achieve a cost-effective solution. Vague regulations and
arbitrary interpretation by federal and state regulators may enhance alternative disposal options or quash efforts by those conduct-
59