In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

102 Fuel Cycle to Nowhere C.F.R. Section 60.2 (for waste destined for geologic repositories) and 10 C.F.R. Section 63.2 (for Yucca Mountain specifically) include SNF, liquid, and solid reprocessing wastes in their definitions of HLW. Section 60.2 offers this: “HLW means: (1) Irradiated reactor fuel, (2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and (3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted.”82 Section 63.2 is slightly more flexible, as it also includes “other highly radioactive material that the [NRC], consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation,” but otherwise the two definitions are the same.83 The NRC definition, which echoes AEC’s original 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix F definition, removes some of the ambiguities in the NWPA definition, but in doing so it seems to include all liquid and solid reprocessing wastes as HLW. This would seemingly remove the flexibility potentially afforded by NWPA to classify as nonHLW some solid reprocessing waste components with relatively low radioactivity on the ground that they do not have “sufficient concentrations” of radioactivity to require their disposal in a repository. Because DOE manages nearly all existing HLW, its own interpretation is also highly significant. The DOE Order 435.1 Radioactive Waste Management Manual definition of HLW repeats verbatim Subsection (A) of the NWPA definition of HLW but substitutes for Subsection (B) “other highly radioactive material that is determined, consistent with existing law, to require permanent isolation,” thereby removing any reference to NRC and implying that DOE is to make such determinations itself.84 The interrelation between the HLW definitions in the DOE manual, NRC regulations , and NWPA has been a source of controversy relating to the classification or reclassification of HLW. NWPA does not explicitly apply to defense waste managed by DOE at its facilities, although it requires that all wastes that are classified as HLW be disposed of at a geologic repository licensed by NRC pursuant to the act, and NRC regulations apply to the packaging and handling of the waste transported to the repository.85 Further, after enactment of NWPA, AEA was amended by Congress to adopt the NWPA definition; the amended AEA might accordingly be construed to apply the NWPA definition to waste managed by DOE.86 If so, NRC might assert the authority to interpret the ambiguous provisions in subsection (A) of the NWPA HLW definition and make the determinations provided in subsection (B) with respect to DOE wastes. An important issue for future policy is whether certain reprocessing wastes can be separated out and appropriately disposed of as other than HLW, which requires extensive and costly predisposal treatment, such as vitrification, and then disposal in a deep geologic repository. After the demise of Yucca, no such repository is in sight. HLW Reclassification Initiatives This section reviews the legal and policy issues presented by DOE plans for classifying and disposing of certain reprocessing wastes as LLW, rather than disposing of them as HLW in a repository. Given the high costs of treating and vitrifying wastes for repository disposal and the uncertainty as to whether or when a repository to receive such wastes may be available, the issues involved have broad policy significance. The NAS Radioactive Waste Classification and Regulation 103 Committee on Risk-Based Approaches for Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste analyzed the HLW stored at Hanford, SRS, and INL, and found that many components of these wastes posed hazards similar to class C or lower LLW and could be safely disposed of in LLW facilities for such wastes (whether on or off DOE sites), thereby achieving significant resource savings and, in many cases, earlier disposal.87 The first DOE reclassification initiative concerned tank waste residues. In the late 1980s, DOE concluded that it would not be practicable or prudent in some cases to remove all the reprocessing wastes held in tanks at Hanford and SRS for treatment and disposal as HLW. Their unique chemistry and characteristics made complete retrieval of certain wastes quite difficult, even with advanced technology.88 Citing technical difficulties , high costs, and worker safety risks in trying to extract the entirety of the wastes in some tanks, DOE planned to leave a waste “tank heel”—a relatively small amount of waste sludge—in the tanks after diluting it with cement...

Share