| |
Despite
the limited choices for disposal of low-level radioactive waste
(LLRW) nationwide, the existing landfills aren't concerned about
running out of capacity any time soon. That's certainly the case
for the LLRW disposal facility operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems
LLC in Barnwell, South Carolina. At Barnwell, LLRW volumes received
in recent years have been falling faster than the rate at which
the state of South Carolina is ratcheting down the allowable
volumes for disposal.
Over the course of the decade to come, however, the nation could
still face a capacity crunch for LLRW disposal. That eventuality
will depend on a combination of market forces and federal and
state disposal policy, and therefore is hard to predict, according
to Jim Latham, vice president of operations for Chem-Nuclear,
which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Duratek Inc. (Columbia,
Mary.). "Over a ten-year window, I don't know what the options
will be," he remarks. "If there is a new disposal site,
that might solve the problem, but there isn't one today. Clearly,
the nation will be faced with significant radioactive waste management
decisions over the next ten years."
The saga of LLRW disposal goes back to the early 1980s, when
federal legislation authorized the states to form "compacts,"
with the states in each compact cooperating on the siting, construction,
and operation of regional disposal facilities to serve only the
compacts members. The compacts were formed, each made attempts
to site LLRW disposal facilities, and all efforts failed for
reasons particular to each initiative. California and Nebraska
came closest to developing facilities but fell short, and in
California's case, the private contractor-American Ecology (Boise,
Id.) is seeking $160 million in damages from the state in
a breach-of-contract suit.
Today, only two facilities-the Barnwell facility and American
Ecology's landfill in Richland, Washington-area available to
take Class A, B, and C LLRW, while the Envirocare of Utah facility
in Clive, Utah, is now licensed to accept Class A LLRW. In fact,
the receipt of Class A wastes-contaminated "rags, tags and
bags"-at the Envirocare facility has meant a reduction in
the volumes of those wastes going to Barnwell. "Some Class
A waste coming here a few years ago might now head west, because
it is cheaper," notes Latham. "They have a lower tax
structure in Utah." The balance of Class B wastes, which
includes contaminated filters and resigns, and Class C wastes
such as irradiated hardware has thus increased at Barnwell, Latham
says.
Overall, however, the volume of waste sent to Barnwell for disposal
has been decreasing since 1982. The majority of the waste going
to Barnwell comes from power plants, which have undertaken a
number of initiatives to reduce their waste volumes. "The
generators have been incinerate their wastes, which reduces the
volume considerably," Latham remarks. In addition, "whereas
they may have previously taken wet wastes and turned them into
concrete, now they are more likely to extract water from the
waste, through vacuum extraction or heated drying, and that reduces
the volume as well. The generators are asking, how do you get
the best bang for the buck? So they choose a combination of processing
and disposal."
Whether the compact system forced generators to engage in volume
reduction, or whether sheer economics prompted such decisions
"is hard to say, but those two factors seemed to work together,"
notes Latham. The compact system therefore may have failed as
an attempt to force the states to deal with the LLRW generated
within their borders, but it appears to have played a role in
encouraging the generators to manage their wastes more responsibly.
During 2001, the Barnwell facility received 129,000 cubic
feet of LLRW-well below the state's cap of 160,000 cubic feet,
according to Latham. The cap falls to 80,000 cubic feet this
year, 70,000 cubic feet next year, and 60,000 cubic
feet the following year. Yet the waste volumes sent to Barnwell
are likely to remain well within those limits; Latham estimates
that volume accepted during fiscal year ending on June 30, 2002,
will be in the range of 45,000 to 50,000 cubic feet.
Under the terms of its license with the state of South Carolina,
as of July 1, 2008, the Barnwell facility will no longer accept
LLRW from wastes outside of a compact consisting of the host
state, Connecticut, and New Jersey. How Chem-Nuclear will operate
under a scenario of declining volumes up to that point and thereafter,
Latham finds it difficult to predict. "If it should become
economically unfeasible to operate with these decreasing volumes,
we'd have to make some business decisions," he remarks.
"We might go to a campaign-style operation for a month or
two, then do maintenance. It might be more economical to do that
rather than stay open all the time. But 2008 is six years away,
and I don't like to predict beyond that."
Latham observes that the technologies available for LLRW disposal
have changed little since 1996, when the company began using
multilayer caps, concrete vaults, and improved moisture collection
systems. Both the Barnwell facility and generator facilities
have steadily improved their quality-assurance programs, he notes,
but otherwise, operating improvements have been incremental.
"We're always looking at little changes to work smarter."
n
###
This article appeared in
Environmental
Business Journal Volume XIV No.7/8 2002
Special
Offer: This EBJ issue + 5 data tables
|
