The public has 60 days to weigh in on a proposal to modify the fashion in which the Department of Energy classifies “high-level radioactive waste” (HLW), following publication Wednesday of a formal notice in the Federal Register.
The Energy Department announced Oct. 4 it would seek to classify HLW more on its radioactive traits and less on its source of origin. That could expedite the process for final disposal of some of that material, now stored at DOE sites around the country.
Under the proposed change, reprocessing waste could be treated as non-HLW if it does not exceed concentration limits for Class C low-level radioactive waste, or if it does not require disposal in a deep geologic repository and meets certain other criteria.
The reprocessing waste, which could be affected by the classification revision, is held at the Hanford Site in Washington state, Savannah River Site in South Carolina, Idaho National Laboratory, and the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York state.
Much of what DOE calls high-level waste already meets disposal requirements as Class A, B, or C low-level radioactive waste, although the agency has not disposed of it that way, Assistant Energy Secretary for Environmental Management Anne Marie White said in September.
Commercial low-level radioactive disposal facilities are operated by Waste Control Specialists in Texas, US Ecology in Washington state, and Energy Solutions in Utah and South Carolina. The Energy Department’s Nevada National Security Site also offers disposal of low-level, mixed-low-level, and classified wastes.
A “risk-based approach” could open up commercial sites to receive some of the waste, Waste Control Specialists President and Chief Operating Officer David Carlson told RadWaste Monitor on Thursday
“Waste Control Specialists believes that DOE’s proposed interpretation of the definition of high-level radioactive waste is appropriate and provides a significant improvement over the current interpretation,” he said by email. The proposal is cheaper and more efficient than the existing interpretation, while still protecting public health and safety, Carlson added.
The Washington, D.C.-based Energy Communities Alliance (ECA), which represents local governments around Energy Department properties, has pressed for the update. Much of the material in question is not truly high-level waste, according to the nongovernmental organization.
Both the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 say not all wastes from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel are high-level. Until a policy decision is made, DOE “will continue its current practice of managing all its reprocessing wastes as if they were HLW unless and until a specific waste is determined to be another category of waste,” the notice says.
ECA Director of Nuclear Programs Kara Colton said Wednesday the group intends to file comments prior to the Dec. 10 deadline in support of the change. She noted, though, that even if the department revises its interpretation, that could be undone by a future administration. So ECA still intends to seek legislation to amend the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and address the high-level waste definition.
“We are not that far down the road with legislation,” Colton said.
In a September 2017 report, ECA said DOE could save $40 billion in cleanup costs across the weapons complex by reclassifying waste based on risk. There is over 90 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste around the complex, typically stored in tanks at DOE sites. The ECA document suggested waste now classified as high-level could be treated as low-level or transuranic waste, depending on radiological traits. Reclassification could maximize usage of existing disposal sites, rather than requiring new facilities, according to the group.
The DOE-level reinterpretation might not be a slam dunk.
Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Nevada, Democratic Reps. Dina Titus and Jacky Rosen, have expressed misgivings connected to decades-old efforts to send nuclear waste to the state. “This move to reinterpret the definition of high-level nuclear waste is nothing more than a backdoor Yucca Mountain,” Titus said in a press release last week. “By redefining the term ‘high-level nuclear waste,’ various communities across the country will be given the greenlight to ship hazardous, radioactive materials to Nevada without our consent,” Rosen said.
If funded, licensed, and built, the repository at Yucca Mountain would be designated for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste from defense nuclear operations and spent reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants.
While Congress in 1987 directed that this material go into Yucca Mountain, today’s lawmakers have refused the Trump administration’s efforts to fund the licensing process that has been moribund for nearly a decade.
Rosen is running to unseat Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), himself a vocal Yucca Mountain foe. Heller, in an Oct. 5 letter, asked Energy Secretary Rick Perry to clarify some issues.
Heller said he fears any HLW reclassification could “circumvent the restrictions on Yucca Mountain that I marshaled into law.” The senator wants to ensure the redefinition is not part of “a larger ploy to defeat the will of Congress and the clear and consistent opposition of the state of Nevada.” Among other questions, he wants DOE to provide details within two weeks on how much HLW could be redesignated, where it is now located, and whether this result in new waste streams being brought into Nevada
Nuclear Watch New Mexico is unimpressed by the DOE proposal, Scott Kovac, the organization’s operations and research director, said by email Wednesday.
“DOE is refusing to admit what huge problem the HLW at Hanford and other sites is and is trying to have public relations victory by shipping some (any) of the waste off site, even some ‘LLW,'” Kovac said.
The proposal is generic and lacks important data on estimated waste volumes, disposal measures, and any projected cost savings, Kovac said. It is more expensive for DOE to characterize different waste streams “rather than treating all the waste the same,” he added.
“From my vantage point working on SRS [Savannah River Site] issues, it appears that this attempt to change the definition of high-level radioactive waste is mainly driven by the aim to cut the cost of waste disposal,” Tom Clements, director of South Carolina-based SRS Watch, said by email Wednesday.
Some at SRS see it as easier and less costly to push for taking canisters of vitrified waste – now classified as HLW – to DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, rather than leaving them at the South Carolina facility until some unknown repository for high-level or defense waste is built, Clements added.
Comments on the DOE proposal can be sent to [email protected].
