While the Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) hopes the Department of Energy will change what it considers high-level radioactive waste, it has not forgotten the federal agency still owes Congress a report on the issue.
The ECA asked the House and Senate Armed Services committees on Tuesday to “attempt to require” compliance with a provision of the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that directed DOE to submit a report on the potential impact of reclassifying certain defense nuclear waste as something other than high-level.
The Energy Department is more than a year late in filing the report, which was due Feb. 1, 2018.
The Energy Communities Alliance represents local governments near DOE weapons complex sites, some of which are storing the high-level waste in question.
In the letter, signed by ECA Chairman Ron Woody, county executive for Roane County, Tenn., the organization asks to meet with the committees to discuss the issue.
The highly radioactive material from nuclear reprocessing is now stored at places such as the Hanford Site in Washington state, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, the Idaho National Laboratory, and the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York.
In October, DOE’s nuclear cleanup office requested public comment on how the agency should interpret the definition of high-level waste. The comment period ended Jan. 9.
The ECA and groups such as the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council, and the Energy Facility Contractors Group (EFCOG) favor DOE’s proposal to classify HLW based more on its radiological traits than its origin. The organizations claim a significant amount of material is now classified as high-level although its radiological traits suggest it could be treated as something less restrictive, such as transuranic waste, reaping major cost savings for the government and speeding permanent disposal of some waste.
The measure is opposed by groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the state governments of Oregon and Washington. Among other things, critics say the DOE proposal is contrary to law because congress has already spoken to the issue.
