WASHINGTON — While more than three months have passed since the public comment period closed, the Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) is “trying to keep this conversation going” on reinterpreting what material should be deemed high-level radioactive waste (HLW) by the Department of Energy.
That was the word Wednesday from the ECA’s director of nuclear energy policy, Kara Colton, who noted the Energy Department has not said much about the issue since its public comment period closed Jan. 9.
The ECA, which represents local governments near federal nuclear facilities, could soon issue a new report addressing “next steps” on high-level waste, Colton told the National Academies’ Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board during a meeting in Washington, D.C.
Colton said the report, in its final stages, would provide recommendations for DOE and a guide for communities that host high-level waste. “Much of it also tries to break down some of the key things folks have been asking about in relation to the proposal, for example, background on waste acceptance criteria, performance assessments, what legal and regulatory changes will be needed,” she said.
At the urging of the ECA, the nuclear contractor community, and others, the Energy Department in October proposed to reinterpret the definition of high-level waste to focus more on its radiological traits rather than its point of origin.
The ECA official also believes such a reinterpretation would be more in keeping with most international classifications of highly radioactive waste.
In a report issued 13 months earlier, the ECA said over-classification of some waste as high-level runs up excessively high storage costs at DOE facilities because there is not yet a permanent repository for material with that designation. As it now stands, ECA member communities have become “de facto interim storage sites,” Colton said.
The ongoing cost of storing this waste across the country is one reason the Office of Environmental Management’s liability has swollen to $377 billion, Colton said. That accounts for the bulk of DOE’s environmental liability, which is growing at a faster rate than the cleanup office’s annual budget, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has noted in various reports.
However, much of what is currently treated as high-level has a risk profile akin to material sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the Nevada Nuclear Security Site, and the Waste Control Specialists facility in Texas, according to Colton.
A reinterpretation could also clear the way for lower-activity material to be disposed of in a safer, grout form outside of a deep geologic repository, she said.
The Energy Communities Alliance welcomes DOE’s proposed HLW reinterpretation. But at the same time the federal agency must provide stakeholders with sufficient data, and must also be transparent, Colton said. This includes basic facts and figures on volumes of high-level waste within the weapons complex, the location, and how much of it could be treated as something less hazardous.
She also noted the Energy Department has yet to comply with a provision of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that called for an agency report analyzing the nationwide amount of HLW, where it is located, the risks associated with the material, and potential disposal paths.
In 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future said the Energy Department’s high-level waste is roughly 90 million gallons of solids, liquids, and sludge left over from nuclear weapons operations.
The NDAA-mandated report would “provide some meat for us to be using to discuss the proposal,” Colton said. The Energy Department has said it is working on the report, which is not yet ready for release.
The agency did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment Thursday, and has said it has made no decision on the high-level waste policy.
The DOE reinterpretation is opposed by groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the state governments of Oregon and Washington. Among other things, they say the proposal is contrary to law because Congress has already spoken to the issue.
Congress has called HLW “highly radioactive” and long-lived material generated by reprocessing spent fuel – which involves separating contents in irradiated nuclear fuel and target materials, such as plutonium.
Foes also accuse DOE of trying to simply relabel high-level waste as something less threatening.
During the Wednesday meeting, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board member Paul Dickman said he thinks the Energy Department should pursue it the matter as a full-blown update to federal regulations, which would be a more extensive process than a policy clarification.
Colton reaffirmed that the ECA still wants congressional legislation on the high-level waste interpretation, in part because a DOE regulatory action would be more susceptible to legal challenge.
