Idaho Gov. Brad Little has expressed concern that a current proceeding at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission could open the door for disposal of certain radioactive wastes in his state.
The Republican governor was among dozens of individuals to submit comments by the Nov. 19 deadline on the agency’s draft regulatory basis on disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) and transuranic (TRU) wastes.
“The NRC Draft Regulatory Basis document and Federal Register notice appear to indicate that, through the interpretation of existing regulations in conjunction with a potential rulemaking, a possible pathway for the disposal of GTCC (and perhaps TRU) waste streams could be created, allowing for the disposal of these waste streams within the State of Idaho,” Little wrote in a Nov. 15 letter to Annette Vietti-Cook, NRC secretary of the commission.
Little said his “deep concerns” about potential disposal of such wastes in Idaho are akin to those state leaders expressed in 2011, when the U.S. Department of Energy issued a draft environmental impact statement that listed the Idaho National Laboratory among potential final resting places for GTCC waste.
The Energy Department ultimately went in a different direction in later documents, in 2016 citing generic commercial waste facilities and/or the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico as its disposal preferences and then last year narrowing focus to the privately operated Waste Control Specialists complex in Andrews County, Texas.
Greater-Than-Class C is any low-level radioactive waste with radionuclide concentrations higher than the limit for Class C material, which is most hazardous form among the NRC’s A, B, and C classifications.. Per the Department of Energy, GTCC waste consists of activated metals, sealed sources, and other waste types, and today is largely not considered suitable for near-surface disposal.
Congress in 1985 made the Energy Department legally responsible for disposal of the nation’s stock of GTCC waste. In addition, the agency owns or generates similar waste that it designates as “GTCC-like waste,” which also requires disposal. In total, it is expected to need to deal with 12,000 cubic meters of those materials.
Current federal rules require that the waste be disposed of in a geologic repository, though the NRC can approve specific applications for another means of disposal. The regulator has never received such a request and the United States remains without a repository – despite the Trump administration’s efforts to revive the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission began considering updating the rules after receiving a query from Texas in January 2015 regarding its authority to license disposal of GTCC, GTCC-like, and transuranic wastes.
In the draft regulatory basis issued last July, NRC staff said that most GTCC waste could be safely permanently placed in a near-surface facility.
That finding could be a key step in establishing a rulemaking to change existing regulations. In the document, staff offered three options without recommending any one to the commission: Leaving the current regulatory framework in place, under which the commission would rule on any direct requests for disposal of GTCC in a low-level radioactive waste site; developing new guidance, which would also sustain current regulations but might provide useful data and direction for a disposal application; and conducting a rulemaking that would establish regulations specifically for placing GTCC waste in a LLRW facility.
There are four U.S. commercial facilities for disposal of low-level radioactive waste, all in NRC agreement states that assume much of the responsibility for regulating radioactive materials. Waste Control Specialists operates one of those sites, and its management has been eager to enter the market for disposal of GTCC waste.
Rulemaking could also address associated issues on waste disposal, according to the draft regulatory basis, including agreement states’ authority for licensing and the definition of transuranic waste.
An NRC spokesman said staff would review the comments submitted by Little and others and consider next steps. He did not provide a timeline for further action.
Little noted the 1995 agreement between the state, Energy Department, and U.S. Navy that requires removal of historic radioactive waste from the Idaho National Laboratory. “Any future disposal of these waste forms within the state would be inconsistent with the intent and understandings set forth in the 1995 Settlement Agreement,” he wrote, also noting that the Idaho National Laboratory stands above the Snake River Plains Aquifer.
More than 1,000 comments were submitted to the NRC regarding the draft regulatory basis, according to the government’s regulations.gov website. However, at least 1,000 were a form letter in opposition to near-surface disposal of GTCC waste.
The Sierra Club and other environmental organizations also spoke out against potential changes to standing regulations.
“Please halt the proposed changes that would reclassify GTCC and TRU radioactive waste and ensure that that this waste will only be disposed of in a manner currently required by federal law,” Karen Hadden, executive director of the Austin, Texas-based Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, wrote to the commission on Nov. 19. “This law was designed to protect living things by isolating these dangerous materials deep underground. It is essential that current law remains in place in order to protect our health and safety, all living things and our economy.”
In a Nov. 15 letter, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources suggested six additions to the draft regulatory basis without offering an opinion on near-surface disposal. Among its recommendations: adding the specific guidelines for determining whether waste could be deposited in a near-surface facility and addressing specifics of transport of the waste to disposal.
Companies in the nuclear industry also offered their thoughts, some focusing on technical questions and others throwing their support more generally behind revising today’s regulations.
A rulemaking would be a step toward creating “a comprehensive and predictable national framework” for final disposal of the nation’s radioactive waste, Edmond Mercier, Westinghouse Electric manager for fuels licensing and regulatory support, wrote in an April 2018 letter to Vietti-Cook.
“When it comes to decommissioning, it is a priority for Westinghouse, and our customers (i.e., nuclear power plant utilities), to safely remove risk from the site early in the decommissioning process,” he stated. “Providing additional options for GTCC waste disposal will have the potential to allow GTCC waste to be safely removed from sites undergoing decommissioning sooner in the process, which will also allow for flexibility to shrink the site’s Protected Area footprint sooner during decommissioning.”
