Update on EM Waste Management Initiatives

1. Update on EM Waste Management Initiatives Theresa J. Kliczewski Office of Waste & Materials Management Office of Environmental Management LLW Forum April 2019

2. GTCC LLW Disposal: Why Does This Matter? Issue: • Currently there is no disposal pathway for greater-than-Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) or GTCC-like waste. Why does this matter? • Congressional Mandate: The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Public Law #99-240) • Assigns the Federal Government responsibility for the disposal of LLW with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the concentration limits established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC LLW). DOE is the Federal agency responsible for GTCC LLW disposal. • Without a disposal path for GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste: • Capacity concern: Nuclear power plants will continue to store GTCC LLW (activated metals) onsite and in certain cases even after they are shutdown. • Safety Concern: Hospitals, universities, and industry will continue to determine a storage capability for GTCC LLW (sealed sources). • Cleanup Completion Concern: DOE sites such as West Valley that have GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste will continue to deal with increased costs due to security and environmental liability. These issues could delay furthering the cleanup mission of the site.

3. What is GTCC LLW & GTCC-Like Waste? • GTCC LLW • A formal waste classification defined in federal law and regulations. • Generated from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or Agreement State licensed activities. • Contains radionuclide concentrations that exceed the limits for Class C LLW, as established by NRC in 10 CFR Part 61. • GTCC-Like Waste • Not a formal waste classification; rather, a term used to describe certain DOE waste for purposes of National Environmental Policy Act documentation. • DOE owned or generated LLW or transuranic (TRU) waste with characteristics similar to GTCC LLW and with no identified disposal path. • Primarily non-defense TRU waste from clean-up activities at the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York.

4. Inventory Quantities • Waste Inventory • The combined GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste inventory analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like Waste (Final EIS) is about 12,000 m3 (420,000 ft3) and contains a total activity of about 160 million curies. • 8,800 m3 (310,000 ft3 ) or 75% is GTCC LLRW (commercial). • 2,800 m3 (99,000 ft3 ) or 25% is GTCC-like (DOE owned). • Waste Groups (GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste): • Group 1: Wastes from currently operating facilities. This includes wastes that are currently in storage or are expected to be generated from these operating facilities. • Group 2: Projected wastes from proposed facilities and/or actions. Some of this waste may never be generated. • Waste Types of GTCC LLW & GTCC-Like Waste: • Activated metals: Primarily from commercial nuclear power plants. • Most of this waste may not be generated for decades, but represents approximately 98 percent of the total curies. • Sealed sources: Used in hospitals, industries, and universities throughout the U.S. • Other waste: From environmental cleanup and potential Mo-99 production.

5. Accomplishments To-Date • In February 2016, DOE published the Final EIS that included a preferred alternative to potentially dispose of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste at generic commercial facilities and/or the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The Final EIS is not a decision document. • In November 2017, DOE issued a Report to Congress on GTCC LLW disposal alternatives as required by Section 631 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. • In October 2018, EM issued the Environmental Assessment for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like Waste at Waste Control Specialists, Andrews County, Texas. • The Environmental Assessment provides a site-specific analysis of the potential environmental impacts of disposing the entire inventory from the Final EIS- 12,000 cubic meters- of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste at Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) in Andrews, Texas. • DOE’s preferred alternative in the Final EIS did not specify a particular commercial facility. The Environmental Assessment analyzes one such facility (WCS). • This Environmental Assessment is not a decision on the disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste.

6. Path Forward • DOE will continue to coordinate with Congress regarding the path forward for GTCC LLW disposal. • DOE is awaiting the issuance of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) draft Regulatory Basis for GTCC LLW disposal. • Anticipated to include NRC’s determination of whether a state (such as Texas) can regulate GTCC LLW disposal under its authority as an NRC Agreement State. • The next DOE step is to issue a Record of Decision.

7. Overview of Comments on the Proposed High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) Interpretation • Under DOE’s proposed interpretation some reprocessing waste is non-HLW, and may be classified and disposed of based on its radiological characteristics. • Reprocessing waste (liquid and/or solidified) is currently stored at four DOE sites: the Hanford site in Washington, the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York. • DOE held a public comment period on the proposed HLW interpretation from October 10, 2018 and extended by 30 days until January 9, 2019. • The Federal Register Notice that announced the public comment period provided the public with the opportunity to review and provide comments to DOE on it’s interpretation of the definition of HLW and what reprocessing waste is non-HLW. • Comments were received by email and mail.

8. Overview of Comments on the Proposed HLW Interpretation Cont. • Total number of comments received: • Specific comments: 362 • Form comments: 3 separate form-type comments totaling over 5,500 • Commenters were comprised of: • Congressional Members • Nonprofits and Advisory Boards • Governors • State and Federal Regulators • Nuclear Industry • Tribal Nations • Individuals

9. Comment Topics Example of Comment topics include, but not limited to: • What is DOE’s legal authorityto issue the proposed interpretation? • Why will the proposed interpretation be protective of human health and the environment? What is the technical basis? • What is the overall rationale for the proposed interpretation? What are the benefits? • How will the proposed interpretation be implemented? • Will there be additional dialogue with stakeholders before any waste disposal decisions are made? • What is the relationship between the proposed interpretation and existing legal agreements and other federal and state laws? • What is the relationship between the proposed interpretation and the C Tank Farm Waste Incidental to Reprocessing at Hanford?

10. Path Forward • EM is currently reviewing and considering all public comments received. • After full consideration of public input, DOE will determine how to move forward. No decisions have been made.