Avoiding Gridlock: Obstacles to Waste Disposition

1
Avoiding Gridlock Obstacles to Waste Disposition

• Intergovernmental Group Meeting with DOE
• Hilton Crystal City Arlington, VA
• December 9, 2004
• Prepared by Ross Associates Environmental
  Consulting, Ltd., for submission under Contract
  with the National Governors Association Center
  for Best Practices. The preparation of this
  document was financed in part by funds provided
  by the U.S. Department of Energy, Grant No,
  DE-FG02-97FT34337

2
To begin

• A modest bit of history
• 3 eras of waste management since 1992

3
Era 1 1993-95

• Federal Facilities Compliance Act (1992)
• Mandated Site Treatment Plans
• STPs to be approved by governors within 3 years
• Intensive DOE-State dialogue
• ?48 STPs signed (Success!)

4
1993-1995 (continued)

• The key What waste moves and why?
• Initially, DOE had no waste stream data
• States insisted on adequate data
• DOE collected new data, enabling an analysis of
  the complex-wide picture
• Mileage charts were created as one tool
• Needed to assess fairness and equity
• Complex-wide integration issues emerged
• State principles supplied

5
Era 2 1995-2000 Programmatic Waste
Management EIS

• Records of Decision
• Hanford and NTS selected for disposal of LLW and
  MLLW from off-site
• Other RODs also completed
• Ten year plans? Paths to Closure

6
1995-2000 (continued)

• Waste data continuously improved
• New information tools were developed
• Waste Disposition Charts
• Site interdependencies became clear

7
(No Transcript)
8
The Waste Disposition Schemeat the end of year
2000

• HLW repository (Yucca Mtn.)
• TRU WIPP
• Mixed LLW Hanford, Nevada Test Site, commercial
• LLW on-site, Nevada Test Site, Hanford,
  commercial
• Many waste streams have no identified disposition
  path orphan wastes

9
Era 3 2001-2004 Top to Bottom Review
Accelerated Cleanup Initiative

• EM Corporate Project Teams
• Safety initiatives
• New management systems implemented
• EM reorganization staff changes

10
Substantial progress on cleanup!

• Rocky Flats on track to close in 2006
• SRS increased waste loading in DWPFresult will
  be fewer canisters for repository
• Mound all legacy TRU waste removed
• Hanford liquids removed from single shell tanks
• WIPP actively receiving waste for disposal
• Many more examples See Jessie Robersons speech
  to NGA, May 2004

11
2001-2004 (continued)

• Relatively little focus on waste management
  issues, per se
• Collection of waste stream data ended in August
  2001
• Given the degree of change since 2001, the old
  data are obsolete
• The big picture has gone out of focus

12
problematic / orphan wastes

• Many remainexamples
• Fernald silo waste
• Buried TRU waste non-defense TRU
• High activity LLW (GTCC waste) (EIS needed?)
• PCB waste, if TSCA incinerator closes
• Is there a full inventory of orphan waste?
• Any surprise movement of waste is problematic

13
The information challenge

• Previous informational tools to help understand
  W.M. are no longer available
• Much is still in flux orphan wastes, new PSOs
  involved, more acceleration
• How can regulators and stakeholders keep informed
  of the overall picture of waste movement, the
  interconnectedness of sites, and decision-making
  on specific waste streams or facilities?

14
SSAB chairs letter

• Letter sent to Paul Golan 11-30-04
• Identified vulnerabilities in existing waste
  disposition assumptions
• E.g., pre-1970 TRU waste
• Orphan waste
• Multiple legal barriers to shipping
• Concerns of potential gridlock
• Result skyrocketing costs completion delays
• Recommended a national forum by the end of 2005
  to develop solutions to DOEs system-wide waste
  and material disposition challenges.

15
What are some barriers to disposition?

• WA initiative 297 (affects mixed waste)
• Lawsuitse.g., WA v. Abraham regarding 6/23/04
  Record of Decision, etc.
• Lack of NEPA coverage
• Waste acceptance limitations at WIPP
• Limited capacity at WIPP (and RH-TRU path not yet
  open)
• Limited capacity at Yucca Mountain (NWPA of 1982
  set limit of 70,000 MTHM, and only 10 can be DOE
  waste.)
• DOEs 2001 chart of barriers to disposition

16
Washingtons Initiative 297

• Passed Nov.2 with 69 yes vote
• Intent prohibit importation of mixed waste until
  on-site waste is cleaned up
• Ecology Dept. implements via RCRA permits
• Prohibits use of unlined trenches
• Mandates states cleanup standards
• Tank closure requires all practicable actions
• Includes public involvement provisions
• Authorizes citizen suits

17
Washingtons Initiative 297

• Federal Judge issued TRO December 2
• Hearing scheduled December 13
• Importation was already on hold due to another
  lawsuit filed in 2003

18
DOE-EM Waste Management overview (2001)
19
Barriers (2001)
20
Barriers (2001)(continued)
21
Do these barriers add up to gridlock?

• Will the barriers cause cleanup delays and/or
  increased costs?
• Which barriers does DOE think are most critical?
• Should a National Forum be held?
• How might the state, local, or tribal
  representatives help DOE overcome barriers?

22
Conclusion

• Previously-useful information tools are not
  up-to-date and thus not useable
• The big picture of waste management and
  interconnectedness is hard to discern
• Many orphan wastes remain in TBD status
• Current disposition assumptions may be
  vulnerable concern for gridlock
• The time may be ripe to return to a robust
  dialogue on waste management

23
THE END