Frank MarcinowskiDeputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Compliance

Environmental Management

May 23, 20072007 Federal Facility Task Force Meeting

Update on National Disposition Planning

• Disposal policy

• Low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste (LLW/ MLLW) – Disposition highlights– LLW/MLLW disposition data– LLW/MLLW Corporate Board– LLW /MLLW National Disposition Strategy

• Greater-than-Class C LLW

• Transuranic waste

Topics for Consideration

• If practical, disposal on the site where generated• If on-site disposal not available, at another DOE

disposal facility• At commercial disposal facilities if compliant,

protective of safety and health, cost effective, and in the best interest of the government

Order 435.1 Establishes DOE Disposal Policy

UnchangedUnchanged

Low Level and Mixed Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLW/MLLW)

• Hanford and Nevada Test Site (NTS) host regional disposal facilities for DOE LLW and MLLW disposal

• Off-site waste shipments to Hanford remain suspended• NTS has MLLW disposal through November 2010 • On-site LLW disposal at Idaho National Laboratory

planned to end in 2009, due to CERCLA closure plans; some possibility of an extension to ensure capacity for RH LLW is available

LLW/MLLW Disposal Issues & Highlights

• Some DOE sites seeking to expand use of onsite CERCLA cells

• Operations are limited at TSCA Incinerator • “Problematic waste streams” still exist… and future

facility D&D will identify more – some streams utilize commercial treatment

• Disposal of greater-than-class C (GTCC) LLW Environmental Impact Statement in progress

o Notice of Intent followed by scoping meetings planned for this Summer

Other LLW/MLLW Issues & Highlights

• Life-cycle waste forecasting has resumed– Baseline Disposition Data (BLDD)– Data requirements defined with field cooperation– Waste stream definition streamlined to ensure useful data is collected

without undue cost/schedule burden on sites– Updated at least annually, reviewed and approved through the DOE/EM

corporate information system (IPABS-IS)

• Data is shared via the Waste Management Information System (WIMS) (http://wims.arc.fiu.edu/WIMS)

• This year’s data set includes new data from other programs (NNSA incl. Naval Reactors, NE and SC)

• Current data is LLW/MLLW; TRU data will be added when the updated TRU waste inventory is available (later this year)

LLW/MLLW Disposition Forecasting

WIMS Waste Disposition Map Example

WIMS Geographic Disposition Map Example

• Target data sources are projects and activities that have documented baselines

• Some projects have yet to be fully defined, baselined or approved and are not included in the planning data set– e.g., West Valley final end state, Portsmouth D&D,

GNEP• EM sites have since updated their Five Year

Plan Summaries; data under review to resolve any inconsistencies in the 2008 update

Scope of LLW/MLLW Disposition Data

• On-site disposal cells continue to serve large site cleanup programs at Hanford, Idaho, and Oak Ridge

• Projected waste volume to off-site disposal continues downward trend as Rocky Flats and Ohio projects have concluded

• Significant use of commercial waste treatment and disposal is expected in spite of smaller volumes

• Large uncertainties remain in out-year forecasts due to unplanned/uncertain work scope at several key sites

LLW/MLLW Disposition Trends

12

Off Site LLW/MLLW Disposition has Declined

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FY

Th

ou

san

ds

of

cub

ic m

eter

s

Comm

NTS

TBD

WIMS LLW/MLLW Disposal Data Forecast

Most disposal is from onsite generators

• Establishes complex-wide configuration control– Increases integration and accountability

• Modeled after TRU board, but tailored for LLW and MLLW– Inter-site shipping schedule/tracking– Allocation of DOE waste management resources

• Off-site DOE disposal facilities, including TSCAI– Planning use of commercial services– Evaluation of complex wide issues and strategy

• Participation– Chaired by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Compliance

(EM-10) – Two-level Board: Federal and contractors representatives from

generating sites, appointed by Site Managers– Other sites and commercial partners may attend

• Implement in FY 08

LLW Corporate Board

• Provides framework by which DOE will manage LLW/MLLW disposition– Discusses current DOE and commercial LLW/MLLW treatment &

disposal resources and identifies potential bottlenecks– Discusses tools and methodologies to strengthen and integrate

DOE’s LLW/MLLW disposition management– Draft Revision 0 advanced copy distributed last September

• Next version, Revision 1, will:– Address all comments– Include all DOE LLW/MLLW (Revision 0 was focused on EM)– Reflect 2007 WIMS data– Involve the LLW Corporate Board– Incorporate revised cost guidance– Follow recent technology development roadmap process for sharing

with stakeholders• Schedule is not firm, but aiming for Fall 2007

National Disposition Strategy

Greater-than-Class C LLW

Legislative Drivers

• Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985– DOE responsible for developing GTCC LLW disposal capability– GTCC must be disposed of in a facility licensed by the U.S. NRC

• Section 631 of Energy Policy Act of 2005– Submitted required Report to Congress dated July 2006 on EIS

proposed schedule and estimated cost– Requires DOE to submit Report to Congress on disposal

alternatives and await Congressional action before issuing ROD (i.e., submit report when final EIS is issued)

What is GTCC LLW?

• Generated from NRC or Agreement State licensed activities– Contains radionuclides at concentrations that exceed the

limits for Class C radioactive waste in 10 CFR 61.55 – Includes activated metals from the decommissioning of

nuclear reactors, sealed sources, and other LLW resulting from manufacture, research, and industrial activities

– The NRC has categorized LLW into four classes (Class A, B, C, and GTCC) based on the concentration of specific short-lived and long-lived radionuclides, with Class C having the highest concentration limits.

• Must be disposed of in geologic repository unless other methods proposed to and approved by NRC

What is DOE “GTCC-Like” LLW?

• Certain DOE LLW and Non-Defense TRU that may lack a disposal pathway

NRC LLW Classifications

Class A Class B Class C GTCC

DOE Classifications

LLW

Con

cent

ratio

n of

Sho

rt-L

ived

or

Lon

g-Li

ved

Rad

ionu

clid

es

Non- Defense TRUC

once

ntra

tion

of S

hort

-Liv

ed

or L

ong-

Live

d R

adio

nucl

ides

“GTCC-like”

GTCC LLW & DOE GTCC-Like InventoryGTCC LLW Total Estimated Volume/Curies = 2,005 m3 @ 112 MCi

– Very little (134 m3) currently available for disposal

– Activated Metals from nuclear utilities comprise 71% of the total activity (110 MCi) & will not be available for disposal until 2035-2062.

– Excludes stored inventory of sealed sources recovered by the NNSA Offsite Source Recovery Project as those sources have an identified path to disposal (e.g., WIPP)

DOE GTCC-Like Total Estimated Volume/Curies = 2,948 m3 @ 42 MCi

– Most (~1,900 m3) is potential non-defense TRU from West Valley Demonstration Project and proposed Radioisotope Power System project

– Does not include potential GNEP waste due to early stages of that project

Waste type In storage Projected Total stored and projected

Volume in cubic meters

(m3)Activity in curies (Ci)

Volumem3

ActivityCi

Volumem3

ActivityCi

GTCC LLW

Activated metal 58 3,520,000 813 106,000,000 871 109,520,000

Sealed sources (a) (a) 1,057 2,360,000 1,057 2,360,000

Other waste 76 7,580 1 229 77 7,809

Total GTCC LLW 134 3,527,580 1,871 108,360,229 2,005 111,887.809

DOE GTCC-Like Waste

Activated metal 5 10,500,000 29 818,000 34 11,318,000

Sealed sources 9 12,900 25 30,300 34 43,200

Other 859 11,400,000 2,021 19,400,000 2,880 30,800,000

Total DOE GTCC-like waste

873 21,912,900 2,075 20,248,300 2,948 42,161,200

Total GTCC and GTCC-like waste

1,007 25,440,480 3,946 128,608,529 4,953 154,049,009

(a) There are sealed sources currently possessed by NRC licensees that may become GTCC LLW when no longer needed by the licensee; the estimated volume and activity of those sources are included in the projected inventory.

GTCC Notice of Intent (NOI)

• Initiates the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process• Identifies proposed federal action• Identifies proposed disposal methods/locations for EIS analysis• Updates GTCC waste inventories• Proposes that both GTCC and GTCC-like waste be analyzed in the EIS• Announces decision to include DOE “GTCC-like” waste• Responds to public comments on the Advance NOI (issued May 11, 2005)• Requests public comments on EIS scoping issues & announces public

scoping meeting dates/locations• U.S. EPA will participate as Cooperating Agency; NRC will be

Commenting Agency

The draft NOI has undergone extensive review by Field and Headquarters Offices and U.S. EPA

GTCC EIS Schedule

• Advanced Notice of Intent May 11, 2005• Notice of Intent Spring ‘07• Public scoping meetings – Summer ‘07 • Draft EIS 2nd Qtr FY 08• Final EIS Early FY 09• Report to Congress on Disposal Alternatives Early

FY 09 (submit when final EIS is issued)• Record of Decision TBD (following Congressional

action on disposal alternatives report)

Transuranic Waste (TRU)

DOE Continues to Optimize TRU Disposition• WIPP is managed as a National program

• Current efforts are focused on optimization:• In FY 1999, averaged 1.5 shipments/week• In FY 2007, averaging ~22 shipments/week, filling the

“pipeline” (creating characterized backlog)• Fully utilizing capacity

Final shipment departing RFETS

• Over 48,000 m3 of TRU waste disposed since March 1999

• Over 5,700 truck shipments from eight sites completed as of 5/21/07

WIPP is receiving remote-handled TRU

• The first remote-handled transuranic waste (RH-TRU) shipment left Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and arrived at WIPP on 1/23/07

• As of 5/21/07, WIPP has received 23 RH-TRU shipments from INL

• Since March, INL has been making 2 RH-TRU shipments per week to WIPP; INL is expected to increase to three shipments in early June, and four shipments around the August 2007 timeframe