nuclear-news

The DOE published a notice in the Federal Register on June 10, updating a request for comment made in October 2018 to address comments received and adjustments to the initial proposal.

No plans to propose any changes to current policies or legal requirements regarding high-level waste (HLW) were made, but the Department but will address how its interpretation of HLW will apply to existing waste streams and whether or not they be managed as HLW.

The interpretations of HLW was revised in the notice following 5,555 comments received, which the Department broke down to about 360 distinct comments, read the notice.

Comments came from stakeholders, members of the public, Native American tribes and lawmakers, along with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Previously, any nuclear waste generated directly from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including any liquids or solid material was classified as HLW, records show.   But the DOE amended that definition to specify that waste can be determined as non-HLW if it does not exceed radioactivity levels for Class-C low-level radioactive waste, or required disposal in a deep geological repository.

Re-interpreting the definition could reduce the length of time nuclear waste is held onsite at DOE facilities, read a news release from the Department’s Office of Environmental Management, potentially increasing safety for workers and the public. It could also allow for the removal of reprocessing waste from generator sites where it’s been held for decades, the release read, by allowing the waste to go disposal sites, such as WIPP, designed for non-HLW.

The proposal would also align the U.S. with international guidelines that call of management and disposal to be based on the actual radiological risk, and shorten mission completion schedules – saving taxpayer dollars, read the release.

TRU waste is typically clothing items such as gloves or vests that are used during nuclear activities at various laboratories, but if other waste streams could be downgraded from HLW to TRU waste they could be sent to WIPP.

There is no permanent repository for HLW, as the facility proposed in Yucca Mountain, Nevada was blocked by state lawmakers and the federal government cut its funding.

The proposal did not mention WIPP specifically.

But John Heaton, chair of the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance said the change could increase the time frame for WIPP’s mission, keeping the facility open longer and accepting more kinds of waste.

He said the proposal would ultimately classify nuclear waste based on its level of radioactivity, not its origin.

“A lot of would pass the waste acceptance criteria at WIPP,” Heaton said. “It would extend the life of WIPP for sure. They’re spending billions of dollars on this stuff a year. The only risk reduction that’s happening is in what’s coming to WIPP.”

The DOE also published a notice on June 10 of its intent to develop and environmental assessment of plans to dispose of about 10,000 gallons of waste water from the Savannah River Site’s Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) in South Carolina.

That waste would be disposed of at a commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility outside of South Carolina.

“The DWPF recycle wastewater would be treated, characterized, and if the performance objectives and waste acceptance criteria of a specific disposal facility are met, DOE could consider whether to dispose of the waste as LLW under the Department’s high-level radioactive waste (HLW) interpretation published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,” read the notice.

But Don Hancock, director of the Nuclear Waste Program at the Southwest Research and Information Center said the DOE has no right to rewrite federal law and regulations passed by Congress.

He said reclassifying the waste as less dangerous was intended to move it from the generator sites, but if it is truly less dangerous, Hancock said, it could be left where it is.

“What it seems like they’re proposing is illegal,” Hancock said. “They say they get to rewrite the law, not Congress. They’re a lot of opposition to this nationally.”