Environmental Management (EM) Roundtable
Snowbird, UT - October 16, 2007
~ MEETING SUMMARY and PRESENTATIONS ~
History of the NCSL/DOE-EM Cooperative Agreement;
Review of the NCSL Policy process and overview of the Federal Facilities Management Policy;
Melissa Savage, Program Director, National Conference of State Legislatures
NCSL's EM Roundtable project began in 1999 to gather state legislators together to receive federal updates on the cleanup of the former nuclear weapons complex. States with Department of Energy sites housing Cold War legacy waste appoint legislators to the group, and NCSL provides a forum whereby members can openly discuss cleanup issues with their colleagues from around the country facing similar challenges.
NCSL Energy Summit - Legislators meet at NCSL national meetings to discuss state energy priorities. Summits have looked into what regions can do based on their unique assets, and some areas of interest include: carbon restriction penalties, cap and trade (14 state agreement on cap and trade at the Chicago Board), and electricity rates.
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and Legislator Role in Facilitating the Cleanup of DOE Sites
Representative John Heaton, New Mexico
Chair: NM Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Committee, NCSL EM Roundtable
To better serve the radioactive waste disposal needs of DOE, Congress should eliminate the volume restriction and defense pedigree requirement of waste to be disposed of at WIPP.
Legislators can play an important role in educating their constituents about public safety related to radioactive waste transportation.
State Legislative Roundtable
Arizona (and Tribal Legislative Caucus issues):
- Five tribes near the Navajo reservation in Representative Tom's district are affected by highway and rail shipments of nuclear waste.
- NM seems to be more concerned with immigration than the environment at the moment. Water conservation is being considered though - such as through curbing growth.
- NCSL staffs the National Caucus of Native American State Legislators to bring tribal and state leaders together on these issues.
- NCSL may conduct a tour of Palo Verde nuclear power plant in AZ during its Fall Forum the last week in November, 2007.
Georgia:
- Planning for two more reactor units at Vogtle nuclear power plant, around 2016-17.
- Onsite dry cask storage of waste at Hatch nuclear power plant.
- Savannah River Site shipments to WIPP go through Georgia and have been uneventful.
- Water wars between GA, FL, AL as there hasn't been enough rain and rivers are drying up. Legislation in January will require action in the first 20 days. Will penalize industry if it goes over metered limits. Hydro power is dependent on water supply as well.
- Power companies make more money the more energy that is consumed, so getting them to promote efficiency has been difficult. Suggestion: Decoupling the profits of utilities - away from direct correlation with amount of use to a return on assets.
Idaho:
- The governor and legislature are very supportive of Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The lab has been focused on engineering and environment in recent history, but is expected to revert back to its original core mission related to science. At one time the lab had 12,000 employees, now about 7-8,000. Hope to build that back up to 9-10,000.
- Community seems excited about potential GNEP facilities at INL. INL received a grant to fund a site analysis for recycling facilities, and the public has attended the scoping meetings.
- Shoshone Bannock tribe had concerns about transportation of radioactive waste through their land, but have worked well with the state in settling issues.
- ID sends most of its waste to WIPP. Pit 9 of INL is full of mixed waste though. Uncertain what will be done there. DOE comment: 30 percent involves organic solvents, a big risk concern. Expecting a record of decision soon.
- Water wells are two percent full, which may require a cut back of agricultural use.
Illinois:
- Energy will become a top issue with citizens and nuclear needs to be a piece of the energy mix. In order for this to be palatable, there needs to be a waste resolution.
- IL has more nuclear power plants than any other state and generates 50 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors.
- GE Morris is a contender for a future GNEP facility, and the community and state back it.
- IL is the largest producer of grain for ethanol and biodiesel. State working to clean up carbon-emitting coal plants.
- State deregulated utilities. Recommends against it as rates have increased significantly.
- Electronic waste is a big concern. Volumes and recycling ought to be studied thoroughly by NCSL.
Kentucky:
- Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
- Remediation of soil/air
- Disposal of legacy waste - 62,000 cubic yards (completion date scheduled for 2009).
- Decontamination and decommissioning of buildings
- Depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) - Paducah will be converting this material from Oakridge to uranium oxide after construction of the conversion facility is completed. Project may last 25 years.
- 23 drums of transuranic waste expected to leave for disposal by 2009.
- Most of the 30,000 cubic yards of mixed low-level waste has already left the state.
- Expect Class A low-level radioactive waste will remain onsite.
New Mexico:
- Sites undergoing cleanup, and with ongoing missions or tours, include: Los Alamos National Lab, Sandia National Lab, and White Sands (location of previous nuclear bomb tests).
- Because of the urgency with which the bomb project was carried out during WWII there is significant and widespread waste in the canyons and mesas near Los Alamos.
- There are concerns about getting the waste out of the area and into WIPP before the facility fills.
- Budget a concern - Money goes to the state environmental department, but fines for not meeting regulatory requirements are adding up ($1 million). Need to move forward in a cooperative manner (workers, state environmental department, legislative representatives); this has improved in the last few months. Fines paid should act as a credit in cleanup.
- There are many more threatening hazardous wastes moving into the Rio Grande River which the state environmental department ought to focus on rather than legacy radioactive waste.
Oklahoma: Big area of interest in the state related to energy/environment involves ethanol and biodiesel projects.
South Carolina:
- Alternative fuel research is being conducted by Clemson University and BMW. Savannah River is researching hydrogen fuel for cars.
- Duke Energy is interested in building a new nuclear reactor in SC. The state legislature passed a bill to assist with new construction by allowing companies to finance new plants with a rate increase in advance.
- Utility rates are good, so the state is no longer looking into deregulating.
- Barnwell low-level waste facility is closing in June 2008 to all states but SC, NJ, and CT.
- Savannah River will begin taking non-pit plutonium from three sites around the country. Does not pose an environmental concern.
Tennessee:
- Governor investing in switch grass and ethanol projects, involving the University of TN and Oakridge National Laboratory. Seeking cost-effective way to grow and transport bio fuels.
- Cleanup efforts - state has five landfills; legislation on tap for "sanitary" landfill efforts.
- Legislation also proposed for residuals on brownfields sites which have been cleaned up but may incur future financial burdens, as well as for restricting future use.
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Update
Deborah Swichkow, Program Analyst; DOE-Office of Nuclear Energy
Frank Schwartz, GNEP PEIS Project Manager; DOE-Office of Nuclear Energy
Need to increase communication on project developments of GNEP with communities, states, and tribes.
Eleven sites across the US were chosen late last year to receive grant funding to conduct siting analyses for consideration to house future GNEP recycling facilities. Mr. Schwartz manages the GNEP Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) that will evaluate environmental effects of potential future actions of the project.
GNEP was rolled out by the Bush administration in February 2006 and encompasses two broad scopes: international and domestic. One goal of GNEP is to provide a safe supply of nuclear fuel to meet increasing demand, without increasing proliferation risks. The project seeks to expand the use of nuclear power for cleaner generation of electricity.
International aspects:
- International meetings have taken place - 35 countries involved and 16 signed on to a statement of principles.
- Aim to provide a reliable nuclear fuel service to discourage expanded enriching. Plan includes spent fuel take-back for recycling.
- Envisages small-scale reactors for easy distribution and clean generation.
- Plans to deploy technologies that are proliferation resistant.
Domestic aspects:
- Recycling to reduce waste on the backend, versus the current once-through method.
- Fast reactors burn more of the long-lived isotopes in spent fuel. The technologies are in operation at Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility and Idaho National Lab.
Q&A
Will decisions be based on economic sense? It seems as though current analyses are focused solely on environmental effects?
- The programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) now underway analyzes environmental effects as is required under the National Environmental Policy Act, but the final record of decision will also incorporate economic considerations.
Are fast reactors as safe as light-water reactors? Are there more concerns of proliferation with breeder reactors?
- Fast reactors are not the same as breeder reactors - they burn fuel similarly to light-water reactors.
Comment: It seems that if a country wishes to enrich uranium for rogue, proliferation purposes it will not be dissuaded from doing so because GNEP can offer it fuel for energy purposes.
What is the timetable for GNEP?
- Fall 2007-draft PEIS; Winter-comment period; Late Spring 2008-final PEIS; Summer 2008-Record of Decision.
History of Intergovernmental Meeting with DOE
Doug Frost; DOE-Office of Environmental Management
In 2000, DOE was brainstorming with some of its cooperative agreement state project staff about how DOE might better interact with stakeholder groups.
Decided to gather these state groups (Energy Communities Alliance, Environmental Council of the States, National Association of Attorneys General, National Governors' Association, State and Tribal Government Working Group) together for efficiency, so that they would hear the same message, and so that members from the various groups could interact and learn from others' perspectives.
The first intergovernmental meeting hosted about 35 participants; about 140 are registered this year. The Intergovernmental planning committee decided to locate the meeting outside of Washington DC this year to provide focus and extended involvement of DOE participants.
Overview of the Office of Environmental Management (EM) and Priorities for 2008
Frank Marcinowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Compliance; DOE-EM
(PowerPoint Presentation)
Program has seen more progress in the disposition of low-level radioactive wastes than high, but decisions on high-level waste are dependent on outside factors such as Yucca Mountain.
EM has had to deal with unique environmental cleanup situations, such as removing large volumes of liquid tank waste at Hanford, and do so under strict regulatory requirements (state and federal).
Primarily only big sites are left to complete cleanup: Savannah River Site, Idaho National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, etc. - many of which have ongoing missions post-cleanup. If GNEP develops as planned and recycling facilities are built and operated, these missions could broaden.
EM is currently consolidating non-pit plutonium at Savannah River from Hanford, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Oakridge - which should be completed by 2010.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) - It is important to get enough remote-handled transuranic waste at WIPP and ready for disposal (done so vertically into walls) before the floors are filled with contact-handled waste barrels and the walls are no longer available. The next big shipping campaign will likely come from Oakridge early next year.
Los Alamos - DOE is working on a strategy to better relations with the state of NM. There have been concerns about the lack of progress in cleanup at the site. A new management team has been hired, and DOE will give them a few months to show improvement.
Oakridge - DOE has re-racked the budget and needs to ensure it is sufficient to meet time scales of cleanup.
EM wants to ensure standardization/consistency of performance targets across the complex. Safety is the number one priority of the program.
The Office of EM is supposed to cease when all of the former nuclear weapons complex sites are cleaned up, but more facilities will require closure in the future (such as Office of Nuclear Energy facilities, GNEP) that could benefit from the expertise built at EM.
FY 2008 priorities - Other than safety, the biggest priority is cleaning up the tank waste. There are 200+ tanks and only a handful have been cleaned. Will need regulatory authority for some of the unique tank cleanup conditions/needs.
Q&A
Have the plutonium shipments to Savannah River begun yet?
- These are classified shipments, so EM isn't even given notice until 30 days after a shipment has happened. The program was slated to have begun already, or will soon, and is expected to continue for 3 years.
Is EM concerned about the shrinking availability of low-level waste (LLW) disposal sites?
- EM inventories of LLW has been shrinking too as major sites have closed.
- The Nevada Test Site mixed LLW site is closing, and Hanford already has. EM doesn't use the soon to close Barnwell facility in South Carolina much; that is more important to commercial interests. A potential new disposal site in Texas could come online soon.
- The majority of EM LLW is handled locally and disposed of onsite.
There seems to be large EM/NNSA (National Nuclear Security Admin.) coordination problems. How can states help increase EM's authority at the sites for cleanup?
- There is a new management team at Los Alamos. DOE will give them five-six months to prove themselves. If there is no progress, DOE will hold internal discussions on how to fix the situation.
Greater Than Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Briefing
Christine Gelles, Director, Office of Disposal Operations, DOE-EM
DOE received more than 200 comments related to the forthcoming GTCC waste disposal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Hope to have a final EIS ready in calendar year 2009 for congressional review and decision.
A large portion of the GTCC waste that will require disposal at a future date is in the form of activated metals from decommissioned nuclear power plants. Potential future GNEP waste streams and authority/regulations over them are uncertain.
The DOE National Labs and two commercial facilities are in the running (being analyzed in the EIS) to host GTCC disposal facilities. The NRC must license the ultimate facility though, and may chose to conduct its own EIS.
Q&A
Are you considering current-technology recycling waste streams or just those proposed under GNEP?
- The EIS looks at waste from decommissioned reactors and sealed sources, among others.
Where is high-level radioactive waste (HLW) currently stored?
- HLW comes from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, which occurred in the past at West Valley, New York.
- DOE HLW is vitrified into glass logs for disposal in Yucca Mountain. Vitrification occurs at Savannah River Site, and will at the Waste Treatment Plant at Hanford once the facility is built.
- Aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel at Savannah River will be processed chemically onsite at H-canyon.
What can states do to assist EM with GTCC decisions?
- Best to stay informed and involved, but provide space now for EM to complete the EIS.
- EM would like to brief legislators again when the EIS draft is ready for review.
Issue Priorities for NCSL EM Roundtable:
- Adequate funding for EM sites.
- Budget apportionment for the EM program within DOE has decreased in recent years after a significant increase between 2000-2005 associated with the accelerated cleanup strategy. There seems to be a change in philosophy from one assistant secretary of EM to the next.
- Reinvestment of cleanup savings. Why are savings from the Rocky Flats closure not being reinvested at other sites? DOE comment: Each year's budget balance is different/unrelated.
- What are the consequences of delaying cleanup (public support/trust, environmental effects)? Has any amount of cleanup at closed sites been compromised by budget decreases? DOE comment: No, cleanup has occurred as planned.
- EM/NNSA coordination
- Reinvestment of fines for non-compliance in the cleanup process.
- State Renewable Portfolio Standards - EM cleanup and particularly commercial radioactive waste disposal will impact state allowances for new nuclear to meet a portion of renewable portfolio standards.
- Legislator role in smoothing the cleanup process. Must re-educate fellow legislators as term limits create hurdles to institutional memory.
Links to additional Intergovernmental Meeting presentations:
|
