11

Avoiding Gridlock: Avoiding Gridlock: Obstacles to Waste Obstacles to Waste

DispositionDisposition

Intergovernmental Group Meeting with DOEIntergovernmental Group Meeting with DOEHilton Crystal City – Arlington, VAHilton Crystal City – Arlington, VA

December 9, 2004 December 9, 2004

Prepared by Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd., for submission under Contract with the National Governors’ 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. 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-Department of Energy, Grant No, DE-FG02-97FT34337FG02-97FT34337

22

To beginTo begin

A modest bit of historyA modest bit of history 3 eras of waste management since 19923 eras of waste management since 1992

33

Era #1Era #1 1993-951993-95

Federal Facilities Compliance Act Federal Facilities Compliance Act (1992)(1992)

Mandated Site Treatment Plans Mandated Site Treatment Plans STPs to be approved by governors STPs to be approved by governors

within 3 yearswithin 3 years Intensive DOE-State dialogue 48 STPs signed (Success!)

44

1993-19951993-1995 (continued)(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

55

Era #2:Era #2: 1995-2000 1995-2000 Programmatic Programmatic

Waste Management EISWaste Management EIS

Records of DecisionRecords of Decision:: HanfordHanford and and NTSNTS selected for disposal of selected for disposal of

LLW and MLLW from off-siteLLW and MLLW from off-site Other RODs also completedOther RODs also completed Ten year plansTen year plans Paths to ClosurePaths to Closure

66

1995-20001995-2000 (continued)(continued)

Waste data continuously improvedWaste data continuously improved New information tools were developed: New information tools were developed:

Waste Disposition ChartsWaste Disposition Charts Site interdependencies became clearSite interdependencies became clear

77

88

The Waste Disposition SchemeThe Waste Disposition Schemeat the end of year 2000at the end of year 2000

HLWHLW – repository (Yucca Mtn.) – repository (Yucca Mtn.) TRUTRU – WIPP – WIPP Mixed LLWMixed LLW – Hanford, Nevada Test Site, – Hanford, Nevada Test Site,

commercialcommercial LLWLLW – on-site, Nevada Test Site, Hanford, – on-site, Nevada Test Site, Hanford,

commercialcommercial

Many waste streams have no identified Many waste streams have no identified disposition path – disposition path – ““orphan wastesorphan wastes””

99

Era #3:Era #3: 2001-20042001-2004 Top to Bottom Review Top to Bottom Review

Accelerated Cleanup InitiativeAccelerated Cleanup Initiative

EM Corporate Project TeamsEM Corporate Project Teams Safety initiativesSafety initiatives New management systems implementedNew management systems implemented EM reorganization & staff changesEM reorganization & staff changes

1010

Substantial progress on Substantial progress on cleanup!cleanup!

Rocky FlatsRocky Flats: : on track to close in 2006on track to close in 2006SRSSRS: : increased waste loading in DWPF—result increased waste loading in DWPF—result will be fewer canisters for repositorywill be fewer canisters for repositoryMoundMound: : all legacy TRU waste removedall legacy TRU waste removedHanfordHanford: : liquids removed from single shell tanksliquids removed from single shell tanksWIPP:WIPP: actively receiving waste for disposalactively receiving waste for disposalMany more examplesMany more examples: : See Jessie Roberson’s See Jessie Roberson’s speech to NGA, May 2004speech to NGA, May 2004

1111

2001-2004 2001-2004 (continued)(continued)

Relatively little focus on waste Relatively little focus on waste management issues, per semanagement issues, per se

Collection of waste stream data Collection of waste stream data ended in August 2001ended in August 2001

Given the degree of change since Given the degree of change since 2001, the old data are obsolete2001, the old data are obsolete

The big picture has gone out of focusThe big picture has gone out of focus

1212

““problematic”problematic” / “ / “orphanorphan” wastes” wastes

Many remain—examples:Many remain—examples: Fernald silo wasteFernald silo waste Buried TRU waste; non-defense TRUBuried TRU waste; non-defense TRU High activity LLW (“GTCC” waste) (EIS High activity LLW (“GTCC” waste) (EIS

needed?)needed?) PCB waste, if TSCA incinerator closesPCB waste, if TSCA incinerator closes

Is there a full inventory of orphan waste?Is there a full inventory of orphan waste? Any “surprise” movement of waste is Any “surprise” movement of waste is

problematicproblematic

1313

The information challengeThe information challenge

Previous informational tools to help Previous informational tools to help understand W.M. are no longer availableunderstand W.M. are no longer available

Much is still in flux: orphan wastes, new Much is still in flux: orphan wastes, new PSOs involved, more accelerationPSOs involved, more acceleration

How can regulators and stakeholders keep How can regulators and stakeholders keep informed of the overall picture of waste informed of the overall picture of waste movement, the interconnectedness of movement, the interconnectedness of sites, and decision-making on specific sites, and decision-making on specific waste streams or facilities?waste streams or facilities?

1414

SSAB chairs’ letterSSAB chairs’ letter Letter sent to Paul Golan 11-30-04Letter sent to Paul Golan 11-30-04 Identified “Identified “vulnerabilitiesvulnerabilities in existing waste in existing waste

disposition assumptions”disposition assumptions” E.g., pre-1970 TRU wasteE.g., pre-1970 TRU waste Orphan wasteOrphan waste ““Multiple legal barriers” to shippingMultiple legal barriers” to shipping

Concerns of potential Concerns of potential gridlockgridlock Result: skyrocketing costs; completion delaysResult: skyrocketing costs; completion delays

Recommended a Recommended a national forumnational forum by the end by the end of 2005 to develop solutions to DOE’s of 2005 to develop solutions to DOE’s system-wide waste and material disposition system-wide waste and material disposition challenges.challenges.

1515

What are some What are some barriersbarriers to to disposition?disposition?

WA initiative 297 (affects mixed waste)WA initiative 297 (affects mixed waste) Lawsuits—e.g., Lawsuits—e.g., WA v. AbrahamWA v. Abraham regarding regarding

6/23/04 Record of Decision, etc.6/23/04 Record of Decision, etc. Lack of NEPA coverageLack of NEPA coverage Waste acceptance limitations at WIPPWaste acceptance limitations at WIPP Limited capacity at WIPP (and RH-TRU path Limited capacity at WIPP (and RH-TRU path

not yet open)not yet open) Limited capacity at Yucca Mountain (NWPA of Limited capacity at Yucca Mountain (NWPA of

1982 set limit of 70,000 MTHM, and only 10% 1982 set limit of 70,000 MTHM, and only 10% can be DOE waste.)can be DOE waste.)

DOE’s 2001 chart of barriers to dispositionDOE’s 2001 chart of barriers to disposition

1616

Washington’s Initiative 297Washington’s Initiative 297

Passed Nov.2 with 69% yes votePassed Nov.2 with 69% yes vote Intent: Intent: prohibit importation of mixed wasteprohibit importation of mixed waste until until

on-site waste is cleaned upon-site waste is cleaned up Ecology Dept. implements via RCRA permitsEcology Dept. implements via RCRA permits Prohibits use of unlined trenchesProhibits use of unlined trenches Mandates state’s cleanup standardsMandates state’s cleanup standards Tank closure: requires “all practicable actions”Tank closure: requires “all practicable actions” Includes public involvement provisionsIncludes public involvement provisions Authorizes citizen suitsAuthorizes citizen suits

1717

Washington’s Initiative 297Washington’s Initiative 297

Federal Judge issued TRO December 2Federal Judge issued TRO December 2 Hearing scheduled December 13Hearing scheduled December 13 ImportationImportation was already on hold due to another was already on hold due to another

lawsuit filed in 2003lawsuit filed in 2003

1818

DOE-EM Waste Management DOE-EM Waste Management overview (2001)overview (2001)

1919

Barriers Barriers (2001)(2001)

2020

Barriers Barriers (2001)(continued)(2001)(continued)

2121

Do these barriers add up to Do these barriers add up to ““gridlockgridlock”?”?

Will the barriers cause cleanup delays Will the barriers cause cleanup delays and/or increased costs?and/or increased costs?

Which barriers does DOE think are Which barriers does DOE think are most critical?most critical?

Should a National Forum be held?Should a National Forum be held? How might the state, local, or tribal How might the state, local, or tribal

representatives help DOE representatives help DOE overcome barriers?overcome barriers?

2222

ConclusionConclusion Previously-useful information tools are not Previously-useful information tools are not

up-to-date and thus not useableup-to-date and thus not useable The big picture of waste management and The big picture of waste management and

interconnectedness is hard to discerninterconnectedness is hard to discern Many orphan wastes remain in TBD statusMany orphan wastes remain in TBD status Current disposition assumptions may be Current disposition assumptions may be

“vulnerable” – concern for “gridlock”“vulnerable” – concern for “gridlock” The time may be ripe to return to a robust The time may be ripe to return to a robust

dialogue on waste managementdialogue on waste management

2323

THE ENDTHE END