1. State of the DOE’s Environmental Management Program Update on DOE’s Waste Disposition Strategy Inés Triay Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Environmental Management Combined Meeting of the Intergovernmental Groups Snowbird, Utah  November 13, 2008 Frank Marcinowski Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Compliance Office of Environmental Management

2.  The Department’s Responsibility  Cleanup of radioactive waste and contamination generated by nuclear energy research and weapons production  Protection of groundwater and soil  Reduction of risk to the nation’s citizens  2009 Marks 20 Years of Our Cleanup Effort  Demonstrated progress in cleanup  Technological breakthroughs  Introduction of project management practices  Our Future  More nuclear waste challenges to be solved  Implications for the world’s energy future  Benefits from enhanced project management competencies 20 Years of Progress – Summary 2

3. Our Vision – Every Project as Successful as This 1960s: Plutonium Manufacturing Rocky Flats, Colorado Rocky Flats today: National Wildlife Refuge Cleanup 3

4. The Inherently High-Risk Work of Nuclear Cleanup We work with some of the most dangerous substances known to humanity… Performing first-of-a-kind tasks in highly hazardous work environments Holding basin for spent nuclear fuel Workers using glovebox to handle plutonium Working with high-level waste 5

5. The Department’s work has led to the design, construction and operation of first-of-a-kind facilities and technologies. Hanford, Washington Liquid Waste Treatment Plant = US$12 Billion Microfilter for separating solids and liquids developed at Savannah River National Laboratory Device for removing sludge from bottom of liquid waste storage tank We Solve Problems That Once Seemed Unsolvable 6

6. Latest Project Success – Idaho’s Test Area North Accomplished 4-1/2 years ahead of schedule, due to:  Regulators’ involvement in developing schedule, merging RCRA and CERCLA requirements  Crews working as dedicated work units, moving from job to job, and participating in decision making  Flexibility in cleanup methods; e.g., explosives used to demolish Hot Shop 4

7.  Safety and Quality Assurance  Rigorous Project Management  Technology and Innovation  Communication, Collaboration, and Transparency Overall Challenge – Maintaining Program Momentum 7

8.  DOE plays a central role in critical national priorities: Energy Independence National Security Global Initiatives Environmental Cleanup  DOE programs established and continue to support the current nuclear fuel cycle  A comprehensive waste management system is needed to support the fuel cycle  As DOE’s lead office for radioactive waste management, EM and its waste disposition strategies have National significance From a National perspective… 7

9. EM’s waste and materials disposition scope is significant Liquid tank waste (HLW and “low activity waste”) and other HLW streams –88 million gallons of liquid waste, stored in over 200 tanks –Also, calcined HLW and cesium and strontium capsules Transuranic (TRU) waste –~157,000 m 3 legacy wastes managed as TRU waste –Future TRU will be generated by DOE mission activities Enough nuclear waste to fill the Beijing National Olympic Stadium Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste (LLW/MLLW) –Majority of legacy wastes disposed – over 1 million m 3 disposed to date –DOE mission activities and EM cleanup generate LLW/MLLW wastes DOE owned and managed spent nuclear fuel (SNF) EM managed surplus nuclear materials

10. DOE’s radioactive waste management priorities…. Continue to manage waste inventories in safe, compliant manner Address high risk waste in a cost- effective manner Maintain and optimize current disposal capability for future generations Develop future disposal capacity in an complex environment Promote the development of treatment alternatives in the commercial sector Review and strengthen current DOE policies and directives

11. DOE waste management-related concerns…. Availability of resources needed to support existing site cleanup commitments Increasing costs due to growing scope and market conditions Ability to address excess facilities and materials scope within constrained resources Uncertainty in availability of future disposal capacity Potential challenges to DOE policies and strategies Potential natural resource damages Increasing inquiries from outside DOE for access to DOE low-level and mixed low-level waste facilities, due to changing circumstances Uncertainty of future waste projections (GTCC) resulting from GNEP initiatives

12. Hanford Pantex Plant Brookhaven Knolls Princeton (PPPL) Savannah River Oak Ridge ITRI General Atomics ETEC Sandia SLAC LBNL LLNL Ames RMI ANL Fermi Portsmouth Paducah Mound BCL Bettis Kansas City NTS INL Fernald LANL Sandia WIPP West Valley Rocky Flats CERCLA Disposal FacilityRegional LLW Disposal Facility DOE Generator (no on-site disposal facility) LLW Operations Disposal Facility MLLW Operations Disposal Facility Legend Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for TRU disposal Sites are closed Yucca Mountain Repository for HLW/SNF disposal DOE’s Waste & Materials Management Configuration

13. DOE-EM has extensive, proven experience in radioactive waste management The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), is the Nation’s only operating deep geologic disposal facility that accepts defense- related transuranic (TRU) waste. Over 7,000 TRU waste shipments have been made (including over 189 remote- handled shipments) and over 57,000 m 3 of waste emplaced since WIPP opened in 1999.

14. Transuranic (TRU) Waste Disposition Update Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Summary –57,452 m 3 of defense transuranic waste disposed –Completed 7,010 shipments Remote-handled (RH) shipments began from INL in January 2007 and from Argonne National Laboratory in August 2008 –189 RH-TRU shipments received at WIPP to date Removed legacy TRU waste from 14 sites; shipments from large generator sites continue –Some smaller sites’ wastes were previously consolidated at large sites –DOE is currently planning for an additional intersite campaign EM strives to sustain an average of 21 contact-handled TRU (CH-TRU) and 5 remote-handled TRU (RH-TRU) shipments per week –Shipping rate is dependent on waste availability at generator sites –Annual shipping plan developed and maintained to retain complex’s focus on fully utilizing the “TRU pipeline” Shipment data as of 11/03/08

15. TRU Shipments Received – as of 11/03/08 SiteShipments Argonne National Laboratory 14 CH; 5 RH Idaho National Laboratory 2,906 CH; 184 RH Los Alamos National Laboratory 414 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 18 Nevada Test Site 48 Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site 2,045 Hanford Site 432 Oak Ridge National Laboratory3 Savannah River Site 941 Total to WIPP 7,010

16. Initial FY 2009 TRU Waste Shipping Goals Generator Site # Contact Handled Shipments # Remote Handled Shipments Argonne National Laboratory 25 Idaho National Laboratory 60552 Los Alamos National Laboratory 11416 (May) Oak Ridge National Laboratory 3235 (Jan) Savannah River Site 12627 (Feb) GE Vallecitos, CA25 (Feb) Total to WIPP 877180 Inter-site to INL Nevada Test Site 13 (Nov/Dec)

17. Optimizing TRU Waste Disposition ~ Plans for Inter-site Shipments to INL for Characterization and Treatment DOE intends to send both CH- and RH-TRU waste to Idaho National Laboratory to be treated and characterized prior to shipment to WIPP for disposal. DOE completed additional NEPA analysis and published an Amended Record of Decision (ROD) in Federal Register on March 7, 2008. Approximately 2,067 CH-TRU shipments and 188 RH-TRU shipments could move to INL for treatment and characterization Approximately 795 shipments of CH TRU and 621 of RH TRU would then require transport to WIPP for disposal Planning for implementation of intersite shipment campaign continues. –However, DOE will continue to comply with the Idaho Settlement Agreement terms and milestones –Implementation to begin in late 2008 with NTS shipments to INL, during planned maintenance outage at WIPP

18. Potential Inter-site TRU Shipments to INL Generator/Shipping Sites : –Hanford Site (Richland, WA) –Nevada Test Site (Las Vegas, Nevada) –Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley, CA) –Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Livermore, CA) –GE Vallecitos Nuclear Center (Sunol, CA) –Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, IL) –Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (Schenectady, NY) –Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU) (Schenectady, NY) –Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Paducah, KY) –Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (Nuclear Fuel Services) (Erwin, TN) –Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory (West Mifflin, PA) –Sandia National Laboratory (Albuquerque, NM) [Sites analyzed in 2008 SA and ROD]

19. Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level (LLW/MLLW) Disposition Update On-site disposal continues at most sites –Expansion of some on-site facilities underway or planned –New on-site facilities under evaluation for future large D&D projects Volumes requiring off-site waste disposal continue to drop –Expect trend to continue due to DOE budget constraints. Retention of off-site disposal options is critical, as some streams require it Taking steps to optimize disposal operations at DOE facilities Commercial disposal continues to be cost effective alternative for many lower activity debris and soil streams Many MLLW treatment needs are met by off-site commercial firms Closure of TSCA Incinerator planned in FY 2009

20. LLW/MLLW ~ Issues and Priorities Near term disposal plans will likely be constrained, and opportunities to optimize costs are critical to continued disposal progress –Increased emphasis of near term planning and cost-benefit analyses –Economies of scale are being sought Off-site waste shipments to Hanford remain suspended –Pending completion of the Hanford Tank Closure & Waste Management EIS and subsequent decisions DOE disposal capacity for MLLW (at NTS) ends in Nov 2010 –Future alternatives are being evaluated, but remain uncertain Legal issues stand to impact general availability of NTS Forecast volumes remain somewhat uncertain –For example, some higher activity MLLW volumes “fall out” of TRU inventory

21. 21 Off Site LLW/MLLW disposition has declined On Site disposition follows similar trend, but at higher volumes

22. DOE EM is closely monitoring changing circumstances in the nation’s LLW management system Reduced disposal access for Class B & C wastes Calls for changes to Low Level Waste Policy Act Possible increased disposal demand to address disused sealed sources Changes in disposal marketplace Developments in Texas compact (Waste Control Specialists) Changes in treatment capabilities Contemplated changes in NRC waste classification systems and waste related guidance documents –Branch technical position on concentration averaging –Updated guidance on storage of B&C wastes

23. High-Level/Liquid Tank Waste Management ~ Disposition Overview Liquid waste management activities comprise nearly one third of the EM annual budget –Efforts span a wide range of activities, including: scientific analysis, design & engineering, R&D, technology development, tank farm operations, treatment facility construction, treatment and disposition operations Tank retrieval progress continues Implementation of “Section 3116” authorities continues at Idaho and Savannah River Site (SRS) –Allows residual waste (tank heels) to be left in place and managed to meet LLW requirements –Permits separated and treated low-activity waste to be disposed on site –Tank closures achieved at Idaho and SRS Facility construction continues –Waste Treatment Plant and related facilities at Hanford –Integrated Waste Treatment Unit at Idaho for Sodium Bearing Waste –Salt Waste Processing Facility at SRS Regulatory analysis underway regarding calcined HLW Significant EM effort to support DOE defense of Yucca Mountain License Application

24. High-Level/Liquid Tank Waste Management ~ Update HLW Corporate Board established; two meetings held –“ The Board will identify need for and develop policies, planning, standards and guidance and provide the integration necessary to implement an effective and efficient national HLW program” –“The Board will also evaluate the implications of HLW issues and their potential impact across the complex and recommend solutions” Corporate issues: –Need to better document and understand tank inventory –Tank farm integrity, operability, life extension. –Effectiveness of different pre-treatment technologies –Tank residual goals – to be driven by performance assessment –Waste determination technical issues –Strategy for disposal of hazardous waste forms in repository Actively reviewing and revising EM HLW-related standards and guidance to reflect new information, support current activities and align with repository requirements

25. Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU): –Enriched Uranium Disposition Project established in August 2006 –Utilize H-Canyon at the Savannah River Site (SRS) to disposition about 21 metric tons of surplus HEU located across the DOE complex (includes 13.5 metric tons of HEU in the form of aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel) –HEU down-blended to low enriched uranium for use into commercial fuel Excess Uranium: –Secretarial Policy on Management of DOE’s Excess Uranium Inventory issued in March 2008 –Request For Proposal for potential sale/reuse of initial lots of excess uranium located at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant issued in August 2008 –Continue with planning for disposition of other excess uranium materials located at Portsmouth and Paducah sites Surplus Plutonium-239 : –Decision to consolidate surplus non-pit plutonium from Hanford, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory to SRS issued September 2007 –Consolidation ongoing; Hanford on track to complete by September 2009 –“Two-pronged” disposition strategy identified as preferred alternative June 2008; subject to completion of NEPA Other Nuclear Materials: –Implementation Plan for Disposition of Surplus U-233 approved October 2007 –Implementation Plan for Pu-238 Disposition and Consolidation under preparation Surplus and Special Nuclear Material Disposition Update

26. Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) –Prepare EM Strategic Plan for Management and Disposition of SNF Process aluminum clad SNF in H-Canyon as part of Enriched Uranium Disposition Project Package non-aluminum clad SNF at INL and Hanford for disposal in Yucca Mountain –Continue planning efforts to consolidate aluminum clad SNF at SRS –Assist ongoing NRC review of License Application for Yucca Mountain –Continue ongoing activities in receipt of foreign and domestic research reactor fuel EM-owned Spent Nuclear Fuel Update

27. In closing Many DOE activities are linked to National priorities DOE missions and many US initiatives rely on the DOE waste management system EM has 20 years of progress and experience in safely managing radioactive wastes and nuclear materials –We solve problems that once seemed unsolvable A strong partnership with our regulators and stakeholders is required to maintain and support the DOE waste management system

28. Additional and Background Information

29. Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) LLW EIS The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1985 assigned the Federal Government [DOE] the responsibility to develop disposal capacity for Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low- Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 required DOE to provide a report on the estimated cost and schedule to develop an environmental impact statement on GTCC LLRW disposal –Report to Congress submitted in July 2006 –Also requires submission of a second Report to Congress on disposal alternatives and action by Congress before Record of Decision (ROD) can be issued

30. 5/09 Issue Draft EIS 5/09 Issue Draft EIS 7/10 Submit Report to Congress Disposal on Alternatives TBD Issue Record of Decision TBD Issue Record of Decision Status of GTCC EIS Activities Await Congressional Action 7/07 – 9/07 Conducted Public Scoping Process (9 public meetings and 250 commenters) Summer 09 Conduct Public Meetings 6/10 Issue Final EIS

31. Preliminary Waste Inventory for EIS Analysis

32. Disposal Alternatives for EIS Evaluation AlternativeLocation 1. No actionContinued storage consistent with ongoing practices 2. Geologic RepositoryWaste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) 3. Geologic RepositoryProposed Yucca Mountain Repository 4. Enhanced Near SurfaceHanford, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Nevada Test Site (NTS), Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), Savannah River Site (SRS), WIPP Vicinity, and generic commercial 5. Intermediate Depth BoreholeHanford Site, INL, LANL, NTS, WIPP Vicinity, and generic commercial Remarks EIS will identify whether legislation or regulatory modifications that may be needed to implement any of these alternatives Combination of alternatives may be feasible EIS being structured so that decisions can be made on a waste stream-by-waste stream basis

33. Summing up GTCC LLW EIS Preparation of EIS in full scale production Waste inventory developed but subject to change Public scoping comments received and are being considered Additional opportunity to comment on Draft EIS (mid 09) High level of internal and external coordination Action by Congress required before disposal decision

34. Irradiate fuel in reactors for defense purposes Irradiate fuel in reactors for defense purposes Mine uranium ore Convert and enrich uranium Convert and enrich uranium Fabricate uranium fuel Remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor Remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor Recovered uranium from spent nuclear fuel Recovered uranium from spent nuclear fuel Reprocess spent nuclear fuel DOE programs established and continue to support the current nuclear fuel cycle…

35. Irradiate fuel in reactors for defense purposes Irradiate fuel in reactors for defense purposes Mill tailings waste Mine uranium ore Convert and enrich uranium Convert and enrich uranium Fabricate uranium fuel Remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor Remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor Recovered uranium from spent nuclear fuel Recovered uranium from spent nuclear fuel Low-level waste Depleted uranium Low-level waste Reprocess spent nuclear fuel High- level waste Plutonium/ Uranium for weapons fabrication …and a comprehensive waste management system is needed to support the fuel cycle Trasuranic waste