1. Implementation of the Record of Decision for Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Presentation to the National Governors’ Association Federal Facility Task Force April 12, 2001 U.S. Department of Energy

2. 2 Agenda Status of LLW and MLLW treatment –DOE capabilities –Private capabilities Status of LLW and MLLW disposal –DOE capabilities –Expected disposal volumes –Next steps to implement DOE MLLW disposal –Private capabilities Next Steps

3. 3 Programmatic Record of Decision In February 2000, DOE issued its programmatic Record of Decision for treatment and disposal of low-level waste (LLW) and mixed low-level waste (MLLW) – LLW Treatment : continued onsite treatment of LLW, as needed, at all sites – MLLW Treatment : named Hanford, Idaho, Oak Ridge and Savannah River to treat other sites’ MLLW, consistent with Site Treatment Plans under the Federal Facility Compliance Act – LLW and MLLW Disposal : »Named Hanford and NTS to continue to dispose of other DOE sites’ LLW and to begin disposing other sites’ MLLW »Continued onsite LLW disposal operations at Idaho, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and Savannah River

4. 4 Implementation of LLW and MLLW Treatment For LLW treatment, sites continue onsite treatment as needed For MLLW treatment, several changes have occurred in DOE –CIF at Savannah River »Operations temporarily suspended; restart decision pending results of analysis of alternative treatment technologies for PUREX solvents –TSCAI at Oak Ridge »Currently operational and treating MLLW and PCB waste from onsite and offsite »Baseline planning for shutdown at the end of FY 2003, pending availability of commercial treatment alternative –WERF at Idaho »Operations have ceased and will not restart –AMWTP at Idaho »Incinerator component deferred pending action on Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations, but construction of other components continues

5. 5 Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) on Emerging Technological Alternatives to Incineration BRP chartered in April 2000 to “evaluate and recommend emerging non-incineration technologies for treatment and disposal of mixed waste” (Mixed-TRU and MLLW) Final report, issued in December 2000, focused findings on four key themes: –Categorizing wastes that need treatment and matching wastes to treatment alternatives –Funding and implementing a systems approach to develop and test promising technologies –Implementing a program of basic and applied research to address the next generation of technologies –Engaging stakeholders of various expertise in efforts leading to deployment of waste treatment technologies In January 2001, DOE accepted the BRP recommendations

6. 6 Action Plan Will Summarize DOE Response DOE’s Draft Action Plan describes overall strategy that will guide implementation of BRP recommendations, including –Seeking regulatory changes at WIPP to enable disposal of PCB- contaminated transuranic (TRU) waste without treatment –Continuing development efforts to improve DOE’s ability to meet TRU waste transportation limitations –Assessing DOE’s quantities of MLLW and mixed TRU waste that may need treatment –Evaluating technological treatment alternatives to incineration through the Transuranic and Mixed Waste Focus Area –Engaging stakeholders through an EMAB committee –Hosting a national forum on alternatives to incineration

7. 7 Overview of Private Waste Treatment Capabilities Accessed by DOE DOE accesses private capabilities for LLW and MLLW treatment Vendors already or nearly on-line to treat DOE wastes include: –Envirocare of Utah, Inc. –Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. (DSSI) –Waste Control Specialists LLC –Allied Technology Group –East Tennessee Materials and Energy Corporation DOE is closely monitoring progress in the commercial sector in light of decisions DOE must make on operation of its own facilities

8. 8 Implementation of LLW and MLLW Disposal Argonne-East INEEL/Argonne-West Brookhaven National Lab ETEC Nevada Test Site Oak Ridge RMI Rocky Flats SLAC Sandia National Lab Ames Fermi Lab Knolls Atomic Power Lab Princeton Plasma Physics Lab Battelle Columbus Bettis MIT Grand Junction General Atomics Lawrence Berkeley Lab LEHR Paducah Notes: 1. Three licensed commercial disposal facilities currently exist; Chem-Nuclear in Barnwell, South Carolina, Envirocare of Utah near Clive, Utah, and U.S. Ecology in Washington state. Historically, the Department has primarily disposed of waste at the Envirocare facility. Other commercial facilities will be considered as they become available. Hanford Kansas City Plant Miamisburg Portsmouth Savannah River Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute Pantex Plant Los Alamos National Lab Lawrence Livermore National Lab Legend CERCLA Disposal Facility LLW Operations Disposal Facility Generator Site (with no on-site disposal facility) Planned CERCLA Disposal Facility MLLW Operations Disposal Facility Regional Disposal Facility Sandia National Lab Fernald

9. 9 Planned DOE LLW Disposal Volumes (20-year Projections) Over the next 20 years, DOE projects it will have 6.6 million cubic meters of LLW needing disposal –78% (5,120,000 m3) will be disposed onsite where it is generated –6% (400,000 m3) may be disposed offsite at Hanford or NTS –12.5% (830,000 m3) is planned for offsite commercial disposal –No disposal location has been decided for 3.5% (230,000 m3)

10. 10 Most DOE LLW is Disposed Onsite or in a Commercial Disposal Facility Potential Offsite LLW to be Disposed at Hanford or NTS

11. 11 Projected LLW to be Disposed ( from Offsite ) at Hanford or NTS Near-term, disposal of offsite LLW at Hanford and NTS increase –Oak Ridge begins to ship some LLW for disposal at NTS –Rocky Flats LLW shipments peak as they approach 2006 closure Note: Hanford off-site volumes include submarine hulls

12. 12 Projected LLW to be Disposed (from Onsite or Offsite) at Hanford and NTS When look at total volume disposed, Hanford disposes more LLW than NTS due to large volumes of Hanford onsite waste –Disposal of onsite CERCLA wastes at ERDF and WM wastes in 200-Area –Disposal of offsite WM wastes and submarine hulls in 200-Area Majority of waste disposed at NTS is offsite waste TOTAL 323,700 106,800 14,900 46,700 72,000 2,175,000

13. 13 Planned DOE MLLW Disposal Volumes (20-year Projections) Over the next 20 years, DOE projects it will have 384,000 cubic meters of MLLW needing disposal –70% (270,000 m3) will be disposed onsite where it is generated –29% (110,000 m3) is planned for offsite commercial disposal –No disposal location has been decided for 1% (4,000 m3)

14. 14 Most DOE MLLW is Disposed Onsite or Offsite in a Commercial Disposal Facility NOTE: There is also 4,000 cubic meters of MLLW for which a disposal location has not yet been decided.

15. 15 Projected MLLW to be Disposed Offsite at Hanford or NTS Current DOE complex-wide volume estimates do not accurately reflect plans for MLLW disposal at Hanford or NTS –Timing of last data call to sites for MLLW projections (January 2000) pre-dated issuance of DOE’s Record of Decision naming Hanford and NTS (February 2000) –Forecasts reflect sites’ uncertainty about current limitations on access to Hanford and NTS MLLW disposal –Many sites anticipated successful commercial facility license modification Expect current data update process to identify MLLW for offsite disposal at Hanford or NTS –July 2001 will finalize updated forecast of MLLW disposal volumes

16. 16 Implementation of MLLW Disposal at NTS In December 2000, DOE submitted a revised application to the State of Nevada to permit 20,000 cubic meters of MLLW disposal capacity –State has provided initial comments on DOE’s application –Process includes ongoing discussions, legal reviews and public involvement –Requires minor physical upgrades to Pit 3 MLLW disposal unit Working with State to develop MLLW verification program –Includes building modifications to install Real-Time Radiography equipment –Will result in modifications to plans, procedures and safety requirements for off-site waste generators

17. 17 Implementation of MLLW Disposal at Hanford Hanford Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement is ongoing –Required to comply with National Environmental Policy Act –Evaluates alternatives for Hanford waste management activities Expect completion of the Hanford Solid Waste EIS and a Record of Decision by mid-2002 DOE has committed to complete the Hanford Solid Waste EIS and issue a Record of Decision before Hanford begins disposing of offsite MLLW –Hanford is already disposing onsite MLLW

18. 18 Overview of Private Waste Disposal Capabilities Accessed by DOE DOE accesses private capabilities for LLW and MLLW disposal Vendors already or nearly on-line to dispose DOE wastes include: –Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (near Clive, Utah) »Amended license to accept higher activity wastes is delayed –Waste Control Specialists LLC (Andrews County, Texas) »Currently, can only dispose waste with exempt levels of radioactive material per Texas state law; working to get LLW disposal license –Chem-Nuclear (Barnwell, South Carolina) »Atlantic Compact decision is phasing out DOE disposal access –U.S. Ecology (Richland, Washington) »Only accepts LLW from DOE’s Hanford site; no contracts currently in place with DOE

19. 19 Next Steps Looking more closely at cost of DOE disposal –Questions from Congressional staff on relative cost of DOE versus commercial disposal –Draft IG report recommending DOE change how disposal is funded and managed –Inclusion of closure and post-closure activities in DOE disposal costs Focusing on better integration between shipping and receiving sites –Office of Integration sponsoring workshop in June 2001 between shipping and receiving sites –Evaluate standardizing Hanford and NTS waste acceptance criteria, to allow reciprocity between disposal sites –Propose ways to better ensure efficiency of disposal operations

20. Backup Slides Comparison Between FY1998 and FY2000 Data: 20-Year LLW Disposal Volumes (m3)

21. 21 Comparison Between FY1998 and FY2000 Data: 20-Year LLW Disposal Volumes (m3) 1998 Data 2000 Data Volumes to onsite CERCLA disposal decreased from 5,300,000 m3 to now 4,800,000 m3 –Hanford-down over 20 years (OR-up) Volumes to onsite WM facilities disposal decreased from 680,000 m3 to now 320,000 m3 –Hanford, Idaho, Los Alamos, NTS, Savannah River-down Volumes to offsite WM facilities disposal increased from 250,000 m3 to now 400,000 m3 –Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats-up (Mound-down) Volumes to offsite commercial disposal increased from 500,000 m3 to now 830,000 m3 –Mound, Oak Ridge, Paducah, Savannah River-up Volumes to a TBD disposal location increased from 140,000 m3 to now 230,000 m3 –Idaho, West Valley-up (OR-down)

22. 22 Comparison Between FY1998 and FY2000 Data: 20-Year MLLW Disposal Volumes (m3) 1998 Data 2000 Data Volumes to onsite CERCLA disposal decreased from 350,000 m3 to now 240,000 m3 –Idaho-down (Oak Ridge-up) Volumes to onsite WM facilities disposal decreased from 70,000 m3 to now 40,000 m3 –Hanford Volumes to offsite WM facilities disposal remained at 0 m3 –Uncertainty as to Hanford/NTS availability Volumes to offsite commercial disposal increased from 70,000 m3 to now 110,000 m3 –Paducah, Portsmouth, Rocky Flats-up (OR-down) Volumes to a TBD disposal location decreased from 110,000 m3 to now 4,000 m3 –Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats