1. 1 Avoiding Gridlock: Obstacles to Waste Disposition Intergovernmental Group Meeting with DOE Hilton Crystal City – Arlington, VA December 9, 2004 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. Department of Energy, Grant No, DE-FG02-97FT34337

2. 2 To begin  A modest bit of history 3 eras of waste management since 1992 3 eras of waste management since 1992

3. 3 Era #1 1993-95  Federal Facilities Compliance Act (1992)  Mandated Site Treatment Plans  STPs to be approved by governors within 3 years   Intensive DOE-State dialogue    48 STPs signed (Success!)

4. 4 1993-1995 (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

5. 5 Era #2: 1995-2000 Programmatic Waste Management EIS Records of Decision:  Hanford and NTS selected for disposal of LLW and MLLW from off-site  Other RODs also completed  Ten year plans  Paths to Closure

6. 6 1995-2000 (continued)  Waste data continuously improved  New information tools were developed: Waste Disposition Charts Waste Disposition Charts  Site interdependencies became clear

7. 7

8. 8 The Waste Disposition Scheme at the end of year 2000  HLW – repository (Yucca Mtn.)  TRU – WIPP  Mixed LLW – Hanford, Nevada Test Site, commercial  LLW – on-site, Nevada Test Site, Hanford, commercial  Many waste streams have no identified disposition path – “orphan wastes”

9. 9 Era #3: 2001-2004 Top to Bottom Review Accelerated Cleanup Initiative  EM Corporate Project Teams  Safety initiatives  New management systems implemented  EM reorganization & staff changes

10. 10 Substantial progress on cleanup!  Rocky Flats: on track to close in 2006  SRS: increased waste loading in DWPF—result will be fewer canisters for repository  Mound: all legacy TRU waste removed  Hanford: liquids removed from single shell tanks  WIPP: actively receiving waste for disposal  Many more examples: See Jessie Roberson’s speech to NGA, May 2004

11. 11 2001-2004 (continued)  Relatively little focus on waste management issues, per se  Collection of waste stream data ended in August 2001  Given the degree of change since 2001, the old data are obsolete  The big picture has gone out of focus

12. 12 “problematic” / “orphan” wastes  Many remain—examples:  Fernald silo waste  Buried TRU waste; non-defense TRU  High activity LLW (“GTCC” waste) (EIS needed?)  PCB waste, if TSCA incinerator closes  Is there a full inventory of orphan waste?  Any “surprise” movement of waste is problematic

13. 13 The information challenge  Previous informational tools to help understand W.M. are no longer available  Much is still in flux: orphan wastes, new PSOs involved, more acceleration  How can regulators and stakeholders keep informed of the overall picture of waste movement, the interconnectedness of sites, and decision-making on specific waste streams or facilities?

14. 14 SSAB chairs’ letter  Letter sent to Paul Golan 11-30-04  Identified “vulnerabilities in existing waste disposition assumptions”  E.g., pre-1970 TRU waste  Orphan waste  “Multiple legal barriers” to shipping  Concerns of potential gridlock  Result: skyrocketing costs; completion delays  Recommended a national forum by the end of 2005 to develop solutions to DOE’s system-wide waste and material disposition challenges.

15. 15 What are some barriers to disposition?  WA initiative 297 (affects mixed waste)  Lawsuits—e.g., WA v. Abraham regarding 6/23/04 Record of Decision, etc.  Lack of NEPA coverage  Waste acceptance limitations at WIPP  Limited capacity at WIPP (and RH-TRU path not yet open)  Limited capacity at Yucca Mountain (NWPA of 1982 set limit of 70,000 MTHM, and only 10% can be DOE waste.)  DOE’s 2001 chart of barriers to disposition

16. 16 Washington’s Initiative 297  Passed Nov.2 with 69% yes vote  Intent: prohibit importation of mixed waste until on-site waste is cleaned up  Ecology Dept. implements via RCRA permits  Prohibits use of unlined trenches  Mandates state’s cleanup standards  Tank closure: requires “all practicable actions”  Includes public involvement provisions  Authorizes citizen suits

17. 17 Washington’s Initiative 297  Federal Judge issued TRO December 2  Hearing scheduled December 13  Importation was already on hold due to another lawsuit filed in 2003

18. 18 DOE-EM Waste Management overview (2001)

19. 19 Barriers (2001)

20. 20 Barriers (2001)(continued)

21. 21 Do these barriers add up to “gridlock”?  Will the barriers cause cleanup delays and/or increased costs?  Which barriers does DOE think are most critical?  Should a National Forum be held?  How might the state, local, or tribal representatives help DOE overcome barriers?

22. 22 Conclusion  Previously-useful information tools are not up-to-date and thus not useable  The big picture of waste management and interconnectedness is hard to discern  Many orphan wastes remain in TBD status  Current disposition assumptions may be “vulnerable” – concern for “gridlock”  The time may be ripe to return to a robust dialogue on waste management

23. 23 THE END