Numerous state officials responded positively this week to news that sites in their respective jurisdictions were left off the Department of Energy’s site recommendation for the disposal of greater-than-class C (GTCC) waste and GTCC-like waste.
Last week, DOE released its final environmental impact statement on disposal options for GTCC waste, recommending the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico and/or land disposal at generic commercial facilities. Congress will make the final selection from a list that currently also includes the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico; the Hanford Site in Washington state; the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS); the Idaho National Laboratory (INL); and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina.
Leo Drozdoff, director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said Tuesday that Nevada state and local officials have agreed throughout the process that the waste material would not be appropriate at NNSS.
“Obviously the preferred alternative does not include NNSS,” Drozdoff said. “They still have to issue a record of decision, but as far as it goes, not having the NNSS as a preferred alternative, we’re pleased with that outcome because it’s consistent with what we had commented on throughout the process.”
Drozdoff likened GTCC waste to transuranic material, which is mainly produced from recycled spent fuel or plutonium used to make nuclear weapons. GTCC is defined as low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits for Class C LLRW established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A residual product of high-level waste that currently lacks a disposal option, GTCC is commercially generated. NNSS, meanwhile, is tasked with improving national security through testing of military use of nuclear energy. Facility programs include weapons testing, chemical spill testing, emergency response training, and waste management studies.
DOE in 2011 issued a draft EIS, reporting the total of GTCC waste around the country at about 1,100 cubic meters. The document also projected annual production of DOE and commercial GTCC at about 175 cubic meters for the next 60 years.
Washington state has long opposed the disposal of GTCC waste at Hanford, citing environmental studies showing that additional waste from other sites would increase the risk to groundwater, said Dieter Bohrmann, spokesman for the Washington Department of Ecology.
“We are pleased that the final EIS ruled Hanford out as a suitable site for disposal of this waste,” Bohrmann said. “We didn’t have an opinion on where the GTCC waste should go. We just opposed it coming to Hanford for the reasons highlighted in the study.”
Jon Hanian, spokesman for Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, cited two objections from 2011 against potential disposal of GTCC waste at the Idaho National Laboratory. Otter then said DOE has safer and more appropriate alternatives. The governor suggested DOE look elsewhere because INL is located on top of the Snake River Plain Aquifer, a basalt aquifer serving more than 200,000 people.
Jim Beasley, spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, said Wednesday by email that his department is pleased the Savannah River Site is not DOE’s preferred alternative for GTCC waste disposal. He cited public comments from 2011, stating that SRS is inappropriate given its current waste management status. About 37 million gallons of high-level mixed waste is stored in aging tanks at SRS. The site also contains about 600 cubic meters of legacy mixed transuranic waste.