10-13-19

Reinterpreting high-level nuclear waste

The following information being rebutted by Clean Up Hanford Now is cited from the Washington State Department of Ecology’s website.

Department of Ecology says:

Reinterpreting high-level nuclear waste

A federal proposal could mean significant changes in how Hanford tank waste is treated.

The U.S. Department of Energy has adopted a new interpretation of “high-level waste” that gives the agency unilateral authority to determine what constitutes high-level nuclear waste. This decision could have far-reaching consequences for how the waste in Hanford’s 177 underground tanks — currently classified as high-level waste — is treated and disposed of. In particular, it could mean that the federal Energy department would propose to leave millions more gallons of waste in the tanks, rather than removing it and incorporating it in glass as currently planned.

Clean Up Hanford Now says:

The Department of Ecology says that DOE has adopted a new interpretation of high-level waste, however, it acknowledges just a few paragraphs later on its website that “Nearly 20 years ago, the federal Energy department, federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Hanford regulators agreed to let 90 percent of the tank waste be treated as though it was low-level”.

Ecology states above that “it could mean that the federal Energy department would propose to leave millions more gallons of waste in the tanks…” This is the worst order of speculation by Ecology. Nowhere, and at no time, has DOE suggested ever leaving all the Low-Level Waste (LLW) or Mixed Low-Level Waste (MLLW) in the 177 tanks, particularly knowing that some of those tanks are “known leakers!” Congress wouldn’t stand for it, nor would Governor Jay Inslee or the local Tri-Cities population living within 30 miles of the Hanford Site.

Department of Ecology says:

Define High Level

Federal law — 33 USCS §1402 (j) — defines high-level waste as the irradiated fuel from a nuclear reactor, and the waste generated when that fuel is processed to extract other products. Federal laws further require that high-level nuclear waste be treated to make it stable and then disposed of in a deep geologic repository.

Clean Up Hanford Now says:

While Yucca Mountain is still the nation’s designated deep geologic federal repository site, until it opens (if ever) to receive radioactive waste, Ecology’s plan to vitrify all tank waste – both High-Level and Low-Level – will leave Hanford holding the bag as a long-term repository for ALL of that waste. With no federal repository in existence, there is no place to ship the glassified waste.

By supporting the clear reclassification of waste in the tanks, LLW and MLLW can be processed (removing the high-level cesium), treating and packaging the waste commercially, and shipping it out of the state of Washington. Why wouldn’t Ecology or anyone else want support this activity?

Department of Ecology says:

What’s in the tanks?

Hanford’s single-minded mission was to make plutonium for atomic bombs. Over nearly five decades, the site produced two-thirds of the nation’s plutonium. Its nine reactors irradiated uranium, and its various processing facilities used a succession of toxic chemicals to extract the small amounts of plutonium produced during the irradiation. In all, more than 100,000 tons of uranium were processed to make about 75 tons of plutonium. Virtually everything that wasn’t plutonium remains on site. That includes the millions of gallons of chemicals used to extract pounds of plutonium from tons of irradiated uranium.

Those radionuclide-laced chemicals went into Hanford’s 177 huge underground tanks. Every gallon of that waste currently is classified as high-level.

Clean Up Hanford Now says:

We disagree! Even Ecology’s own statement in the subheading (Old News in a New Package) on its website clearly identifies that 90 percent of the tanks waste is treated as low-level waste, along with the May 2017 GAO-17-306 report, Opportunities Exist to Reduce Risks and Costs by Evaluating Different Waste Treatment Approaches at Hanford, which states at the top of the highlights page:

“DOE oversees the treatment and disposal of about 90 million gallons of radioactive waste from the nation’s nuclear weapons program. Most of this waste is stored in tanks at DOE sites in Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River, South Carolina. The less radioactive portion of the tank waste, called LAW, comprises more than 90 percent of the waste’s volume but less than 10 percent of the total radioactivity. DOE has chosen different approaches for treating LAW at the two sites, but it has not made a final decision on how to treat Hanford’s supplemental LAW.”

Department of Ecology says:

Redefining high-level

Recently the federal Energy department sought public comment on a proposal to reinterpret the term high-level waste and base the definition on the level of radioactivity, rather than how it was generated. The comment period closed in early January and Energy is deciding how to proceed.

Old news in a new package

Up to 90 percent of Hanford’s tank waste could be reinterpreted as low-level under this proposal. But that’s already been done at Hanford. Nearly 20 years ago, the federal Energy department, federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Hanford regulators agreed to let 90 percent of the tank waste be treated as though it was low-level — referred to at Hanford as “low-activity.” However, under this agreement the waste could only be treated as low activity if it is incorporated into glass, which will keep its toxic and radioactive constituents encapsulated and stable for thousands of years.

Clean Up Hanford Now says:

GAO, DOE, and NRC have stated the following: [References and links for these statements coming soon]

According to the 21 experts that attended GAO’s meeting convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies), both vitrification and grout could effectively treat Hanford’s LAW. These experts stated that current information shows that grout will perform better than was assumed at the time DOE made its decision to vitrify Hanford’s LAW. According to some of the experts, using grout for supplemental LAW could help DOE complete its treatment mission sooner, reducing the environmental risks of leaving waste in tanks for long periods.

Experts at GAO’s meeting stated that developing updated information on the performance of treating Hanford’s supplemental LAW with other methods, such as grout, may enable DOE to consider waste treatment approaches that accelerate DOE’s tank waste treatment mission, thereby potentially reducing certain risks and lifecycle treatment costs.

Department of Ecology says:

A lower standard for low-level?

Since Energy already is treating 90 percent of the tank waste as if it were low-level, it would appear that the primary motivation to reinterpret that waste is to avoid its commitments to glassify much of the waste. Declaring most of the tank waste as low-level would open the door to treatment methods other than glass encapsulation. The most likely choice would be concrete. Energy already has discussed the possibility of leaving waste in dozens of the tanks and filling them with concrete rather than pumping the waste out. It also is considering removing some of the tank waste and mixing it with concrete rather than glass.

Clean Up Hanford Now says:

What the GAO-17-306 report recommends:

Congress should consider specifically authorizing DOE to classify Hanford’s supplemental LAW based on risk, consistent with existing regulatory authorities. The GAO report also recommends that DOE develop updated information on the performance of treating LAW with alternate methods, such as grout, before it selects an approach for treating supplemental LAW. DOE agreed with both recommendations.

Department of Ecology says:

Concrete is not “as good as glass”

Washington state has remained open to alternative treatments for Hanford waste, but we have always insisted that any treatment be at least as good and effective as glass. So far, no alternatives have met that test, and concrete falls well short. It is porous and — relative to radioactive contaminants — short-lived. Large quantities of waste left in tanks, even if it is topped with concrete, eventually would leak out, seep through the soil into the groundwater, and from there into the Columbia River. That is not an acceptable outcome to the state.

Clean Up Hanford Now says:

[Specific quotes from the report and cite location coming soon.]

The Department of Ecology apparently has chosen to ignore the GAO-17-306 report on the current science of grout technology and the 2019 National Academy of Sciences report commissioned by DOE on Hanford waste and the use of grout instead of vitrification for immobilizing low-activity waste. Both reports clearly conclude that today’s grout technology is comparable to glass and is safer, much less costly, and can be done much sooner than the planned vitrification schedule for low-activity waste.