Permit Watch

Public comments

NEA Comments on Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) Evaluation for the Test Bed Initiative (TBI) Demonstration – DOE-ORP-2021-01, Rev. 0

The Draft WIR Evaluation for the TBI Demonstration is a well-written and thorough document. A total of 32 comments were prepared that could be grouped into four main issues that need to be addressed for the TBI Demonstration to move forward without further delays. The four issues, rationale, and recommended resolution are as follows:

1. The term Low-Activity Waste (LAW) is used throughout the document in the context of treated tank supernate instead of using the term Low-Level Waste (LLW) or Mixed LLW (MLLW).

a. LAW is a term used only at the Hanford Site to describe the portion of the tank waste that is viewed as not being High-Level Waste (HLW) and in the context of waste that will be immobilized in the LAW Vitrification Facility; however, LAW is not a recognized term within the DOE directives (e.g., DOE Manual 435.1-1) or Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

b. In addition, LAW is not a recognized term under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. The appropriate term under RCRA would be MLLW. This is a particularly important point to be addressed for the TBI Demonstration project since permitted commercial facilities will be used for treatment and disposal of the waste in either Washington State (treatment only), Utah, or Texas. These facilities are permitted for MLLW. The facilities’ permits do not recognize the term LAW for good reason as it is not a recognized waste type under regulatory codes and standards. The Washington State Department of Ecology has gone on record arguing that Perma-Fix Northwest is permitted to treat MLLW, not LAW, and therefore could not treat the TBI-generated waste if it is called LAW (21-NWP-145, 9/3/2021).

c. While it is reasonable for the term "LAW" to be used when describing the Direct Feed LAW Program or the LAW Vitrification Facility, the term LAW should be limited to only those circumstances and not be used in the context of legal definitions or where administrative law is being used such as for RCRA.

d. The TBI WIR Evaluation should be revised as much as possible to use LLW or MLLW terminology instead of LAW. Also, a brief explanation of the two terms and that they are synonymous for the purposes of the TBI WIR Evaluation should be incorporated into the document so that the public and stakeholders do not continue to be confused regarding these terms.

2. The term “pretreatment” is used throughout the document to describe the TBI process whereas the appropriate term to use is “treatment” as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

a. The WA Department of Ecology does not recognize pretreatment as the acceptable step to reduce the volume of tank waste that would be classified as HLW and require High-Level Waste Vitrification (HLVIT) treatment. In the preamble to EPA’s Third-Third rule making (55 FR 22520), the EPA clearly described that DOE may treat and separate out the large low-level waste fraction from tank waste in order to reduce the volume of waste that would otherwise require HLVIT treatment. The EPA uses the term treatment, not pretreatment, in the preamble. In the case of EPA regulations, the use of filtration is in fact a treatment process. Filtration is part of the TBI’s waste treatment process. This terminology difference could be why the Department of Ecology still considers HLVIT to be required, even for TBI-processed waste. In accordance with EPA regulations, the Department of Ecology’s position is an erroneous and improper interpretation of the standard.

b. While not within the Department of Ecology's authority to determine, it has broadly described, and holds fast to the belief, that all the waste in Hanford's tanks is HLW. Using the term pretreat provides the opportunity for the Department of Ecology to continue to argue that all tank waste still requires HLVIT treatment. In this case, TBI treatment may just be viewed by the Department of Ecology as a preliminary step prior to HLVIT treatment. In fact, the TBI retrieval equipment treats the tank waste supernates by filtration (an EPA standard) then ion exchange (a DOE standard) to enable a determination to be made that the waste is not HLW. This is not “pretreatment” but rather “treatment” and should be so recognized in the WIR document.

c. Using the term treatment is a more accurate description of the TBI process from a RCRA perspective. DOE is simply treating the tank waste to generate a MLLW stream that can be safely managed and appropriately treated for land disposal. It also provides DOE with improved terminology alignment to apply EPA’s change in treatability group principle, which specifies a new point of generation occurs when a “treatment” causes the treatability group of the waste to change; in this case DOE creates a wastewater stream via TBI treatment from non-wastewater tank waste. The EPA provides example treatment methods, including filtration that would result in application of the change in treatability group principle and result in a new point of generation. This is important because HLVIT is specifically not applicable to wastewater in the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards (40 CFR 268.40).  

d. DOE should change the terminology from “pretreat” to “treat” throughout the TBI WIR Evaluation.

3. The Draft WIR Evaluation erroneously includes “solidified” along with separated and treated as a necessary step prior to making a determination that the waste is not HLW and can be managed as LLW.

a. It should be made clear that the LLW designation occurs prior to solidification; otherwise, the Department of Ecology may likely still consider the liquid waste to be HLW, which requires HLVIT treatment (vitrification). Additionally, commercial facilities are only permitted to treat MLLW, not HLW. Even if an argument could be made that the waste has yet to be designated as either HLW or LLW, RCRA does not recognize “tank waste” or “LAW” and thus no facilities are permitted to treat (solidify) such waste.

b. The waste designation must occur following the treatment step of filtration and ion-exchange to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical, which allows the waste to be safely managed as LLW. Management of the waste includes steps to ensure the waste will be solidified consistent with the requirements of DOE Manual 435.1-1 Chapter IV along with Section II.B.(2)(a)(3), ensuring the waste will be incorporated into a solid physical form at concentrations that do not exceed Class C LLW concentration limits.

c. DOE Manual 435.1-1, Section II.B.(2)(a), Criterion 3 is clearly written in a future-tense, such as: “Are to be managed, … in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV…” and “… will be incorporated in a solid physical form…”. Chapter IV of DOE Manual 435.1-1 includes criteria for solidifying liquid LLW prior to disposal at no-greater-than Class C concentrations. If all three Criterion had to be met prior to the waste being designated as LLW, then it could be construed by some that the waste remains HLW. No commercial treatment or disposal facilities are permitted for HLW and neither is the Waste Treatment Project’s (WTP’s) low-level waste vitrification facility. The Draft WIR Evaluation clearly demonstrates that DOE fully evaluated the liquid waste stream, including that solidification of the waste at concentrations not exceeding Class C limits can be met, consistent with Criterion 3.

d. The TBI WIR Evaluation should be clear that solidification of the TBI-treated waste is not required prior to the waste being designated as LLW.

4. The Draft WIR Evaluation erroneously portrays that all three criteria of DOE Manual 435.1-1, Section II.B.2(a) must be met prior to the waste being designated as LLW.

a. Criterion 2 and 3 of DOE Manual 435.1-1, Section II.B.2(a), are both written in a future-tense. Criterion 2 states the waste “Will be managed to meet safety requirements…” and, as noted above, Criterion 3 uses future-tense phrases “Are to be managed, … in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV…” and “… will be incorporated in a solid physical form…”.

b. It should be made very clear that Criterions 2 and 3 are included in the TBI WIR Evaluation for the purpose of demonstrating that once the LLW is generated it can be safely managed, treated, and disposed in a compliant manner at a disposal facility permitted to dispose of MLLW/LLW. Obviously, Criterion 2 and 3 cannot be required prior to the LLW designation.

c. Clarity should be provided in the TBI WIR Evaluation that the TBI-treated waste in its liquid form is what will be designated as LLW and does not require a final disposal stabilization form to receive such a DOE LLW determination.

These four issues need to be addressed in the WIR Evaluation for the TBI Demonstration prior to the document being finalized.

Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for Vitrified Low-Activity Waste - May 26 – Nov. 27, 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy held a 120-day public comment period on its Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) Evaluation for Vitrified Low-Activity Waste (VLAW). The Draft WIR Evaluation analyzes whether the VLAW meets waste management criteria, is incidental to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and may be managed (disposed of at the Hanford Site) as low-level radioactive waste in the future as has always been envisioned.

Comments from Northwest Energy Associates:

Northwest Energy Associates (NEA) is pleased to offer comments on the subject Vitrified Low-Activity Waste (VLAW) Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) document. We applaud the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for issuing this draft WIR and extending the public comment period.

Our comments support the DOE’s acceleration of the Hanford liquid waste mission while greatly reducing environmental risks to our community and region.

We encourage the DOE to revise the VLAW WIR to leverage accelerating the liquid waste program while also reducing the DOE Office of Environmental Management’s (EM’s) financial liabilities associated with vitrifying all of Hanford’s low-level waste (LLW). The current life-cycle costs and projected schedule for Hanford’s liquid waste cleanup mission are not sustainable.

We feel DOE must make radical changes to the Hanford tank waste program before Congressional funding constraints drive the mission to a timeline that is untenable and also unacceptable to our Tri-City community.

NEA believes DOE and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), should work together to pursue and demonstrate less costly, proven, and scientifically recommended approaches for addressing the LLW Hanford tanks inventory. Such demonstration will be supplemental and can be conducted in parallel to the DFLAW program now underway.

Off-site commercial treatment and disposal of LLW from tanks is an approach previously demonstrated at Hanford and recently demonstrated at Savannah River at engineering scales. It is now time to move to the larger-scale demonstration, and the VLAW WIR should be revised to support such a program.

We request that DOE and Ecology immediately complete the next phases of the off-site commercial treatment and out-of-state disposal project formerly known as the Test Bed Initiative, and now called Low-Level Waste Offsite Disposal (LLWOD) by DOE. We firmly believe such a demonstration program will result in a supplemental pathway for accelerated waste disposal while allowing the Tri-City community to enjoy benefits of out-of-state waste disposal in the event the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) is further delayed.

The following are our comments to the draft WIR document:

Comment #1. Revise the VLAW WIR document to use consistent nomenclature and regulatorily acceptable language in describing the waste form. DOE should define the relationship between LAW, LLW, MLLW, tank waste, in terms of regulatory criteria set forth in DOE Order 435.1 and 10CFR61.

Rationale: As written, these terms are used synonymously in the WIR document resulting in confusion for the public and policy makers. For example, Low-Activity Waste (LAW) is a Hanford-centric term. This term is not recognized or referenced in the permits and operating licenses of commercial treatment facilities and/or out-of-state disposal facilities. These facilities are permitted for treatment and disposal of Low-Level Waste (LLW) and Mixed Low-Level Waste (MLLW), which is technically synonymous with LAW but unclear and misleading to the nonexpert reader. It is recommended DOE make this distinction very clear in the document and make clear that LAW and LLW and MLLW are synonymous. To align with federal regulatory documents the term “LAW” should be minimized in favor of regulatory terms like LLW and MLLW.

Comment #2. Revise the document to make clear the WIR determination and waste classification will be performed prior to waste being sent to the LAW vit facility (i.e., at the source, where pretreated waste generated by Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) is staged. In the case of the VLAW WIR that is designated as 241-AP-106). As written, the waste determination and classification contemplate the final vitrified waste form will undergo the WIR determination. WIR determination should be done before vitrification in accordance with DOE’s authority under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended.

Rationale: The WIR determination should be performed for the pretreated waste that is generated by TSCR at its post pretreatment staging point/location. In the VLAW WIR document this staging location is shown as AP-106. The effluent from TSCR staged in tank AP-106 will have been filtered to remove suspended solids and ion exchanged to remove cesium in accordance with NRC guidance for determining if the waste meets LLW classification. Further lab analysis of the pretreated waste will enable DOE to confirm key radionuclides were removed by TSCR to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical and that the waste meets LLW criteria of 10 CFR Part 61. DOE has authority under the AEA to determine the waste type post pretreatment by TSCR and as pre-staged for further treatment for disposal. The waste should be determined by DOE to be LLW or MLLW prior to it being sent to the low-level waste vitrification melters.

Comment #3. Revise the document to indicate that DOE will make a treatment decision after performing a WIR determination for the pretreated waste generated by TSCR and stored in AP-106 as written, the document only contemplates that DOE will vitrify the waste from AP-106 that has been pretreated by TSCR. This approach limits DOE’s ability to use other disposition methods for the LLW in AP-106. Once it is determined by the WIR process that the waste is LLW, DOE could implement various final treatment and disposal options, which could accelerate and lower the cost of LLW treatment and disposal. The document should be revised to afford DOE alternative waste disposal options post TSCR pretreatment.

Rationale: DOE has authority under the AEA as amended and DOE Order 435.1 (Radioactive Waste Management) to perform a WIR determination for the pretreated waste generated by TSCR and staged in AP-106 prior to making a final treatment and disposal decision for the LLW. Consistent with DOE Manual 435.1-1 WIR Evaluation methodology, DOE has stated they will manage the LLW to meet safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C, Performance Objectives; and DOE will manage the waste under authority of the AEA and the LLW will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the concentration limits for Class C LLW (10 CFR 61.55). A final treatment and disposal decision is not required in order to satisfy the WIR evaluation process or make a WIR determination. If the waste is to be disposed on site at Hanford in the IDF then DOE may choose to vitrify the waste in the LAW melters to meet the Performance Assessment and waste acceptance criteria (WAC) of the IDF. If the waste is to be treated/stabilized and disposed of out of Washington State, then other treatment and disposal options may be selected by DOE. These options will require DOE to meet the waste acceptance criteria of the permit for the facility in the state in which the disposal facility resides. In this case, grout or other stabilization methods may be chosen by DOE. This approach has been recommended by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the National Academies of Science (NAS) in several recent reports on this subject. The VLAW WIR document should be revised to provide DOE with options that have been clearly identified by GAO and the NAS to safely reduce costs and accelerate the Hanford tank waste program.

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the VLAW Draft WIR Document. We encourage you to consider our comment and recommendations and make the appropriate revisions to address our concerns.

Sincerely,

Gary Petersen
President, Northwest Energy Associates

Comments from the Department of Ecology:

Department of Ecology’s Comments on the Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) Evaluation for Vitrified Low-Activity Waste (VLAW) Disposed of Onsite at the Hanford Site, Washington, and on the Performance Assessment for the Integrated Disposal Facility, Hanford Site (DOE O 435.1 PA), RPP-RPT-59958, Rev. 1A, May 26 – November 28, 2020, Public Comment Period

The Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) comments on the Draft WIR and the IDF PA are enclosed. All IDF PA and WIR comments provided during the public comment period, including those provided by Ecology and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, should be resolved before a decision is made on the WIR.

In addition, given that secondary solid wastes (SSW) was a significant component in the IDF PA, Ecology was surprised that SSW resulting from Waste Treatment Plant and support facility operations were not evaluated as part of the WIR process. The WIR must include an evaluation of SSW based on the following:

  • The source of SSW is the same tank waste as the Vitrified Low Activity Waste (VLAW) glass forms.

  • A significant portion of the mobile, long-lived radionuclides ends up in the various SSW streams.

  • The planned disposal location for SSW is the near surface of the IDF.

  • SSW presents a potential risk to the groundwater.

USDOE and its contractor have requested that Ecology approve SSW as a waste stream for disposal at IDF as part of the current IDF Class 3 Dangerous Waste permit modification. In our review of this permit modification request, Ecology commented that the Permittees have not demonstrated that the SSW can be safely and lawfully disposed in a near surface disposal location. Ecology will not be able to approve the SSW for acceptance at the IDF for near surface disposal without certification from USDOE that the SSW is not High-Level Waste. Certification of SSW could be accomplished by evaluating it in this VLAW WIR and including SSW in a subsequent WIR determination.

If you have questions or concerns, please contact Suzanne Dahl, Tank Waste Treatment Section Manager, at suzanne.dahl@ecy.wa.gov or (509) 539-3489, or Jerry Yokel, Chemist, at jerry.yokel@ecy.wa.gov or (509) 372-7937.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Schleif,
Acting Program Manager,
Nuclear Waste Program

[Attachments to this letter were not included here.]