State Policy Letter
Potential Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) Radioactive Waste Interim Storage Project at the Nevada Test Site (NTS)
State Policy LetterPotential Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) Radioactive Waste Interim Storage Project at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) |
|
| READER'S NOTE:This page contains the State of Nevada's comments on a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed pilot project for storing up to 56 cubic feet of GTCC waste generated from decommissioning of the commercial Yankee Rowe nuclear reactor located in the State of Massachusetts. DOE is proposing to use the Nevada Test Site for the storage of this material. |
December 5, 1996
Re: Potential GTCC (Greater-Than-Class-C)
Radioactive Waste Interim Storage Project at the Nevada Test Site
Dear Ms Dever:
At the Nevada Test Site (NTS) Community Advisory Board
meeting held on October 5th in Las Vegas, Nevada, officials
from the Department of Energy (DOE) distributed a one page draft program
proposal titled "Potential GTCC Pilot Interim Storage Project."
According to the draft proposal, a three-phased program
is being considered by DOE/Nevada to evaluate factors affecting disposal
of GTCC materials at the Nevada Test. The pilot program proposes to evaluate
factors affecting disposal of GTCC waste such as "requirements for
licensing, transportation, and siting." To accomplish the project,
DOE intends to take possession of an estimated 56 cubic feet of GTCC waste(1)
generated from decommissioning of the commercial Yankee Rowe nuclear reactor
located in the State of Massachusetts.
While the goal of the pilot project is not readily apparent, what is clear is that DOE\Nevada intends to develop and construct an interim storage facility for the Yankee Rowe waste at NTS without due consideration for the long-term programmatic consequences that such an action might have at the NTS or on the development of a national GTCC waste management strategy.
The State of Nevada has long advocated that the treatment,
storage, and disposal of commercially generated GTCC waste, along with
other DOE waste types (e.g., Special Case Waste -- SCW) that have similar
hazard characteristics, must be the subject of a programmatic analysis
under the National Environmental Policy Act.(2)
This is important because these waste types are generally defined as high
specific activity low-level wastes and are by hazard definition
inappropriate for shallow land burial. Because these similar waste types
are the legal responsibility of the DOE(3),
their management, in terms of treatment, storage, and disposal are clearly
connected in terms of agency decision making and thus must be subject to
a programmatic analysis under NEPA2
These facts follow from the analysis of alternatives and
subsequent recommendations contained in DOE's Draft Waste Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), as further defined in a DOE Federal
Register Notice published on Monday, March 13, 1995. The Notice outlined
strategies for the management and disposal of GTCC waste along with other
DOE wastes described as Special Case Waste.(4)
While the Notice suggested up to five specific strategy options for GTCC
LLW management and disposal, none of these options were reflected, or otherwise
related to the referenced pilot study that would result in storage of Yankee
Row reactor GTCC waste at the Nevada Test Site.
In reference to these issues, the State of Nevada has
formally requested that a programmatic analysis of these waste types, based
on relative waste hazards, be conducted by the DOE.(5)
Also, you should be aware that other actions contemplated by DOE\Nevada,
such as the development of greater confinement disposal units for the disposal
of high specific activity low-level waste at NTS(6),
will only serve to further exacerbate these issues.
If the referenced waste storage and disposal actions are
undertaken by DOE\Nevada, the result would be a violation of the requirements
of NEPA, a clear disregard of previous waste management strategies identified
by the department,(7) along with a violation
of the agency's own internal orders.(8)
In a related matter, DOE has decided to use certain facilities
at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) for the receipt and
(interim) storage of commercial GTCC radioactive sealed-sources(9),
as well as certain DOE controlled Special Case Waste.(10)
Major strategic assumptions for managing these wastes at INEL include waste
acceptance along with an evaluation of storage requirements and coordinated
management of these waste types.10 According to INEL documents,
this will "ensure selection of the best storage configuration to meet
the requirements of each waste stream or potential waste stream."
In other words, it appears that INEL officials are actively
developing a plan to address a DOE complex-wide management program for
both DOE SCW wastes and commercial GTCC wastes. Implementation of such
a plan calls for acceptance of GTCC wastes under the authority of the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Act to provide waste storage until an NRC licensed
facility is available. Accordingly, and since DOE/Idaho is contemplating
a coordinated approach to address the management of these waste types,
the State of Nevada questions why DOE/Nevada is being asked to develop
a pilot project for the management of GTCC waste from the Yankee Row nuclear
reactor?
State officials do acknowledge that commercial GTCC wastes
and SCW wastes are dissimilar in form, yet they pose a similar hazard to
the human environment and thus must be managed by the DOE in a consistent
coordinated manner. Thus, we strongly contend that federal actions which
propose to evaluate factors affecting disposal of GTCC wastes, such as
requirements for licensing, transportation, and siting, must also include
other similar waste types that would be affected by such actions. And these
waste types fall into the categories of commercial GTCC reactor waste,
commercial sealed sources, and a variety of other wastes classified by
DOE as SCW wastes.
State officials in Nevada strongly suggest that DOE develop
a national waste management strategy to address these waste types. Such
a strategy is needed to integrate the management of these wastes as opposed
to the apparent piecemeal approach that is currently being used by the
Department. Such a strategy, moreover, should be assessed through a programmatic
and site-specific NEPA process that addresses major federal actions that
could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This is
particularly important when considering the disposal of long-lived radioactive
wastes, which are not suitable for shallow land burial.
Finally, if DOE\Nevada pursues the GTCC Pilot project,
such action will only complicate DOE's perceived authority to accept waste
from off-site generators for disposal at the NTS. In a recent letter to
Assistant Secretary Alvin Alm from Governor Bob Miller, the Governor said
that a "federal decision to expand the use of NTS for waste disposal
must be authorized by the Secretary of Interior since the lands encompassing
NTS are, in fact, public lands that were withdrawn by the Department of
Interior for atomic testing activities only." The Governor went on
to say that resolution of waste disposal from off-site generators at the
NTS is the subject of continuing litigation between the State of Nevada
and DOE. Accordingly, if DOE pursues the GTCC waste pilot project at the
NTS, we will recommend that the referenced litigation be modified to address
DOE's authority to ship this waste to Nevada.
If you have any questions or concerns about these comments,
please feel free to contact me.
Return to the
Nuclear Waste Project
Office
Home Page
*