February 22, 2002
Roger Twitchell
U.S. Department of Energy
785 DOE Place
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
C. Stephen Allred
Department of Environmental
Quality
1410 N. Hilton
Boise Idaho, ID 83706
PETITION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (“DOE”) FOR A
SUPPLEMENTAL HIGH LEVEL WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (“HLW/EIS”).
(40 CFR 1021.314 et seq.)
Because of Substantial Changes and Significant New
Circumstances at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(“INEEL”) a Supplemental HLW/EIS is
Required.
Substantial new changes, circumstances and information
since the 1999 publication of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (“INEEL”) High Level Waste Environmental Impact Statement
(“HLW/EIS”) mandate that DOE prepare a supplemental High Level Waste EIS. 40 CFR 1021.314 (a) requires that “ DOE
shall prepare a supplemental EIS if there are substantial changes to the
proposal or significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concern, as discussed in 40 CFR 1502.9 ( c) (2) ).” Full public notice and hearings should be
provided. (See 40 CFR 1021.314(d) ). No
final HLW/EIS should be issued prior to a reopened public participation process.
Changes in Circumstances
and Information
Serious delays have occurred in the HLW/EIS process
making the current 1999 Draft HLW/EIS a flawed, untimely, and inadequate
document. The Final HLW/EIS was not
issued as scheduled. So many changes
have occurred since the issuance of the Draft HLW/EIS that the public did not
have a chance to comment on, that the DOE must present a supplemental
draft.
Numerous references exist in the 1999 Draft HLW/EIS that
refer to deferring decisions. If those
matters considered for deferring are now resolved or stated alternatives
earlier are now precluded, DOE should make a formal presentation of those
decisions for public consideration.
Deferring calcine treatment and storage, cleanup of Pit 9 and the
subsurface disposal area, building of new percolation ponds, the possible
construction of an incinerator in conjunction with the ICDF facility are
examples of decisions or alternatives which were unresolved or unconsidered in
the 1999 Draft HLW/EIS.
Alternatives are being reconsidered by the DOE. The public has had no opportunity to be
informed of, or comment on the alternatives or combination of alternatives
which DOE is now considering. By letter
of January 25, 2002 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (“IDEQ”)
Director, C. Stephen Allred, has stated that “The U.S. Department of Energy has
not issued a final EIS, and it has told the State of Idaho that it wishes to
reevaluate the alternatives for the EIS.”
The DOE reevaluation of alternatives is triggered by changed
circumstances and new information and, at a minimum, requires DOE to prepare a
Supplement Analysis to discuss the circumstances which are pertinent to
deciding whether to prepare a supplemental EIS. (40 CFR 1021.314 (c ).
There are major reductions in the FY 2003 funding levels
for cleanup and environmental management which may impact available
alternatives.
Several facilities which were proposed for treatment
alternatives are under closure orders. Numerous facilities which were cited as
processing and treatment alternatives, such as the Calciner at the New Waste
Calcining Facility (“NWCF”) and the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility
(“WERF”) no longer are operational at INEEL.
Other treatment facilities, which lack Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) permits, are being reconfigured for use
in ways which were not contemplated in the HLW/EIS. NO major waste processing facilities at INTEC have
obtained a RCRA Part B permit for their operations.
At a recent 2/13/02 public hearing in Idaho Falls, the
DOE stated that vitrification may not be an option. The DOE has also recently touted in the news media that a new
waste technology using silver exists for high level waste treatment. The new information and possible uncertainty
regarding new choices of technologies for waste treatment has not been
presented to the public.
1. Determination of
historically categorized Sodium Bearing Waste as still HLW. The tank farm issues
regarding disagreement between the State of Idaho and the DOE on the regulatory
significance of high level waste classification, and leaving high level waste
tank sediments (heels) has not been resolved.
Neither the tank farm nor the related ancillary units have RCRA permits.
2. New Waste Calcine Facility
in closure mode? The Calciner is no
longer an available alternative treatment.
The Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF) is under a closure
order and is not available as an alternative as a treatment technology for
managing low level waste.
3. HLW treatment units unable
to meet RCRA permitting requirements.
A. Process Waste Equipment Evaporator,
B. Liquid Effluent Treatment and Disposal,
C. High-level Liquid Waste Evaporator,
D. Debris Processing and HEPA Filter Processing
E. INTEC Liquid Waste Management System
Emission summary and environmental effects of all thermal
treatment operations at INEEL has not been developed. (See, DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals David B. McCoy, Case No.
VHA-0707, January 16, 2002, p. 3 -- Idaho DOE has never accomplished the work
to determine the cumulative impact from all thermal treatment units at the
INEEL.)
4. Flood-plain issues have
not been addressed for all INTEC operations and no site-wide flood-plain map
exists. (See 1/11/02 McCoy Debris
Processing Appellant Brief and Amicus Curiae briefs of the Environmental
Defense Institute and Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free).
5. The Advanced Mixed Waste
Treatment Plant incinerator component was eliminated. (See 3/24/00 Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free v. Richardson No. 99
CV 1042J Settlement Agreement.)
6. An EPA Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (“MACT”) determination is still outstanding. (See EPA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Petition 10/31/01).
7. EPA determination of
Idaho’s hazardous waste authorization is still outstanding. (See EPA Region 10
Petition 11/16/01).
8. New publicized HLW
treatment technology not analyzed.
9. Impact of current DOE
Environmental Management budget cuts on proposed actions. (See Post Register article “DOE sets sights
on INEEL cutback” 2/2/02).
10. Impact of deferring
calcine treatment and storage. The process for extracting the calcine in the
first two bin sets that were originally believed to be permanent disposal
without extraction mechanisms.
11. Closure of High-level
Waste Tank Farm and associated non-compliant HLW tanks and extended continued
use of these un-permitted tanks and service lines remains an unresolved
regulatory issue.
12. Considerations regarding removal and the schedule for removal of
high level underground waste at the subsurface disposal area. (See U.S. v. Batt (CV 91-0065-S-EJL)
State/DOE 1995 Settlement Agreement.
Also see, EDI Amicus Curiae Brief in USA v. Andrus CV No.
91-0054-S-HLR August 25, 1993 that quantified >90 metric tons of high-level
irradiated fuel dumped at the RWMC/SDA).
The buried waste contains high-level waste that must be covered in the
HLW/EIS.
13. The ongoing failure of the DOE to identify and reveal to the
public additional secret locations of other land dumps at INEEL created during
decades of operations, such as the burial of a semi truck trailer full of high
level waste in the vicinity of the leach ponds where Westinghouse operated.
14. Failure to provide a wildfire analysis for the INEEL.
15. Failure to provide a
flood-plain analysis for the INEEL and noncompliance with 10 CFR 1022 et
seq. (See 1/11/02 McCoy Debris
Processing Appellant Brief and Amicus Curiae briefs of the Environmental
Defense Institute and Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free).
16. Failure to analyze terrorist threats to the INEEL.
17. Lack of Waste Acceptance Criteria for HLW internment in a future permitted HLW geologic repository. DOE still does not know how to meet the 1995 State/DOE Agreement on what constitutes “road ready for shipment out of Idaho” to permanent disposal means. See United States v. Batt (CV 91-0065-S-EJL) State/DOE 1995 Settlement Agreement Section C(3). If DOE does not know the form the waste must be in to be interned at Yucca Mt, DOE can not claim any legitimacy to an INEEL treatment plan, with the exception of vitrification.
Cost estimates for HLW
alternatives (estimates include treatment and storage, transportation and
disposal)
No action = $717 million
Continued operations = $1.43
billion
Full Separations = 5.5 to
$5.9 billion depending on what is done with LLW
Planning Basis = $7.12
billion
TRU separations = $3.2
billion to 3.9 billion depending on what is done with LLW
HIP = $7.64 billion
Direct cement = $15.18
billion
Early Vit. = $10.6 billion
Minimum processing = $4.03
billion
Tremendous uncertainties exist when it comes to these
options. As it concerns a new facility
only the vitrification option has some basis in reality because it has been
done at Savannah River and West Valley, NY.
Also the majority of the costs in the non-separations options involve
disposal. For instance over 60% of the early
vitrification estimate includes the disposal cost. Currently there is no facility
for this waste and even if Yucca Mountain is approved it does not guarantee
INEEL HLW will meet Yucca Mt. Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC).
It is apparent why the TRU separations option is so
attractive to DOE because there would be no HLW fraction, and possibly no
thermal treatment depending on which option is decided upon within this
alternative. Treatment and storage
costs related to this alternative are comparable to the non-separations
alternatives, but disposal costs are assumed to be in the millions instead of
billions because they are assuming the waste would go to WIPP. WIPP WAC would have to be modified to accept
this waste however, which is a major uncertainty and possibly subject to court
challenge by the State of New Mexico.
The EIS and the State's Settlement Agreement
There is a broad range of alternatives analyzed and an
overview of each one is not provided since all we have seen is the basic
plan. It is possible, to complicate
things further, that a hybrid option could be selected. Although, in looking at the alternatives, it
is hard to see how DOE could come up with such a hybrid because of the many
alternatives analyzed.
In addition to being “a cooperating agency for this EIS,
with DOE being the lead agency,” the
State of Idaho is also involved in this EIS because of the presence of
hazardous constituents and because of the Settlement Agreement which sets
time-lines for treatment of HLW, and TRU waste. The only option that complies fully with the agreement is the
"Planning Basis" (PB) option, which is essentially the "Full
Separations" option with a few modifications. Under PB the low-activity waste (LAW) is separated from
high-activity waste (HAW). At Hanford, Washington and Oregon only went along
with the LAW/HAW designation if DOE agreed to vitrify both. Now DOE is reneging on the deal. The waste fraction would be shipped
off-site, even though it is not TRU and technically is not covered in the
Settlement Agreement.
Technically, LAW would be Greater than Class C Low-level
waste which NRC requires deep geologic disposal. In addition, PB assumes the calciner would be operational one
year earlier than other options. In
essence, the only difference is full separations (non PB) is more realistic
about when the calciner would be operational. PB is only analyzed because the
state wants at least 1 alternative in there that could potentially meet the
settlement agreement (although it is admitted in the PB discussion that the
calciner time-line may not be met).
There is a clause in the settlement agreement which specifically deals
with potential modifications resulting from NEPA analyses (again only PB
complies on paper):
"In the event any required NEPA analysis results
in the selection after October 16th, 1995, of an action which
conflicts with any action identified in this Agreement, DOE or the Navy may
request modification of this Agreement to conform the action in the agreement
to that selected action. Approval of
such modification shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the State refuses to accept the requested modification, DOE or
the Navy may seek relief from the court."
Other options
There
is an option referred to as "TRU separations" and it does not
result in a HLW fraction. Under
DOE’s creative interpretation, HLW is legally defined by process not by
content, i.e., spent fuel or the waste generated from reprocessing SNF. The
state of Idaho disagrees with DOE’s interpretation. See the Idaho Foreword to the EIS for a discussion of this. This disagreement and any resolution must be
addressed by a supplemental EIS.
Basically,
the transuranics are separated from the hot fission products such as
strontium-90 and cesium-137 that (because of the curie content) is greater than
Class C Class low-level waste (GCCLLW) which could go a variety of places:
"in empty tanks, bin sets, new low-level waste, low-level on-site
landfill, or off-site landfill," except that near surface disposal of
GCCLLW is prohibited. The transuranic waste form would then be shipped to WIPP
only if it meets WAC. According to the
EIS, both the calcine and liquid SBW would undergo separations. It is not clear
why this would happen if the DOE already considers the SBW TRU waste. New Mexico would consider it HLW as does
Idaho.
While
DOE may find this alternative attractive the alternative does not fully comply
with the agreement. If our high-level
waste is a problem as it concerns Yucca mountain waste acceptance criteria, why
not just engineer around the mountain on the way to WIPP. Another interesting thing about this option
concerning TRU waste is that we would have new TRU waste after the deadline in
the settlement agreement has come and gone.
As with all the other alternatives, there are many uncertainties involved.
Every
action in the Draft HLW/EIS, with the exception of no-action and TRU
separations, involves the calciner or a vitrification plant (thermal
treatment). (The Calciner is currently
under a closure order because it does not comply with MACT requirements). Under TRU separations, the waste is
solidified 1 of 2 ways, an evaporator (thermal) or by using an additive.
The
minimum processing alternative would
involve shipping the calcine to Hanford. However, the EIS admits difficulties
in coordination between sites which may preclude this option from being
selected. The SBW and Newly generated
Liquid Waste would undergo a "cesium ion exchange and grouting"
treatment process (at INEEL) and then be shipped to WIPP. The Calcine would be separated at Hanford
into a HAW/LAW fraction and be returned to INEEL or directly to an off-site
repository. Hanford is doing separations, but under an agreement that both
HAW/LAW are vitrified. Grouting the LAW
as DOE plans at INEEL was a failure at Hanford and discontinued. DOE is obliged to articulate how within the
same regulatory framework, they came up with different disposal options at
INEEL than those at Hanford.
Every
option results in at least two waste forms, even the non-separations
alternatives.
For instance under the Early Vitrification option, the
calcine and SBW would be treated in separate campaigns. Again DOE considers the remainder of the
liquid SBW to be TRU so it would be hypothetically sent to WIPP.
Submitted by:
David B. McCoy
2940 Redbarn Lane
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
208 542-1449
Chuck Broscious
Executive Director
Environmental Defense Institute
P.O. Box 220
Troy, ID 83871
V. 208-835-6152
F. 208-835-5407