Frank Marcinowski Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Compliance Environmental Management May 23, 2007 2007 Feder

1. Frank MarcinowskiDeputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory ComplianceEnvironmental ManagementMay 23, 20072007 Federal Facility Task Force Meeting Update on National Disposition Planning

2. Disposal policy Low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste (LLW/ MLLW) Disposition highlights LLW/MLLW disposition data LLW/MLLW Corporate Board LLW /MLLW National Disposition Strategy Greater-than-Class C LLW Transuranic waste Topics for Consideration

3. If practical, disposal on the site where generated If on-site disposal not available, at another DOE disposal facility At commercial disposal facilities if compliant, protective of safety and health, cost effective, and in the best interest of the government Order 435.1 Establishes DOE Disposal Policy

4. Low Level and Mixed Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLW/MLLW)

5. Hanford and Nevada Test Site (NTS) host regional disposal facilities for DOE LLW and MLLW disposal Off-site waste shipments to Hanford remain suspended NTS has MLLW disposal through November 2010 On-site LLW disposal at Idaho National Laboratory planned to end in 2009, due to CERCLA closure plans; some possibility of an extension to ensure capacity for RH LLW is available LLW/MLLW Disposal Issues & Highlights Final Rocky Flats wastes will be treated and fully disposed by mid 2007 Exhumation and disposition of Mound’s Operable Unit-1 landfill will occur throughout 2007 LLW and drum cells shipments continue from West Valley Draft SA NEPA analysis out for public review for potential disposal of DUF6 conversion product at NTS or Clive Although not LLW, Fernald Silo 1 & 2 residues remain in interim storage at commercial facility CERCLA cells currently operating at Hanford, Idaho, and Oak Ridge; Hanford and Oak Ridge have planning for expansion PORTS current planning baseline is onsite disposal; very early in the process Idaho - CH LLW to close end of ’08, but ID is considering extension on RH LLW thru 2015Final Rocky Flats wastes will be treated and fully disposed by mid 2007 Exhumation and disposition of Mound’s Operable Unit-1 landfill will occur throughout 2007 LLW and drum cells shipments continue from West Valley Draft SA NEPA analysis out for public review for potential disposal of DUF6 conversion product at NTS or Clive Although not LLW, Fernald Silo 1 & 2 residues remain in interim storage at commercial facility CERCLA cells currently operating at Hanford, Idaho, and Oak Ridge; Hanford and Oak Ridge have planning for expansion PORTS current planning baseline is onsite disposal; very early in the process Idaho - CH LLW to close end of ’08, but ID is considering extension on RH LLW thru 2015

6. Some DOE sites seeking to expand use of onsite CERCLA cells Operations are limited at TSCA Incinerator “Problematic waste streams” still exist… and future facility D&D will identify more – some streams utilize commercial treatment Disposal of greater-than-class C (GTCC) LLW Environmental Impact Statement in progress Notice of Intent followed by scoping meetings planned for this Summer Other LLW/MLLW Issues & Highlights Hanford and Oak Ridge are seeking expansion of their CERCLA cells. Final Rocky Flats wastes will be treated and fully disposed by mid 2007 Exhumation and disposition of Mound’s Operable Unit-1 landfill will occur throughout 2007 LLW and drum cells shipments continue from West Valley Draft SA NEPA analysis out for public review for potential disposal of DUF6 conversion product at NTS or Clive Although not LLW, Fernald Silo 1 & 2 residues remain in interim storage at commercial facility Hanford and Oak Ridge are seeking expansion of their CERCLA cells. Final Rocky Flats wastes will be treated and fully disposed by mid 2007 Exhumation and disposition of Mound’s Operable Unit-1 landfill will occur throughout 2007 LLW and drum cells shipments continue from West Valley Draft SA NEPA analysis out for public review for potential disposal of DUF6 conversion product at NTS or Clive Although not LLW, Fernald Silo 1 & 2 residues remain in interim storage at commercial facility

7. Life-cycle waste forecasting has resumed Baseline Disposition Data (BLDD) Data requirements defined with field cooperation Waste stream definition streamlined to ensure useful data is collected without undue cost/schedule burden on sites Updated at least annually, reviewed and approved through the DOE/EM corporate information system (IPABS-IS) Data is shared via the Waste Management Information System (WIMS) (http://wims.arc.fiu.edu/WIMS) This year’s data set includes new data from other programs (NNSA incl. Naval Reactors, NE and SC) Current data is LLW/MLLW; TRU data will be added when the updated TRU waste inventory is available (later this year) LLW/MLLW Disposition Forecasting DATA STATUS: Provided by sites in 1st Quarter FY07 Validated by staff in 2nd Quarter FY07 Mileage charts summarize disposition strategy on single page Publicly available on WIMS on May 14, 2007 (http://wims.arc.fiu.edu/WIMS) Data shared with NGA support contractor Next revised forecast data 1st Quarter FY08 DATA STATUS: Provided by sites in 1st Quarter FY07 Validated by staff in 2nd Quarter FY07 Mileage charts summarize disposition strategy on single page Publicly available on WIMS on May 14, 2007 (http://wims.arc.fiu.edu/WIMS) Data shared with NGA support contractor Next revised forecast data 1st Quarter FY08

8. WIMS Waste Disposition Map Example  This is an example of a waste disposition map on last year’s data for Fernald The disposition map shows waste from a site to disposal (onsite or offsite) and any offsite treatment The level of detail is set by the field sites under agreed upon guidelines for minimum number of streams, (we don’t mix classified and unclassifed, we have some basic physical forms, all going to the same disposal facility etc. One data element is whether the waste would exceed greater than class C category if it were to go commcerical The sites are each color coded - purple is Fernald, orange is commercial treatment or disposal and red is Oak Ridge (TSCAI) The waste volumes shown are dependent on the time period selected by the user The small squares indicate programmatic risk, yellow shows some barriers exist, red shows significant barriers exist The small circles indicate type of treatment, when needed. A key is provided on the actual disposition map The blue box with an “S” means there are predecessor and successor streams in the dataThis is an example of a waste disposition map on last year’s data for Fernald The disposition map shows waste from a site to disposal (onsite or offsite) and any offsite treatment The level of detail is set by the field sites under agreed upon guidelines for minimum number of streams, (we don’t mix classified and unclassifed, we have some basic physical forms, all going to the same disposal facility etc. One data element is whether the waste would exceed greater than class C category if it were to go commcerical The sites are each color coded - purple is Fernald, orange is commercial treatment or disposal and red is Oak Ridge (TSCAI) The waste volumes shown are dependent on the time period selected by the user The small squares indicate programmatic risk, yellow shows some barriers exist, red shows significant barriers exist The small circles indicate type of treatment, when needed. A key is provided on the actual disposition map The blue box with an “S” means there are predecessor and successor streams in the data

9. WIMS Geographic Disposition Map Example You can see the color coded sites at the bottom of this chart. You can see the color coded sites at the bottom of this chart.

10. Target data sources are projects and activities that have documented baselines Some projects have yet to be fully defined, baselined or approved and are not included in the planning data set e.g., West Valley final end state, Portsmouth D&D, GNEP EM sites have since updated their Five Year Plan Summaries; data under review to resolve any inconsistencies in the 2008 update Scope of LLW/MLLW Disposition Data

11. On-site disposal cells continue to serve large site cleanup programs at Hanford, Idaho, and Oak Ridge Projected waste volume to off-site disposal continues downward trend as Rocky Flats and Ohio projects have concluded Significant use of commercial waste treatment and disposal is expected in spite of smaller volumes Large uncertainties remain in out-year forecasts due to unplanned/uncertain work scope at several key sites LLW/MLLW Disposition Trends

12. 12 Off Site LLW/MLLW Disposition has Declined MAIN Point: Significant drop in commercial volumes. Trend for NTS is slightly downward in the future; EnergySolutions has publicly stated that it is going after commercial nuclear power business as a result of declining DOE waste Excludes waste from NTS generators and from Dept. of Defense / Aberdeen NTS totals include classified material NTS totals include waste in the commercial world that would be Class A, B, or C Estimated Unclassified, Class A equivalent LLW in NTS varies significantly annually, but in total is about half Nearly all NTS MLLW is equivalent to Class B or C MLLW disposal unit will close by Nov 2010 Chart based on BLDD as of 28 March 2007. Notes: 11e2 rolled with LLW; streams with follow on and other treatment only streams not included; commercial TBD rolled into commercial; waste type of “other” rolled into LLW, except for the one clearly marked MLLW; on-site disposal of NTS waste removed.. 2006 actuals from disposal facilities, not BLDD. Scope in out years is incomplete due to baselines that are not in place at large sites (e.g., WVDP, Ports, Paducah, Oak Ridge) DUF6 is not included TBD streams include Drop from 2006 even more pronounced than in draft data due to very large increase (about 100,000 m3) in Fernald LLW to Clive in posted vs. working data.MAIN Point: Significant drop in commercial volumes. Trend for NTS is slightly downward in the future; EnergySolutions has publicly stated that it is going after commercial nuclear power business as a result of declining DOE waste Excludes waste from NTS generators and from Dept. of Defense / Aberdeen NTS totals include classified material NTS totals include waste in the commercial world that would be Class A, B, or C Estimated Unclassified, Class A equivalent LLW in NTS varies significantly annually, but in total is about half Nearly all NTS MLLW is equivalent to Class B or C MLLW disposal unit will close by Nov 2010 Chart based on BLDD as of 28 March 2007. Notes: 11e2 rolled with LLW; streams with follow on and other treatment only streams not included; commercial TBD rolled into commercial; waste type of “other” rolled into LLW, except for the one clearly marked MLLW; on-site disposal of NTS waste removed.. 2006 actuals from disposal facilities, not BLDD. Scope in out years is incomplete due to baselines that are not in place at large sites (e.g., WVDP, Ports, Paducah, Oak Ridge) DUF6 is not included TBD streams include Drop from 2006 even more pronounced than in draft data due to very large increase (about 100,000 m3) in Fernald LLW to Clive in posted vs. working data.

14. Establishes complex-wide configuration control Increases integration and accountability Modeled after TRU board, but tailored for LLW and MLLW Inter-site shipping schedule/tracking Allocation of DOE waste management resources Off-site DOE disposal facilities, including TSCAI Planning use of commercial services Evaluation of complex wide issues and strategy Participation Chaired by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Compliance (EM-10) Two-level Board: Federal and contractors representatives from generating sites, appointed by Site Managers Other sites and commercial partners may attend Implement in FY 08

15. Provides framework by which DOE will manage LLW/MLLW disposition Discusses current DOE and commercial LLW/MLLW treatment & disposal resources and identifies potential bottlenecks Discusses tools and methodologies to strengthen and integrate DOE’s LLW/MLLW disposition management Draft Revision 0 advanced copy distributed last September Next version, Revision 1, will: Address all comments Include all DOE LLW/MLLW (Revision 0 was focused on EM) Reflect 2007 WIMS data Involve the LLW Corporate Board Incorporate revised cost guidance Follow recent technology development roadmap process for sharing with stakeholders Schedule is not firm, but aiming for Fall 2007 National Disposition Strategy The draft document was distributed as an advanced copy to various stakeholder organizations and comments received All comments have been logged and will be resolved in Revision 1 of the Strategy The Office of Disposal Operations is developing tools to implement this strategy, including the updated waste forecast data, developing comprehensive waste summary for each site, identifying key issues, and problem waste streams The draft document was distributed as an advanced copy to various stakeholder organizations and comments received All comments have been logged and will be resolved in Revision 1 of the Strategy The Office of Disposal Operations is developing tools to implement this strategy, including the updated waste forecast data, developing comprehensive waste summary for each site, identifying key issues, and problem waste streams

16. Greater-than-Class C LLW

17. Legislative Drivers Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 DOE responsible for developing GTCC LLW disposal capability GTCC must be disposed of in a facility licensed by the U.S. NRC Section 631 of Energy Policy Act of 2005 Submitted required Report to Congress dated July 2006 on EIS proposed schedule and estimated cost Requires DOE to submit Report to Congress on disposal alternatives and await Congressional action before issuing ROD (i.e., submit report when final EIS is issued)

18. What is GTCC LLW? Generated from NRC or Agreement State licensed activities Contains radionuclides at concentrations that exceed the limits for Class C radioactive waste in 10 CFR 61.55 Includes activated metals from the decommissioning of nuclear reactors, sealed sources, and other LLW resulting from manufacture, research, and industrial activities The NRC has categorized LLW into four classes (Class A, B, C, and GTCC) based on the concentration of specific short-lived and long-lived radionuclides, with Class C having the highest concentration limits. Must be disposed of in geologic repository unless other methods proposed to and approved by NRC Very little (134 m3) currently available for disposal Activated Metals from nuclear utilities comprise 71% of the total activity (110 MCi) & will not be available for disposal until 2035-2062. Excludes stored inventory of sealed sources recovered by the NNSA Offsite Source Recovery Project as those sources have an identified path to disposal (e.g., WIPP) Very little (134 m3) currently available for disposal Activated Metals from nuclear utilities comprise 71% of the total activity (110 MCi) & will not be available for disposal until 2035-2062. Excludes stored inventory of sealed sources recovered by the NNSA Offsite Source Recovery Project as those sources have an identified path to disposal (e.g., WIPP)

19. What is DOE “GTCC-Like” LLW? Certain DOE LLW and Non-Defense TRU that may lack a disposal pathway

20. GTCC LLW & DOE GTCC-Like Inventory GTCC LLW Total Estimated Volume/Curies = 2,005 m3 @ 112 MCi Very little (134 m3) currently available for disposal Activated Metals from nuclear utilities comprise 71% of the total activity (110 MCi) & will not be available for disposal until 2035-2062. Excludes stored inventory of sealed sources recovered by the NNSA Offsite Source Recovery Project as those sources have an identified path to disposal (e.g., WIPP) DOE GTCC-Like Total Estimated Volume/Curies = 2,948 m3 @ 42 MCi Most (~1,900 m3) is potential non-defense TRU from West Valley Demonstration Project and proposed Radioisotope Power System project Does not include potential GNEP waste due to early stages of that project

21. GTCC Notice of Intent (NOI) Initiates the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process Identifies proposed federal action Identifies proposed disposal methods/locations for EIS analysis Updates GTCC waste inventories Proposes that both GTCC and GTCC-like waste be analyzed in the EIS Announces decision to include DOE “GTCC-like” waste Responds to public comments on the Advance NOI (issued May 11, 2005) Requests public comments on EIS scoping issues & announces public scoping meeting dates/locations U.S. EPA will participate as Cooperating Agency; NRC will be Commenting Agency The draft NOI has undergone extensive review by Field and Headquarters Offices and U.S. EPA

22. GTCC EIS Schedule Advanced Notice of Intent ? May 11, 2005 Notice of Intent ? Spring ‘07 Public scoping meetings – Summer ‘07 Draft EIS ? 2nd Qtr FY 08 Final EIS ? Early FY 09 Report to Congress on Disposal Alternatives ? Early FY 09 (submit when final EIS is issued) Record of Decision ? TBD (following Congressional action on disposal alternatives report) First public meeting planned for Carlsbad, New Mexico First public meeting planned for Carlsbad, New Mexico

23. Transuranic Waste (TRU)

24. DOE Continues to Optimize TRU Disposition WIPP is managed as a National program Current efforts are focused on optimization: In FY 1999, averaged 1.5 shipments/week In FY 2007, averaging ~22 shipments/week, filling the “pipeline” (creating characterized backlog) Fully utilizing capacity

25. WIPP is receiving remote-handled TRU The first remote-handled transuranic waste (RH-TRU) shipment left Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and arrived at WIPP on 1/23/07 As of 5/21/07, WIPP has received 23 RH-TRU shipments from INL Since March, INL has been making 2 RH-TRU shipments per week to WIPP; INL is expected to increase to three shipments in early June, and four shipments around the August 2007 timeframe