The US Still Doesn’t Know
How and Where It Will Store Its Growing Nuclear Waste
Rocky Flats employees guide a stack of barrels containing transuranic waste into a transport canister, which will the carry the material to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. MARTY CAIVANO / DIGITAL FIRST MEDIA / BOULDER DAILY CAMERA VIA GETTY IMAGES
And, of course, much of the
waste will have to somehow remain safely stored for 10,000 years or more, a
timeframe even more mind boggling than the size of the debt.
In a letter to Congress in June, GAO said the
DoE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) — which is charged with building
facilities to treat millions of gallons of radioactive waste, and remediating
contaminated soil and water at nuclear weapons construction sites — needs to
use factors such as costs and risks to human health and the environment, in
determining which cleanup projects to focus on.
The GAO has reported in the
past that the DoE’s cleanup policy, “which governs the EM cleanup program, does
not direct how EM should make environmental cleanup decisions, including how to
make risk-informed cleanup decisions,” even though GAO and DoE’s own inspector
general had been recommending such an approach since the 1990s.
The United States has about
14,000 metric tons of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel from defense
[sic] -related activities from the World War II era through the 1980s. This
waste is currently stored in facilities in five states and managed by the DoE.
EM is responsible for handling most of the contamination at 16 sites. The
cleanup cost for these sites is now estimated at $406 billion, up from an
estimated $163 billion a decade ago. (Other DoE offices are responsible for
$106 billion more in waste handling.)
“The increase in costs is
driven by the fact that facilities are continuing to degrade while awaiting
disposition, which ultimately drives up stabilization costs and final
Deactivation & Decommissioning costs,” DoE reported to Congress last year.
The funding deficit accumulated
over decades, during Republican and Democratic administrations. Since the US
military created the waste, funding and oversight of its management comes
mainly from congressional armed services committees. Unfortunately, the
committees are mainly concerned with funding the armed forces of today and
tomorrow, not cleaning up yesterday’s garbage.
The defense [sic] bill passed
by Congress on December 15 does contain some remediation measures for nuclear
waste, but it’s not nearly enough. It authorizes $6.48 billion for clean-up.
The bill also starts competitive and university grant programs to develop
technology to support the clean-ups. It directs DoE to develop a comprehensive
strategy within a year to determine the type and quantity of defense nuclear
waste it will generate, plans to treat, store, and dispose it, and to look for
potential disposal facilities. Within two years, DoE would have to develop a
computer system for the process. GAO will evaluate the effort.
In the first half of 2021, EM
spent about $7.5 billion on nuclear waste cleanup and management activities at
91 sites. At a very friendly hearing in May before the Senate Armed Services
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, William “Ike” White, acting assistant
secretary for EM, said the office was “entering a new era of cleanup progress”
and “ramp-up in the ability to tackle radioactive waste stored in underground
tanks.”
But GAO says EM’s cost and
schedule estimates for cleanups are “unreliable” and said that at a number of
sites the agency’s “liability may continue to grow, in part because EM may have
underestimated the cost to complete some of its largest projects.” (GAO
also reported in October that it “could not
determine how much DoE actually spends on cleanup research and development
because the agency does not track such spending … nor evaluate the outcomes of
the research.”)
The GAO found, for instance,
that EM has not developed a long-range plan to handle nuclear waste at the
Hanford Site in Washington State, currently the most contaminated nuclear site
in the country. The decommissioned site near the Columbia River in Benton
County has 56 million gallons of radioactive waste in 177 underground tanks.
Cleanup and waste storage at the site, which manufactured plutonium for 40
years, has been bungled for decades. Over the years, at least 1 million gallons
of radioactive liquids have leaked into the ground from some of these tanks and
contaminated the local aquifer and the Columbia River. DoE replaced some of the
leaking tanks but it still hasn’t decided what to do with the now-empty tanks,
though the department’s own analysis showed it could save about $18 billion by
sealing them in place rather than moving them.
EM could save hundreds of
billions of dollars with adequate planning, GAO says. “GAO looks at what we do
with what we have, not what we can do if we had more resources,” says Nathan
Anderson, GAO director of natural resources and environment. “We offer a menu
of options on how to better use resources…that’ll last to the end of the
century and maybe more.”
For example, EM could save
billions of dollars if Hanford, which considers all its waste “high level,”
reclassified some of the material as “low level” if it’s not very radioactive,
the GAO report suggests. In these cases, DoE could simply seal the tanks with
grout; a mixture of water, cement and sand. (It’s not clear if doing so is
legal, though trials found it works. EM stopped construction of a waste
pretreatment plant at Hanford in 2012 due to technical challenges. The plant
would have sorted out high- and low-hazardous waste.) GAO has suggested that
Congress consider clarifying the law but Congress has yet to act.
“There are still 177
underground tanks at Hanford that have to be treated,” Anderson says. “Congress
needs to give DoE the flexibility to decide based on science, not source.”
Similarly, GAO found that EM
hasn’t budgeted space at its Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad,
New Mexico and can’t even tell if the plant can continue to operate on schedule.
The Carlsbad plant is the only deep geological space in the
nation that is licensed to store contaminated clothing, tools, etc. and the
most radioactive waste, such as plutonium, for 10,000 years.
The plant was designed to stop
taking material in 2024 but DoE plans to expand it and continue filling it
until 2050, and maybe even longer. However, GAO says that expansion “work may
not be completed before existing space is full.” Construction of more storage
at the facility has been hampered by a contractor that lacked adequate
technical expertise, and staffing shortages. Accidents in 2014, including an
underground fire that contaminated a tunnel with radiation, reduced the plant’s
operations.
DoE is now running up against a
statutory limit for how much waste it can store in the space, so it recently
changed its counting method to exclude space between storage drums as storage
space. New Mexico regulators approved the change but the matter is being
challenged in court.
“They knocked a third out of it
with a slight of hand. That will allow them a lot more waste,” complains Scott
Kovac, operations & research director of Nuclear
Watch New Mexico (NWNM), a local anti-nuclear group.
The New Mexico Environment
Department is now considering DoE’s request to add two new storage panels to
the existing storage space. “If the two new panels were added to the permit,
the modification request shows that the total WIPP capacity would be more than
6.7 cubic feet of waste, even though the legal limit is 6.2 million cubic feet,”
Kovac says.
NWNM, the Stop Forever WIPP
Coalition, and other environmental and activist groups are awaiting several
court and state government decisions on the future of the site. Kovac says DoE
needs to find a new repository but doesn’t know of a good site. “We are trying
to keep New Mexico from being the dump site of the US.”
(The defense bill Congress
recently passed includes $80 million to fix ventilation problems at the WIPP.)
But building new storage
facilities, whether for waste from nuclear weapons manufacturing or power
generation, is a fraught issue.
Back in the 1980s, DoE and
Congress had approved construction of another permanent, deep underground waste
burial site in Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada to store commercial spent
nuclear fuel — used fuel from nuclear power reactors. But following decades of
fierce opposition to the project from the state and Nevada’s indigenous tribes,
Congress eliminated funding for it in 2011. (As per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,
the management and permanent disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel too, is
federal responsibility, but the DoE is nearly a quarter-century behind in
accepting waste from commercial reactors.
Earlier this year, as an
interim measure, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted licenses to two
companies — Holtec International and Interim Storage Partners — to construct
spent fuel storage facilities in New Mexico and Texas respectively to
temporarily store waste from nuclear power plants across the US. Both projects
are being challenged in court by the states and environmental groups that,
among other things, are concerned that these temporary facilities, whose
license lasts 40 years, might eventually become permanent, given the lack of an
additional permanent waste storage facility like the one proposed at Yucca
Mountain.
A separate GAO report, published
in September, has urged Congress to “take action to break the impasse over a
permanent solution for commercial spent nuclear fuel.” According to that
report, as of 2019, about 86,000 metric tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel
was being stored onsite at 75 operating or shut-down nuclear power plants in 33
states, and the amount of spent fuel was growing by about 2,000 metric tons
annually.
GAO is now narrowing the focus
of its investigations from department management to specific troubled projects,
Anderson says, such as certain facilities run by the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), the DoE agency responsible for the military application
of nuclear science, which may be more likely to leak than some other sites EM
was spending its limited resources on.
Last year, GAO faulted EM for
not developing a strategy to dispose of certain waste from Idaho National
Laboratory, the nation’s site for nuclear energy research and development.
DoE’s own report from 2020
states it could save between $12 billion and $15 billion by sealing off some of
the low-level waste at the Idaho National Laboratory, saving transportation and
deep storage costs.
A Senate Armed Services
Committee report noted this year “that as the United States continues to
maintain and modernize its nuclear weapons stockpile, waste will continue to be
generated and must be treated, stored, and disposed of.… It is not clear
whether there are sufficient facilities to address the waste generated by these
activities or whether such facilities are included in current plans and
budgets.”
In an emailed statement to
the Journal, EM said it is “committed to continuous improvements in
contract and project management and in reducing DoE’s environmental liabilities.”
It added that GAO “acknowledged the notable actions EM has taken to demonstrate
commitment to improving its contract and project management” in cleaning up
some problem sites, such as the East Tennessee Technology Park at Oak Ridge and
the Salt Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River, South Carolina.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout
with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without
permission or license from the source.
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives."
Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment