The U.S. government faces the monumental challenge of deciding on a safe, permanent disposal site for high-level and low-level nuclear waste. While the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) both play a role in the disposal of nuclear waste, the agencies must also include Tribal Nations, the public, and decision-makers in the process. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report calls USDOE out on its failure to transparently plan for the disposal of a specific type of low-level nuclear waste. USDOE and NRC should demonstrate transparency and openness to engage the public and decision-makers as a means of building a foundation of trust.
In September 2022, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) submitted a report to Congress on nuclear waste: DOE Needs to Improve Transparency in Planning for Disposal of Certain Low-level Waste. Before tackling the report's content, we wanted to share a basic definition for low-level waste, which is a term used throughout the report.[1]
Low-level waste is radioactively contaminated industrial or research waste that is not high-level waste. Most low-level waste is paper, clothes, plastic bags, rags, cardboard, packing material, and other items that have come into contact with radioactive materials. There are different classes under the umbrella term low-level waste—Class A, Class B, Class C, and Greater than Class C (GTCC). Class A low-level waste is the least radioactive. Classes A, B, and C low-level waste are generally acceptable for near-surface disposal (within the top 30 meters of the earth's surface).
Image of the different classes of low-level waste and the differences between GTCC waste and Classes A, B, and C
GTCC low-level waste is nuclear waste that is commercially generated, like from a nuclear power reactor—it is not waste generated from defense activities, such as nuclear weapons. GTCC waste is more radiologically hazardous than Class A, B, or C and requires a different disposal method. GTCC waste isn't acceptable for near-surface disposal, and there isn't a national location for storing this waste safely long-term. Currently, the site where the GTCC waste is generated also temporarily stores the waste until the U.S. government chooses a permanent disposal facility.
The two actors involved in determining the disposal of GTCC waste are USDOE and the NRC. The NRC regulates disposal facilities that accept commercially generated waste. USDOE is responsible for choosing where the GTCC waste will be disposed of; however, it must be a disposal facility approved by the NRC. The federal government must dispose of GTCC waste in a geologic repository—an underground facility designed, constructed, and operated as a safe and permanent disposal site for high-level waste. However, on a case-by-case basis, the NRC may approve an alternative disposal facility for GTCC waste.
Map of the sites identified as GTCC waste disposal alternatives
In a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from 2016, USDOE identified and evaluated seven different federally owned sites as disposal alternatives for GTCC waste—Hanford Nuclear Site, Idaho National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Nevada National Security Site, Savannah River Site, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), and in the vicinity of WIPP.
Image of the different methods USDOE evaluated for disposing of GTCC waste
USDOE also evaluated different methods for disposing of GTCC waste, such as storing the waste at the site of generation, in an above-ground vault, in a trench, in a borehole, and in a geologic repository. USDOE did not select a preferred disposal method; instead, USDOE indicated that the type of waste would determine the specific disposal method.
USDOE later completed an environmental assessment for the disposal of GTCC waste at Waste Control Specialists LLC, a commercial waste facility in Andrews County, Texas. After completing the EIS and the environmental assessment, USDOE identified WIPP and commercial facilities in general as the preferred alternatives for disposing of GTCC waste. WIPP is legally authorized to receive only the nation's transuranic defense waste and isn't currently authorized to receive GTCC waste. USDOE cannot make a final decision on the disposal of GTCC waste at preferred alternative disposal facilities like WIPP without input from Congress.
GAO highlighted some concerns with USDOE's analysis of the disposal alternatives. GAO found that USDOE failed to transparently provide a rationale for why WIPP or commercial facilities were the preferred alternatives. USDOE evaluated the disposal facility alternatives against eleven environmental factors: human health; transportation; climate, air quality, and noise; geology and soils; water resources; ecology; socioeconomics; environmental justice; land use; cultural resources; and waste management. However, USDOE failed to demonstrate how the environmental factors supported the outcome of the preferred alternatives.
Image of USDOE's estimates for current and future volumes of GTCC waste
Furthermore, GAO raised concerns with USDOE's estimates for the total amount of GTCC waste. USDOE estimated the current and future volume of GTCC waste to calculate the total amount of GTCC waste requiring permanent disposal. GAO found limitations with USDOE's estimates of actual and projected amounts of GTCC waste because USDOE did not quantify the uncertainties in the waste volume estimate.
No scientific estimate is 100% accurate. USDOE failed to quantify the inherent uncertainties in the waste volume estimates; although, it did acknowledge that there are uncertainties. USDOE should quantify the uncertainties and provide a range of total potential GTCC waste, to ensure decision-makers and stakeholders have reliable information to make informed decisions. In light of these concerns, GAO urges USDOE to be more transparent in its planning process for the disposal of GTCC waste. Full transparency could enhance USDOE's credibility and trust with stakeholders and provide decision-makers with accurate and reliable data.
Hanford Challenge also thinks USDOE should cultivate a more open and transparent relationship with the public.
This material is funded through a Public Participation Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The content was reviewed for grant consistency, but is not necessarily endorsed by the agency.
[1] The following definition of low-level waste is based on Hanford Challenge's understanding of the law. Regulations defining low-level waste can be found at 10 C.F.R. § 61.55(a)(2) (for classes A, B, and C) and 10 C.F.R. § 61.55(a)(2) (for class GTCC).