Disposal of Surplus Plutonium in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Historical Perspectives and Congressional Authorities Presentation to the National Academies of Sciences; Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board James D. Werner Research Manager, Environmental Policy Congressional Research Service November 29, 2017
Topics Role of Congress Selected Congressional Actions: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and Plutonium (Pu) Disposition Congressional Oversight WIPP Land Withdrawal Act Historical Context of WIPP and Pu Disposition WIPP and Nuclear Waste Disposition: Past NAS Studies Congressional Directive for New NAS Study NAS Project Scope Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) Potential Issues CRS-2
Role of Congress Authorization Appropriations Oversight CRS-3
Selected Congressional Actions: WIPP and Pu Disposition Part I Atomic Energy Act (1946 and1954) WIPP Authorization (1979) DOE National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Act of 1980 Solid Waste Disposal Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Federal Facilities Compliance Act (primarily 1976, 1984 and 1992 amendments)
Selected Congressional Actions: WIPP and Pu Disposition Part II Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982 and 1987) Authorized EPA Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High Level and Transuranic Waste (40 CFR Part 191) Established Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) Established Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NDAA FY1989 Authorized Environmental Evaluation Group (Institute of Mining and Technology), NDAA FY1989. WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (1992) Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts Congressional Board requested study from Office of Technology Assessment: Dismantling the Bomb and Managing the Nuclear Materials, (1993). CRS-5
Congressional Oversight More than 40 congressional hearings involving WIPP (in addition to the NDAA and annual appropriations) from 1978-1992, leading to enactment of WIPP Land Withdrawal Act Congress since has continued to oversee WIPP through the NDAA and annual appropriations Jurisdiction of multiple committees Three legislative branch congressional agencies: Congressional Budget Office Congressional Research Service Government Accountability Office CRS-6
WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (1992) Part I Transfers jurisdiction over the withdrawn federal public lands to the Secretary of Energy and reserves their use for disposal of transuranic (TRU) wastes Establishes limits on disposal: volume, radioactivity, source (defense) and remote-handled versus contact-handled waste Statutory ban on high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel Framework for conducting in situ Test Phase (Amended 1996 to remove Test Phase language, after 1993 DOE Independent Technical Review) NAS study being conducted per statutory mandate under Section 17 of WIPP Land Withdrawal Act to evaluate and publish analyses of plans for operating WIPP with respect to health, safety and environmental issues. CRS-7
WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (1992) Part II WIPP operations subject to applicable federal and state regulations Certification by EPA regulations under 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B; Re-certification by EPA every five years DOE must submit documentation to EPA every two years to determine continued compliance DOE must submit documentation to state of New Mexico to demonstrate compliance with hazardous waste regulations Transportation of TRU wastes subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) package design certification Notification of affected states and tribes prior to transportation through respective jurisdictions CRS-8
Historical Context of WIPP and Pu Disposition TRU buried at various DOE sites (e.g., Idaho and Los Alamos National Laboratories) pre-1970 waste WIPP initially considered as a repository for high-level waste (1971) WIPP focus on defense TRU reflected need to relieve TRU waste storage concerns at various sites (e.g., Rocky Flats) Debate on whether Pu is a waste or a resource (1988 - Energy Secretary Herrington - We are awash in plutonium. We have more plutonium than we need. ) See Hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, February 23, 1988, p. 23). 1995 - Debate about whether reactor-grade Pu can be used for nuclear explosive device WIPP becomes key element of DOE mission to facilitate and reduce cost of Environmental Management mission with estimated total lifecycle costs more than $300 billion CRS-9
WIPP and Nuclear Waste Disposition: Past NAS Studies Numerous NAS Reports and Letter Reports issued over multiple decades addressing WIPP and TRU waste Selected examples informing the development of WIPP: 1957 - Report on the Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land The most promising method of disposal of high level waste at the present time seems to be in salt deposits. 1992 WIPP Test Phase Evaluation Letter Report 1996 - The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: A Potential Solution for the Disposal of Transuranic Waste CRS-10
Congressional Directive for NAS. Study: Disposal of Surplus Plutonium in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2017, 114 th Congress, 2 nd sess., H.Rept.114-532, April 26, 2016 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016), pp.114-115.) CRS-11
Congressional Directive Report Language The Secretary of Energy is proposing to move forward with a concept to emplace large quantities of pit and non-pit plutonium in order to support U.S. commitments under the Plutonium. Management Disposition Agreement (PMDA) with Russia. The amount of radioactive materials under consideration may exceed the authorized disposal limits of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) and the NNSA has not yet conducted the required safety and environmental analyses required to support the alternative. Section 17 of the LWA provides a process to evaluate and publish analyses of plans for operating WIPP with respect to health, safety, and environmental issues. In accordance with this established statutory mandate, the NNSA shall commission the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a review of the Secretary s conceptual plans to dispose of surplus plutonium to include considerations of transportation, operations, performance assessment, compliance with Environmental Protection Agency and other regulations, safety analyses, and any other activities required to carry out this alternative that are pertinent to the operation of WIPP. Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the NNSA shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress an update of the status of the study and an estimated date of completion for its review. (Energy & Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2017, H. Rept. 114-532, pp.114-115) CRS-12
NAS Project Scope Congressional Directive focuses on a concept to emplace large quantities of pit and non-pit plutonium [in WIPP] in order to support U.S. commitments under the Plutonium Management Disposition Agreement (PMDA) with Russia. NAS Study Project Scope more broadly includes the disposal of other potential wastes streams in WIPP, for example, other plutonium wastes, Greater-than Class-C-like wastes, and tank wastes. CRS-13
U.S. Commitments in PMDA U.S. commitment to dispose of 34 metric tons (MT) of weapons-grade surplus Pu mixed oxide (MOX) fuel conversion Other methods of disposition would be subject to mutual agreement between the United States and Russia DOE issued a Record of Decision in April 2016 to dispose of 6 MT of surplus non-pit Pu from the U.S. inventory in WIPP using the dilute and dispose alternative Whether the diluted 6 MT would meet PMDA isotopic composition requirements for disposition may be a potential issue, if the 6 MT were counted toward the 34 MT
End-State or Goal of Disposition Congressional directive for the NAS study focuses on DOE s proposal to dilute and dispose of surplus Pu in WIPP as an alternative method to support U.S. commitments under the Plutonium Management Disposition Agreement (PMDA) NAS project scope study elements include health, safety and environmental issues, and compliance with applicable regulations, to dispose of surplus Pu in WIPP NAS project scope does not expressly refer to analyzing whether the dilute and dispose alternative may be feasible to meet the PMDA requirements as an end-state or goal
Potential Legislative and Regulatory Issues Congressional report language notes that the amount of radioactive materials under consideration may exceed the authorized disposal limits of the WIPP LWA and the NNSA has not yet conducted the required safety and environmental analyses required to support the alternative. If disposition of surplus Pu at WIPP were to exceed the statutory disposal limits, DOE s plan would raise a legislative issue for Congress as to whether the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act should be amended to increase the limits Compliance with health, safety, and environmental requirements also may present regulatory issues affecting the feasibility of the dilute and dispose alternative at WIPP
QUESTIONS? CRS-17
CONTACT INFORMATION James D. Werner Section Manager, Environmental Policy 202-707-3862 jwerner@crs.loc.gov David M. Bearden Specialist in Environmental Policy 202-707-2390 dbearden@crs.loc.gov CRS-18