[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3629-3633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1654]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste
Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of
Decision on where, i.e., at which DOE sites, the Department will
prepare and store its transuranic (TRU) waste prior to disposal. Each
of the Department's sites that currently has or will generate TRU waste
will prepare and store its TRU waste on site, except that the Sandia
National Laboratory in New Mexico (SNL-NM) will transfer its TRU waste
to the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico. LANL will
have facilities, not available or anticipated at SNL-NM, to prepare and
store this waste prior to disposal.
DOE made this decision based on analyses in the Department of
Energy Final Programmatic Waste Management Environmental Impact
Statement (WM PEIS) (May 1997) and other information. This decision
differs slightly from the Preferred Alternative in the WM PEIS. The
Appendix to this Record of Decision lists the sites for which DOE
analyzed the potential impacts of treating (which includes packaging)
and storing TRU waste in the WM PEIS. The potential health and
environmental impacts of this decision were identified and evaluated in
the Decentralized Alternative of the WM PEIS.
In the future, the Department may decide to ship TRU wastes from
sites where it may be impractical to prepare them for disposal to sites
where DOE has or will have the necessary capability. The sites that
could receive such shipments of TRU waste are the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the Oak Ridge
Reservation (ORR), the Savannah River Site (SRS) and the Hanford Site.
However, any future decisions regarding transfers of TRU wastes would
be subject to appropriate review under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and
[[Page 3630]]
to agreements DOE has entered into, such as those with States, relating
to the treatment and storage of TRU waste. Future NEPA review could
include, but would not necessarily be limited to, analysis of the need
to supplement existing environmental reviews. DOE would conduct all
such TRU waste shipments between sites in accordance with applicable
transportation requirements and would coordinate these shipments with
appropriate State, Tribal and local authorities.
This Record of Decision was prepared in coordination with the
Record of Decision issued on January 16, 1998, on disposal of DOE's TRU
waste, which is based on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WIPP SEIS-II),
issued in September 1997. On the basis of the analyses in the WIPP
SEIS-II, DOE decided to dispose of TRU waste generated by defense
activities at the WIPP near Carlsbad, New Mexico, after preparation
(i.e., treatment, as necessary, and packaging) to meet WIPP's waste
acceptance criteria.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the WM PEIS and this Record
of Decision are available in DOE public reading rooms and selected
libraries located across the United States. A list of the public
reading rooms at which the WM PEIS and this Record of Decision are
available can also be accessed on the DOE Office of Environmental
Management's World Wide Web site at http://www.em.doe.gov/em30/. To
request copies of the WM PEIS, this Record of Decision, or a list of
the reading rooms and public libraries, please write or call: The
Center for Environmental Management Information, P.O. Box 23769,
Washington, DC 20026-3769, Telephone: 1-800-736-3282 (in Washington,
DC: 202-863-5084).
For further information on DOE's national Waste Management Program,
the WM PEIS, or this Record of Decision, please write or call: Ms.
Patrice Bubar, Director, Office of Planning and Analysis (EM-35),
United States Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management,
19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874, Telephone: (301) 903-7204.
For general information on the U.S. Department of Energy National
Environmental Policy Act process, please write or call: Ms. Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42),
United States Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety, and
Health, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119,
Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500-1580) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021).
This Record of Decision is based on analyses contained in the
Department of Energy's Final Waste Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0200-F). DOE published a notice
of its intent to prepare the WM PEIS in the Federal Register on October
25, 1990. DOE issued a Draft WM PEIS on September 22, 1995, and
hearings were held during the public comment period, which closed on
February 19, 1996. All public comments were addressed in the Final WM
PEIS, which DOE issued on May 30, 1997.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
DOE needs facilities to manage its radioactive and hazardous wastes
in order to maintain safe, efficient, and cost-effective control of
these wastes; to comply with applicable Federal and state laws; and to
protect public health, safety and the environment. The WM PEIS is a
Department-wide study of the environmental impacts of managing five
types of waste generated by defense and research activities at a
variety of DOE sites around the United States. The five waste types
are: low-level mixed waste, low-level waste, TRU waste, high-level
waste, and hazardous waste. The WM PEIS examines, in an integrated
fashion, the potential impacts of managing these waste types and the
cumulative impacts of waste management, transportation and other
ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities.
The WM PEIS provides information on the potential impacts of
alternatives for nationwide waste management that DOE will use to
decide, on a programmatic basis, where, i.e., at which DOE sites, to
locate particular waste management facilities. However, DOE will not
decide the specific location of new facilities at sites selected to
manage a particular type of waste, or a facility's capacity and design,
until DOE completes appropriate site-wide or project-specific NEPA
reviews, such as an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement. These subsequent analyses would rely, to the extent
appropriate, on the analyses in the WM PEIS.
This Record of Decision applies only to the treatment (including
packaging) and storage of TRU waste as analyzed in the WM PEIS. Records
of Decision for the four other waste types analyzed in the WM PEIS will
be issued in due course. An Appendix to this Record of Decision
identifies the major sites evaluated in the WM PEIS as potential
locations for waste management operations, and the sites analyzed that
have TRU waste.
TRU Waste Treatment and Storage
TRU waste is waste containing more than 100 nanocuries of alpha-
emitting transuranic isotopes per gram of waste, with half-lives
greater than 20 years (a few exceptions to this definition are
identified in the WM PEIS). Over 99% of the total volume of existing
and anticipated TRU waste is located at the DOE sites listed in the
Appendix. TRU waste is categorized as either contact-handled (CH) or
remote-handled (RH), based on the radiation level at the surface of the
waste container. CH-TRU waste constitutes more than 85% of the total
existing and anticipated volume of TRU waste considered in the WM PEIS.
CH containers can be safely handled by direct contact, with appropriate
health and safety measures. RH-TRU waste contains a greater proportion
of radionuclides that produce highly penetrating radiation, and thus RH
containers require special handling and shielding during waste
management operations.
Alternatives Considered
In the WM PEIS, the term ``alternative'' refers to a nationwide
configuration of sites for treating, storing, or disposing of a waste
type. The alternatives analyzed for each waste type fall within the
four broad categories described below.
No Action Alternatives
These alternatives involve the use of currently existing or planned
waste management facilities at DOE sites. In the NEPA process, a no
action alternative or ``status quo'' alternative may not comply with
applicable laws and regulations; however, analysis of such an
alternative is required and provides an environmental baseline against
which the impacts of other alternatives can be compared.
Decentralized Alternatives
These alternatives involve managing waste where it is or will be
generated. Unlike the no action alternatives, the decentralized
alternatives may require the siting, construction, and operation of new
facilities or the modification of
[[Page 3631]]
existing facilities. Under the decentralized alternatives, waste
management facilities would be located at a larger number of sites than
under regionalized or centralized alternatives.
Regionalized Alternatives
These alternatives involve consolidating waste management
activities by transporting wastes to a limited number of sites (fewer
than the number of sites considered for the decentralized alternatives
but greater than the number of sites considered for the centralized
alternatives). In general, sites with the largest volumes of a
particular waste type were evaluated as potential regional sites for
consolidating waste management activities.
Centralized Alternatives
These alternatives involve consolidating management of wastes at
fewer locations than the regionalized alternatives (typically one to
three locations). As was the case for the regionalized alternatives,
generally those sites with the largest volumes of a particular waste
type were evaluated as potential sites for centralized waste
management.
There are many possible combinations of the number and locations of
DOE sites for waste management facilities. To limit these combinations
to a reasonable number for meaningful analysis, DOE selected
alternatives that cover the full spectrum of reasonable alternatives
under each category for each waste type. Table 1 summarizes the
alternatives for TRU waste treatment storage that are analyzed in the
WM PEIS, and the preferred alternative that DOE developed based on the
analysis and other relevant criteria identified in the WM PEIS.
Table 1.--Summary of TRU Waste Alternatives Analyzed in the WM PEIS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Category Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action.............................. Eleven sites * that anticipate generating TRU waste in the future would
prepare TRU waste to meet planning-basis WIPP waste acceptance
criteria **; existing TRU waste at 16 sites would be stored
indefinitely; assumes TRU waste would not be transported among sites.
Decentralized.......................... Either fixed or mobile characterization facilities would be operated at
sites that would need to retrieve existing TRU waste, treat,
repackage, and ship the waste. TRU waste would be shipped from the 6
sites with the smallest amounts to the nearest site of the 10 sites
(ANL-E, NTS, Hanford, INEEL, LANL, LLNL, Mound, ORR, RFETS, SRS) with
the largest amounts of TRU waste for storage prior to disposal;
assumes for purposes of analysis that the waste would be prepared to
meet waste acceptance criteria for WIPP and that disposal would occur
at WIPP.
Regionalized (3 Subalternatives)....... Three subalternatives differ in the level of treatment assumed for the
purpose of impact analysis and the number of sites at which treatment
would occur; RH-TRU waste would be treated and stored at Hanford and
ORR; CH-TRU waste would be treated and stored at all sites considered
in each alternative except ORR; all three subalternatives assume for
purposes of analysis that disposal would occur at WIPP.
Subalternatives:
1. TRU waste would be shipped from the 10 sites with the smallest
amounts to the 6 sites with the largest amounts (together having 95%
of current and anticipated TRU inventories) for treatment to reduce
gas generation and storage prior to disposal.
2. TRU waste would be shipped as described for Regionalized Alternative
1; the waste would be treated to meet Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs).
3. TRU waste would be consolidated at the 4 sites with approximately
80% of the current and anticipated inventories; treatment to meet LDRs
would occur at these 4 sites.
Centralized............................ All CH-TRU waste would be treated at WIPP to meet LDRs; all RH-TRU
waste would be treated at Hanford or ORR to meet LDRs and stored there
until disposal; assumes for purposes of analysis that disposal would
occur at WIPP.
Preferred.............................. Combination of the Decentralized Alternative, under which most TRU
waste would be treated and stored where it is located, and parts of
the Regionalized Alternative, under which some TRU waste could be
shipped to INEEL, LANL, ORR, and SRS for treatment and storage,
pending disposal, with the level of treatment and whether to dispose
of TRU wastes at WIPP to be decided on the basis of analyses in the
WIPP SEIS-II.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Appendix to this Record of Decision lists the sites' names and their abbreviations.
** WIPP waste acceptance criteria Revision 5 as defined in the WIPP SEIS-II.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The WM PEIS analyzed a number of potential impacts, including those
on human health, air and water resources, ecological resources, land
use, and site infrastructures for each of the major sites at which
waste management facilities might be located. Differences in impacts
among all of the action alternatives were small. Nonetheless, all
potential impacts identified in the WM PEIS were considered in DOE's
selection of the preferred alternative, its identification of the
environmentally preferable alternative, and its decision regarding
treatment and storage of TRU waste.
For the 20-year period of waste management operations analyzed in
the WM PEIS, the potential impacts under the No Action alternative for
TRU waste management are smaller than those identified under the action
alternatives, and on this basis, the No Action alternative could be
considered to be the environmentally preferable alternative. However,
the No Action alternative assumes indefinite storage, and therefore
does not include preparing and shipping the waste for disposal, i.e.,
permanent isolation from the human environment. Although the No Action
alternative could pose less risk to workers and communities surrounding
DOE's sites for the first 20 years, the longer-term risks are likely to
exceed those for the first 20 years, not only as a result of continuing
routine storage operations, but also as a result of degradation of
storage facilities and containers.
Taking these circumstances into account, the Department considers
the environmentally preferable alternative to be the Decentralized
Alternative under which DOE will prepare the TRU waste for disposal
with minimal transportation. Transportation of TRU waste would occur
only in situations where the sites at which the waste is
[[Page 3632]]
located lack the capability to prepare it for disposal.
Decision: DOE National Programmatic Configuration for Treatment and
Storage of TRU Waste Prior to Disposal
The Department will develop and operate mobile and fixed facilities
to characterize and prepare TRU waste for disposal at WIPP. Each of the
DOE's sites that has, or will generate, TRU waste will, as needed,
prepare and store its TRU waste on site, except that the SNL-NM will
transfer its TRU waste to LANL in New Mexico. LANL will have
facilities, not available or anticipated at SNL-NM, to prepare and
store this waste prior to disposal.
Basis for the Decision
Although the No Action Alternative resulted in the lowest impacts
among the alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS over the next 20 years,
DOE did not select this alternative because it does not meet the
Department's needs for the continued, safe management of TRU waste.
Under the No Action Alternative, health and environmental impacts would
continue to occur beyond the 20-year period of analysis in the WM PEIS.
In the WIPP SEIS-II Record of Decision (discussed further below), DOE
decided to dispose of TRU waste at WIPP, after treatment to meet the
planning basis waste acceptance criteria. The No Action alternative
evaluates treatment to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria only for
TRU waste to be generated in the future; i.e., existing retrievably
stored TRU waste would not be prepared to meet WIPP waste acceptance
criteria. Eventually, the stored waste as well as the newly generated
and treated waste would have to be repackaged to maintain safe storage
conditions.
Among the action alternatives, health and environmental impacts are
generally similar over the 20-year period of analysis. DOE's decision
seeks to limit environmental impacts and costs, while providing for the
safe management of DOE's TRU waste. Among the action alternatives, the
life cycle costs estimated in the WM PEIS are lowest for the
Decentralized Alternative.
The level of treatment analyzed under the Decentralized Alternative
in the WM PEIS corresponds to the level of treatment selected in the
Record of Decision for the WIPP SEIS-II for preparing the TRU waste for
disposal. Thus the potential health and environmental impacts of
treating TRU waste in accordance with the WIPP waste acceptance
criteria are identified and evaluated in the analysis of the
Decentralized Alternative, which also identifies the potential impacts
of treating and storing waste from SNL-NM at LANL.
Future Decisions
The Department may, in the future, decide to transfer TRU wastes
from sites where it may be impractical to prepare them for disposal to
sites where DOE has or will have the necessary capability. The sites
that could receive such shipments of TRU waste are INEEL, ORR, SRS and
Hanford. However, any future decisions regarding transfers of TRU waste
would be subject to appropriate NEPA review, and to agreements, such as
those between DOE and States, relating to the treatment and storage of
TRU waste. Future NEPA review could include, but would not necessarily
be limited to, analysis of the need to supplement existing
environmental reviews.
DOE would conduct all such TRU waste shipments between sites in
accordance with applicable transportation requirements and would
coordinate these shipments with appropriate State, Tribal and local
authorities.
As provided by 10 CFR Sec. 1021.315, the DOE may revise this Record
of Decision in the future as long as the revised decision is adequately
supported by existing environmental impact statements. Revision of this
Record of Decision could occur, for example, as new technology or
information from ongoing studies becomes available, or as DOE
identifies situations in which it would be appropriate to transfer TRU
waste to INEEL, ORR, SRS or Hanford. Implementation of the Record of
Decision is subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State,
and local requirements.
Differences From the Preferred Alternative in the WM PEIS
This decision differs from the preferred alternative identified in
the WM PEIS in three respects. First, the preferred alternative in the
WM PEIS included treatment and storage of ORR's RH-TRU waste on site,
and treatment and storage of ORR's CH-TRU waste at SRS. Since
publication of the WM PEIS, the Department has been considering
treatment, as needed, of both ORR's CH-TRU and RH-TRU waste at ORR,
because the radiation levels of ORR's CH-TRU waste are close to the
levels of ORR's RH-TRU waste, and because the two waste forms share
other physical characteristics. By including treatment of ORR's CH-TRU
waste with its RH-TRU waste, DOE would reduce the need to transport CH-
TRU waste and achieve economies of scale. The proposed action for a TRU
waste facility at ORR that could treat, as needed, both its CH-TRU and
RH-TRU wastes is subject to appropriate site-specific review under
NEPA.
The second difference between this decision and the preferred
alternative in the WM PEIS concerns RH-TRU waste at SRS. The preferred
alternative called for transferring this waste to ORR for treatment and
storage. The Department has now decided that it should defer any
determination whether to transfer RH-TRU waste from SRS to ORR until
DOE has the results of the NEPA review for the proposed ORR facility
and additional information regarding its capability to meet
transportation requirements for shipping the RH-TRU waste to ORR.
The third difference between this decision and the preferred
alternative in the WM PEIS concerns the transfer of a portion of the
TRU waste at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) to
INEEL. Since publication of the WM PEIS, additional information about
the characteristics of the TRU waste at RFETS has become available
indicating that existing or anticipated facilities at RFETS may be able
to prepare this waste for disposal. If, in the future, RFETS needs to
use another site's capability to prepare some of its TRU waste for
disposal, DOE will complete any further review under NEPA that may be
necessary, and will notify the appropriate State, Tribal and local
authorities prior to making a final decision.
Coordinated Decision on Level of Treatment and Disposal of TRU
Waste
This Record of Decision has been prepared in coordination with the
WIPP SEIS-II Record of Decision (January 16, 1998), which specifies the
level of treatment for, and the disposal location of, TRU waste
generated by defense activities. The decisions on the level of
treatment of TRU waste and where to dispose of it are based on analyses
in the WIPP SEIS-II. In the WIPP SEIS-II Record of Decision, DOE has
decided that TRU waste destined for disposal at WIPP will be treated to
meet the planning basis waste acceptance criteria (Revision 5 of the
waste acceptance criteria as defined in the WIPP SEIS-II), which
establish the minimum requirements for preparing TRU waste for disposal
at WIPP. DOE has treated in the past and based on site-specific
circumstances, may decide in the future to treat TRU waste at some
sites more extensively than is required under the WIPP waste acceptance
criteria.
[[Page 3633]]
Mitigation
Chapter 12 of the WM PEIS describes measures that DOE takes in
order to minimize the impacts of its waste management activities.
Mitigation measures are an integral part of the Department's
operations, so as to avoid, reduce, or eliminate potentially adverse
environmental impacts. Some of the more important mitigation measures
that DOE will continue during the treatment and storage of TRU waste
are:
Use of pollution prevention plans;
Assistance to States, Tribes, local governments, and other
public entities concerning human health, environmental, and economic
impacts, including transportation planning and emergency response
assistance;
Use of ``cleaner'' waste treatment and storage
technologies as they become available;
Rigorous quality assurance programs for the
characterization of TRU waste;
Reuse of existing facilities wherever feasible rather than
construction of new facilities;
Occupational safety and health training to ensure that
workers understand operational safety procedures.
Site-specific, non-routine mitigation measures may also be
identified and implemented in the course of further decision making
under site-specific NEPA reviews based on the WM PEIS.
Issued in Washington, D.C. this 20th day of January, 1998.
James M. Owendoff,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management.
Appendix--Sites Evaluated in the WM PEIS and Sites With TRU Waste
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviation Full name State Major site \1\ TRU waste
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANL-E.................. Argonne National IL Yes......................... Yes.
Laboratory--East.
BNL.................... Brookhaven National NY Yes......................... No.
Laboratory.
ETEC................... Energy Technology CA No.......................... Yes.
Engineering Center.
FEMP................... Fernald Environmental OH Yes......................... No.
Management Project.
Hanford................ Hanford Site........... WA Yes......................... Yes.
INEEL.................. Idaho National ID Yes......................... Yes.
Engineering and
Environmental
Laboratory.
LBL.................... Lawrence Berkeley CA No.......................... Yes.
Laboratory.
LLNL................... Lawrence Livermore CA Yes......................... Yes.
National Laboratory.
LANL................... Los Alamos National NM Yes......................... Yes.
Laboratory.
Mound.................. Mound Plant............ OH No.......................... Yes.
NTS.................... Nevada Test Site....... NV Yes......................... Yes.
ORR.................... Oak Ridge Reservation.. TN Yes......................... Yes.
PGDP................... Paducah Gaseous KY Yes......................... Yes.
Diffusion Plant.
Pantex................. Pantex Plant........... TX Yes......................... No.
PORTS.................. Portsmouth Gaseous OH Yes......................... No.
Diffusion Plant.
RFETS.................. Rocky Flats CO Yes......................... Yes.
Environmental
Technology Site.
SNL/NM................. Sandia National NM Yes......................... Yes.
Laboratories-New
Mexico.
SRS.................... Savannah River Site.... SC Yes......................... Yes.
UofMO.................. University of Missouri. MO No.......................... Yes.
WIPP................... Waste Isolation Pilot NM Yes......................... No.
Plant.
WVDP................... West Valley NY Yes......................... Yes.
Demonstration Project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Sites analyzed in the WM PEIS as potential locations for waste management facilities for one or more types
of waste.
[FR Doc. 98-1654 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P