[Federal Register: February 25, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 10061-10066]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25fe00-58]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste
Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed
Low-Level Waste; Amendment of the Record of Decision for the Nevada
Test Site
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: For the management of low-level waste (LLW) analyzed in the
Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM
PEIS), the Department of Energy (DOE) has decided to perform minimum
treatment at all sites and continue, to the extent practicable,
disposal of on-site LLW at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL) in New Mexico, the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) in Tennessee, and
the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. In addition, the
Department has decided to make the Hanford Site in Washington and the
Nevada Test Site (NTS) available to all DOE sites for LLW disposal.
INEEL and SRS also will continue to dispose of LLW generated by the
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. For the management of mixed low-level
waste (MLLW) analyzed in the WM PEIS, the Department has decided to
treat MLLW at the Hanford Site, INEEL, ORR and SRS, and to dispose of
MLLW at the Hanford Site and NTS. The Department also has decided to
amend its 1996 ROD for the NTS Environmental Impact Statement, to
implement the Expanded Use Alternative for waste management activities
at NTS.
The Department acknowledges the impacts this decision will have in
the States of Nevada and Washington, which will continue their role in
supporting the nation's goal to clean up the nuclear weapons complex,
much as they supported the nation's nuclear weapons program. This
decision enables the Department to integrate waste management
activities among sites to promote expeditious, compliant, and cost
effective cleanup.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the Final WM PEIS and this
Record of Decision (ROD) are available in DOE public reading rooms and
selected libraries located across the United States; the WM PEIS also
is available on the internet at www.osti.gov/bridge (select ``Advanced
Search,'' go to the box labeled ``Select Field'' and scroll down to
``Identifying Number,'' then key in ``DOE/EIS-0200-F''). A list of the
public reading rooms can be accessed on the Internet at http://
www.em.doe.gov under ``Publications'' and then ``List of
Publications.'' To request copies of the WM PEIS, this ROD, or a list
of the reading rooms and public libraries, contact: 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 information on the WM PEIS or this ROD, contact: Ms. Karen
Guevara, WM PEIS Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Environmental Management, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874;
telephone 301-903-4981.
For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of
NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. 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 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The WM PEIS (DOE/EIS-0200F), issued in May 1997, studied the
potential nation-wide impacts of managing four types of radioactive
waste (LLW, MLLW, transuranic waste, and high-level waste) and non-
wastewater hazardous waste generated by defense and research activities
at 54 sites around the United States. The WM PEIS analyzes the
potential environmental impacts of broad alternatives for DOE's waste
management program, and was designed to provide part of the basis for
DOE decisions on programmatic configurations of sites for waste
management activities. WM PEIS analyses include evaluating potential
impacts associated with transporting wastes by truck and by rail.
Three RODs have been issued under the WM PEIS. These are the
transuranic waste ROD (63 FR 3629, January 23, 1998), the non-
wastewater hazardous waste ROD (63 FR 41810, August 5, 1998), and the
high-level waste ROD (64 FR 46661, August 26, 1999).
This ROD applies only to the treatment and disposal of LLW and MLLW
as analyzed in the WM PEIS.\1\ DOE prepared this ROD in accordance with
NEPA (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental
Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508),
and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After the Final WM PEIS was issued in May 1997, DOE issued
``Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure.'' In that document, DOE
provided estimates of waste volumes that would result from the
planned operations and accelerated cleanup processes at DOE sites.
Because some of the estimates differed from those provided in the WM
PEIS, DOE examined the LLW and MLLW volumes to determine if the
updated volume estimates constitute significant new information
relevant to environmental concerns that would warrant preparation of
a supplemental EIS or a new PEIS. This examination extended only to
LLW and MLLW volumes, because the transuranic, hazardous and high-
level waste volume estimates did not change from those analyzed in
the Final WM PEIS.
The treatment and disposal site locations were chosen based on
factors that would not be affected by the changed waste volume
estimates. Waste volume considerations could have influenced the
choice of treatment and disposal sites only if the estimated volume
of LLW, the estimated volume of MLLW, or the expected nationwide
distribution of waste had changed dramatically, none of which
occurred. Therefore, DOE has concluded that its decisionmaking
process for LLW and MLLW can proceed without preparing a
supplemental EIS or a new PEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions of LLW and MLLW
Low-Level Waste is all radioactive waste not classified as high-
level waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product
tailings containing uranium or thorium from processed ore (as defined
in Section 11(e)2 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [42 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq.]), and not classified as hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Test specimens of fissionable
material irradiated for research and development only, and not for the
production of power or plutonium, may be classified as LLW provided
that the concentration of transuranics is less than 100 nanocuries per
gram. Since the World War II Manhattan Project, DOE and its predecessor
agencies have generated LLW from a variety of activities, including
weapons production, nuclear reactor operations, environmental
restoration activities, and research.
Mixed Low-Level Waste is managed according to requirements
established under RCRA for hazardous waste and the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 for its radioactive components. The hazardous
[[Page 10062]]
component of MLLW is subject either to Environmental Protection Agency
regulations promulgated under RCRA or State hazardous waste regulations
promulgated under RCRA. DOE has generated MLLW as a result of research,
development, production of nuclear weapons, and environmental
restoration activities.
Alternatives Considered for Treatment and Disposal of LLW and MLLW
In the WM PEIS, the term ``alternative'' generally refers to a
nationwide configuration of sites for treating, storing, or disposing
of a waste type. The WM PEIS analyzed No Action, Decentralized,
Regionalized, and Centralized Alternatives for LLW and MLLW treatment
and disposal. As shown in Tables 3.4-2 and 3.6-2 for LLW, and Tables
3.4-1 and 3.6-1 for MLLW, the number of sites considered for treatment
and disposal of LLW and MLLW under the action alternatives is greatest
for the Decentralized Alternatives and fewest for the Centralized
Alternatives. The WM PEIS action alternatives for LLW and MLLW did not
include storage alternatives; LLW and MLLW will be stored at the site
where they are generated until they are treated and disposed of.
For LLW treatment, in addition to these categories of alternatives,
the WM PEIS evaluated two treatment approaches: minimum treatment and
volume reduction. Minimum treatment is defined as the least amount of
LLW treatment required to allow either on-site disposal or
transportation to another site for disposal. Minimum LLW treatment
includes basic handling, packaging, and solidification of liquid and
fine particulate LLW. Therefore, in all LLW alternatives, all sites
with LLW perform at least minimum treatment on all of their LLW,
regardless of whether the waste is further treated using volume
reduction methods and regardless of whether the waste is to be disposed
of on-site or at another site. For volume reduction, the WM PEIS
analyzed thermal treatment (e.g., incineration), compaction, and size
reduction (e.g., shredding) to decrease the volume of LLW needing
disposal.
For MLLW treatment, the WM PEIS analyzed thermal treatment (e.g.,
incineration), separations processes, evaporation, and solidification
(e.g., grouting) to meet RCRA land disposal restrictions.
The following summarizes the alternatives that DOE analyzed for
treatment and disposal of LLW and MLLW.
No Action Alternative. For each waste type, the WM PEIS analyzed a
single ``no action'' alternative involving the use of currently
existing or planned waste management facilities at DOE sites. Although
the no action (or ``status quo'') alternative may not comply with
applicable laws and regulations, analysis of such an alternative is
required under NEPA regulations, and provides an environmental baseline
against which the impacts of other alternatives can be compared. Under
the No Action Alternative for LLW, LLW would be treated using existing
facilities and then disposed of at the six existing DOE LLW disposal
sites as follows: INEEL, LANL, and ORR would each dispose of its own
LLW; and the Hanford Site, NTS, and SRS would each dispose of its own
waste and waste from specific DOE sites. Under the No Action
Alternative for MLLW, no new facilities would be constructed, not all
MLLW would be treated to meet RCRA land disposal restrictions, and MLLW
would be placed in indefinite storage.
Decentralized Alternative. For each waste type, the WM PEIS
analyzed a single decentralized alternative for treating and disposing
of waste at a large number (16) of DOE sites. Unlike the ``no action''
alternative, a decentralized alternative may require the siting,
construction and operation of new facilities or the modification of
existing facilities. Under the LLW Decentralized Alternative, as shown
in Table 7.3-2, LLW would undergo only minimum treatment at all DOE
waste generating sites and would be disposed of at 16 DOE sites. Under
the MLLW Decentralized Alternative, as shown in Table 6.3-2, MLLW would
be treated on-site at DOE waste generating sites and would be disposed
of at 16 DOE sites.
Regionalized Alternatives. For each waste type, the WM PEIS
analyzed several alternatives to consolidate waste management
activities by transporting wastes to fewer sites for treatment or
disposal. For LLW, the WM PEIS analyzed seven Regionalized
Alternatives, with volume reduction treatment at 11 or fewer DOE sites,
followed by disposal at up to 12 sites. For MLLW, the WM PEIS analyzed
four Regionalized Alternatives, ranging from treatment at 37 DOE sites
to treatment at only four sites, followed by disposal at 12, six or a
single DOE site.
Centralized Alternatives. For each waste type, the WM PEIS analyzed
one or more alternatives for consolidating waste management activities
at a small number of centralized sites for treatment or disposal. For
LLW, the WM PEIS analyzed five Centralized Alternatives, with volume
reduction treatment at seven sites or at a single site, followed by
disposal at a single site. For MLLW, the WM PEIS analyzed one
Centralized Alternative, with MLLW treatment and disposal occurring at
a single site.
Preferred Alternatives. The WM PEIS identified preferred
alternatives using criteria established (after considering public
comments) in Section 1.7.3 of the Final WM PEIS. For LLW treatment, DOE
identified its preferred alternative to be minimum treatment of LLW at
all sites that generate LLW (the Decentralized Alternative). For MLLW
treatment, DOE identified its preferred alternative to be a combination
of regionalized and decentralized alternatives, consisting of treatment
at the Hanford Site, INEEL, ORR and SRS, or on-site treatment, as would
be consistent with Site Treatment Plans issued under the Federal
Facility Compliance Act, Pub. L. 102-386.
The Final WM PEIS also identified DOE's preferred alternatives for
LLW and MLLW disposal as regional disposal at two or three disposal
sites, to be selected from the six candidate sites at which DOE
currently disposes of LLW or MLLW: the Hanford Site, INEEL, LANL, NTS,
ORR, and SRS. On December 10, 1999, DOE published (64 FR 69241) a
Notice of Preferred Alternatives announcing its preferred LLW and MLLW
disposal sites. For LLW disposal, DOE identified its preferred
alternative to be disposal at the Hanford Site and NTS. In addition, to
the extent practicable and consistent with current practice, DOE would
continue disposal of on-site LLW at INEEL, LANL, ORR, and SRS. INEEL
and SRS also would continue to dispose of LLW generated by the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program. This preferred alternative for LLW disposal
is a combination of the preferred LLW disposal alternative identified
in the Final WM PEIS (i.e., regionalized disposal at two sites--the
Hanford Site and NTS) and the Decentralized Alternative described in
the Final WM PEIS (disposal of on-site generated LLW at four sites--
INEEL, LANL, ORR, and SRS). For MLLW disposal, DOE identified its
preferred alternative to be disposal at the Hanford Site and NTS (a
Regionalized Alternative).
Public Comments on Preferred Alternatives and DOE Responses
In response to the December 1999 Notice, the Department received
eight letters as discussed below.
The Governor of Nevada, in the context of addressing concerns about
DOE's activities regarding Yucca Mountain (which is outside the scope
of the WM PEIS), urged the Secretary of Energy ``to continue to assist
the state in
[[Page 10063]]
assuring that adequate health, safety, and environmental safeguards are
in place to ensure the safety of Nevada's citizens upon receipt of the
additional low-level and mixed waste at the NTS.'' The ``Mitigation of
Impacts from Treatment and Disposal of LLW and MLLW'' section of this
ROD includes several commitments that address this request, including:
(1) Assistance to States, Tribal and local governments, and other
public entities concerning human health, environmental, and economic
impacts; (2) stringent application of administrative controls,
including disposal facility waste acceptance criteria and stable waste
form requirements; (3) implementation of transportation planning and
control programs to reduce transportation risk; and (4) rigorous
quality assurance programs for the characterization of LLW and MLLW.
Previously, the Department entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with
the State of Nevada (July 1998) to provide State regulators with
greater involvement in waste disposal matters.
In a separate letter, the Nevada Department of Transportation
indicated concern with vehicle configuration and routing as it would
relate to safe operations on various highway systems. While the WM PEIS
evaluated potential impacts associated with transporting wastes by
truck and by rail (as noted in the ``Background'' section of this ROD),
this ROD does not make transportation routing or mode decisions. In
implementing this decision, DOE will comply with all applicable
Department of Transportation regulations. In addition, as mentioned
above, a later section of this ROD lists mitigation measures DOE will
continue during LLW and MLLW treatment and disposal; two of these
address the Nevada Department of Transportation's concern: (1) Training
to ensure DOE and non-DOE emergency response personnel are
knowledgeable of emergency response procedures; and (2) implementation
of transportation planning and control programs to reduce
transportation risk.
The Hanford Advisory Board (one of several site-specific advisory
boards chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act) advised that
before off-site LLW and MLLW are imported into the Hanford Site,
``there should be adequate opportunity for public education and
involvement.'' The Department believes it has provided adequate
opportunity for public education and involvement during the process of
reaching the decisions presented in this ROD. The Department provided a
150-day public comment period for the WM PEIS and received more than
1,500 comments. The Final WM PEIS responded to these, including
comments of the Hanford Advisory Board. In addition, since publication
of the Final WM PEIS, the Department has continued to share information
and discuss the pending decisions in various public forums. The pending
decision was among the topics discussed in the Intersite Discussions
convened by the League of Women Voters in the Summer of 1998 and a LLW
Seminar sponsored by the Nevada Citizens' Advisory Board in August
1998, both of which were attended by members of the Hanford Advisory
Board. Further, the Department issued a September 1998 Information
Package on Pending LLW and MLLW Disposal Decisions, which was provided
to all site-specific advisory boards (including the Hanford Advisory
Board), and others.
In a separate letter, the Hanford Advisory Board also advised that
no off-site wastes be disposed of in LLW burial grounds on the Hanford
Site until regulators determine whether waste previously disposed of
there has been accurately characterized as LLW and not MLLW. This site-
specific implementation issue is beyond the scope of the WM PEIS.
However, DOE will consult with regulators to determine an appropriate
course of action.
An individual from Washington State stated that DOE was in
violation of NEPA when it named preferred disposal sites because the
May 1997 WM PEIS only covered LLW and MLLW treatment. In fact, however,
the WM PEIS analyzed both treatment and disposal of LLW and MLLW.
The State of Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration
noted its support of the Department's stated preferences for LLW and
MLLW disposal and offered no further comments. The State of Missouri
Office of Administration stated that the agency had completed its
review and had no comments or recommendations to offer. A letter from
the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources provided no comments
or recommendations on the December 1999 notice.
Upon consideration of comments received during the WM PEIS public
comment period and, as detailed above, on the December 1999 notice, the
Department has reached the following decisions for LLW and MLLW
treatment and disposal.
LLW Treatment
Tables 7.16-1 and 7.16-2 in the Final WM PEIS compare alternatives
with respect to the treatment of LLW. In general, the tables present
estimates of potential worker and off-site population fatalities, the
ability of sites to meet air and groundwater quality standards, and
costs for the various LLW alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS. Chapter
7 also discusses other types of LLW impacts, including cultural
resource and environmental justice concerns. All of the environmental
factors were considered in identifying environmentally preferable
alternatives and in making the decision stated below.
Environmentally Preferable Alternatives: For LLW treatment, seven
of the alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS (the Decentralized,
Regionalized 1, 3, 6 and 7, and Centralized 1 and 2 Alternatives) would
result in similarly low environmental impacts and are the
environmentally preferable LLW treatment alternatives. These
alternatives involve only minimum treatment (as defined earlier), and
thus would result in the fewest potential worker fatalities. No
alternative would present environmental justice concerns. None of these
alternatives would result in off-site transportation risks for
treatment, because each site would treat its own waste on-site.
Decision: The Department has decided to implement the Preferred
Alternative specified in the Final WM PEIS for the treatment of LLW.
Under this decision, each site will perform minimum treatment on its
LLW, although each site may perform additional treatment as would be
useful to decrease overall costs. This decision does not preclude DOE's
use of commercial treatment facilities, consistent with current DOE
orders and policy.
Basis for Decision: DOE has decided to pursue minimum treatment as
its overall strategy for LLW treatment because volume reduction would
not offer sufficient benefits to offset the increase in human health
effects and costs it would entail. All DOE sites with LLW must perform
at least minimum treatment on all of their LLW, regardless of whether
the waste is further treated using volume reduction methods. A
programmatic volume reduction treatment strategy would pose greater
worker hazards, because workers would be exposed to risks from
additional treatment processes. The analyses did not demonstrate that
these more immediate worker risks would be offset by corresponding
long-term human health or environmental risk reduction due to volume
reduction. Volume reduction also could pose additional transportation
impacts; because not all
[[Page 10064]]
sites have volume reduction treatment facilities, some LLW would have
to be shipped for treatment. Finally, volume reduction would cost twice
as much as minimum treatment, and the increased treatment costs
generally would not be offset by potential savings from disposing of
less waste or other benefits.
Disposal of LLW
Tables 7.16-1 and 7.16-2 in the Final WM PEIS compare alternatives
with respect to the disposal of LLW. In general, the tables present
estimates of potential worker and off-site population fatalities, the
ability of sites to meet air and groundwater quality standards, and
costs for the various LLW alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS. Chapter
7 also discusses other types of LLW impacts, including cultural
resource and environmental justice concerns. All of the environmental
factors were considered in identifying environmentally preferable
alternatives and in making the decision stated below.
Environmentally Preferable Alternatives: For LLW disposal, the
Decentralized and Regionalized Alternatives pose the least
environmental impacts and are the environmentally preferable disposal
alternatives. The Decentralized and all Regionalized Alternatives pose
similar transportation fatality impacts, which are lower than for the
Centralized Alternatives. Potential fatalities from facility operation
are low and similar for all alternatives. No alternative would present
environmental justice concerns.
Decision: The Department has decided to establish regional LLW
disposal at two DOE sites: the Hanford Site and NTS. Specifically, the
Hanford Site and NTS will each dispose of its own LLW on-site, and will
receive and dispose of LLW that is generated and shipped (by either
truck or rail) by other sites that meets the waste acceptance criteria.
In addition, DOE will continue, to the extent practicable, disposal of
on-site LLW at INEEL, LANL, ORR, and SRS. INEEL and SRS also will
continue to dispose of LLW generated by the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program.
Use of the term ``regional'' disposal does not impose geographical
restrictions on which DOE sites may ship waste to a disposal site; the
term is used only to be consistent with the WM PEIS analysis of
regionalized alternatives. This decision also does not preclude DOE's
use of commercial disposal facilities, consistent with current DOE
orders and policy.
This decision is the preferred alternative that DOE announced in
the December 1999 Notice discussed above. Under this decision, DOE will
implement a combination of the preferred LLW disposal alternative
identified in the Final WM PEIS (i.e., regionalized disposal at two DOE
sites--the Hanford Site and NTS) and the Decentralized Alternative
(disposal of on-site generated LLW at four sites --INEEL, LANL, ORR,
and SRS).
Basis for Decision: DOE's decision is based on low impacts to human
health, operational flexibility, and relative implementation cost. The
Hanford Site and NTS provide environmental safety benefits inherent to
arid sites, where evaporation rates exceed rainfall by approximately 10
to 1 or more. The local geology at NTS greatly restricts the potential
for any contamination to move into the groundwater, which is located
800 feet below the surface. Both the Hanford Site and NTS LLW disposal
facilities have expansion capability and can dispose of a wide range of
radionuclides. Using two disposal facilities provides operational
flexibility to align waste streams with facility waste acceptance
criteria and access to an alternate disposal facility should the other
facility's operations be interrupted for any reason.
MLLW Treatment
Tables 6.16-1 and 6.16-2 in the Final WM PEIS compare alternatives
with respect to the treatment of MLLW. In general, the tables present
estimates of potential worker and off-site population fatalities, the
ability of sites to meet air and groundwater quality standards, and
costs for the various MLLW alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS.
Chapter 6 also discusses other types of MLLW impacts, including
cultural resource and environmental justice concerns. All of the
environmental factors were considered in identifying environmentally
preferable alternatives and in making the decision stated below.
Environmentally Preferable Alternatives: For MLLW treatment, all
action alternatives are environmentally preferable because their
potential environmental impacts (including transportation impacts) are
not substantially different, are small, and present long-term benefits.
The No Action Alternative could pose less risk than action alternatives
to workers and communities surrounding DOE's sites for the first 20
years. Longer-term risks from no action are likely to exceed those for
the first 20 years, not only from continuing routine storage
operations, but also from degradation of storage facilities and
containers. (Under the No Action Alternative, MLLW would be
indefinitely stored rather than disposed of.)
Decision: DOE has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative
specified in the Final WM PEIS for the treatment of MLLW. DOE will
conduct regional MLLW treatment at the Hanford Site, INEEL, ORR, and
SRS, or on-site, as would be consistent with current Site Treatment
Plans. Current Site Treatment Plans were negotiated among DOE, the host
state, and/or the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal
Facility Compliance Act, and may undergo periodic renegotiation. Use of
the term ``regional'' treatment does not impose geographical
restrictions on which DOE sites may ship waste (by either truck or
rail) to a given treatment site; the term is used only to be consistent
with the WM PEIS analysis of regionalized alternatives. DOE's decision
does not preclude DOE's use of commercial treatment facilities,
consistent with DOE orders and policy.
Basis for Decision: The four regional treatment sites offer unique
treatment capabilities needed by other sites in the DOE complex. This
decision takes advantage of infrastructure capabilities that already
exist or have been decided upon at the Hanford Site, INEEL, ORR and
SRS--which are capable of MLLW treatment to meet RCRA land disposal
restrictions. The decision also avoids environmental impacts and costs
associated with construction of new facilities.
Potential impacts from the selected configuration are within those
estimated for regionalized and decentralized alternatives as analyzed
in the WM PEIS. With the appropriate project-specific NEPA review, any
site could conduct MLLW treatment on-site. The potential environmental
impacts of all alternatives for treatment of MLLW evaluated in the WM
PEIS are small, with no individual alternative clearly showing the
lowest overall impacts. The No Action Alternative is not acceptable
because it would not meet DOE's long-term waste management goals nor
comply with applicable RCRA requirements.
MLLW Disposal
Tables 6.16-1 and 6.16-2 in the Final WM PEIS compare alternatives
with respect to the disposal of MLLW. In general, the tables present
estimates of potential worker and off-site population fatalities, the
ability of sites to meet air and groundwater quality standards, and
costs for the various MLLW alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS.
Chapter 6 also discusses other types of MLLW impacts, including
cultural resource and
[[Page 10065]]
environmental justice concerns. All of the environmental factors were
considered in identifying environmentally preferable alternatives and
in making the decision stated below.
Environmentally Preferable Alternatives: For MLLW disposal, all of
the alternatives have low and similar impacts, with Regionalized
Alternative 3 being the environmentally preferable alternative because
disposal would require the fewest engineered enhancements to avoid
exceeding drinking water standards. No alternative would present
environmental justice concerns.
The No Action alternative is based on indefinite storage and does
not prepare the waste for disposal, i.e., permanent isolation from the
human environment. For the 20-year waste management period considered
in the WM PEIS, the potential impacts under the No Action alternative
for MLLW disposal are smaller than those identified under the action
alternatives, and on this short-term basis, the No Action alternative
could be considered to be the environmentally preferred alternative.
However, the No Action alternative does not include shipment (or
transportation impacts) of MLLW for disposal. Further, the No Action
alternative would not protect human health and the environment from
such long-term threats as deteriorating containers or loss of
institutional control and cannot be considered environmentally
preferable.
Decision: The Department's decision is to establish regional MLLW
disposal operations at two DOE sites: the Hanford Site and NTS. The
Hanford Site and NTS will each dispose of its own MLLW on-site, and
will receive and dispose of MLLW generated and shipped (by truck or
rail) by other sites, consistent with permit conditions and other
applicable requirements. Use of the term ``regional disposal'' does not
impose geographical restrictions on which DOE sites may ship waste to a
disposal site; the term is used only to be consistent with the WM PEIS
analysis of regionalized alternatives. This decision does not preclude
DOE's use of commercial disposal facilities, consistent with current
DOE orders and policy. This decision is the preferred alternative that
DOE announced in its December 10, 1999 Notice of Preferred
Alternatives.
Basis for Decision: DOE's decision to regionalize MLLW disposal at
the Hanford Site and NTS is based on low impacts to human health,
operational flexibility, and relative implementation cost. The Hanford
Site and NTS are the only two DOE sites that have MLLW disposal
facilities already constructed. Use of these existing facilities will
avoid environmental impacts and costs associated with facility
construction. Further, DOE does not foresee needing a third regional
MLLW disposal facility for the estimated volume of MLLW to be disposed
of during the next 20 years. Using two disposal facilities provides
operational flexibility to align waste streams with facility waste
acceptance criteria and access to an alternate disposal facility should
the other facility's operations be interrupted for any reason.
Mitigation of Impacts from Treatment and Disposal of LLW and MLLW
Chapter 12 of the WM PEIS describes measures that DOE could take to
minimize the potential 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 disposal of LLW and
MLLW are:
Development and implementation of pollution prevention
plans.
Assistance to States, Tribal and local governments, and
other public entities concerning human health, environmental, and
economic impacts.
Development of ``cleaner'' waste treatment, storage and
disposal technologies.
Stringent application of administrative controls,
including disposal facility waste acceptance criteria and stable waste
form requirements.
Maintenance and enhancement of pollution control systems
to reduce toxicity of air and surface water effluents.
Reuse of existing facilities rather than construction of
new facilities.
Training to ensure workers understand operational safety
limits within which a facility can operate while limiting risks and
adequately protecting the environment.
Training to ensure DOE and non-DOE emergency response
personnel are knowledgeable of emergency response procedures.
Implementation of transportation planning and control
programs to reduce transportation risk.
Rigorous quality assurance programs for the
characterization of LLW and MLLW.
These are routine mitigation measures for which a mitigation action
plan is not required. Site-specific, non-routine mitigation measures
may also be identified and implemented in the course of further
decision making under site-specific NEPA reviews.
Amendment of the Record of Decision for NTS
On December 9, 1996, DOE issued a ROD (61 FR 65551) for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site
Locations in the State of Nevada (NTS EIS). That ROD cited the then-
pending Final WM PEIS and stated that subsequent programmatic decisions
``may require changes to the Waste Management Program at NTS in the
future,'' and ``that in the interim, pending those programmatic
decisions, DOE will maintain the current level of LLW and MLLW
management activity as described in the No Action Alternative in the
NTS EIS.'' For LLW, the decision meant that ``disposal of LLW will
continue for waste streams from current [DOE approved] on-site and off-
site generators'' and that ``approval of other waste generators for
disposal is pending future programmatic decisions.'' For MLLW, the
decision meant that ``DOE will continue to manage MLLW which is
currently on-site or which may be generated by DOE at NTS.''
The NTS EIS addressed the environmental impacts of four operational
scenarios: (1) Continue Current Operations (No Action), (2) Discontinue
Operations, (3) Expanded Use, and (4) Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands.
The ROD identified DOE's decision to implement a combination of
elements of three of these alternatives. DOE decided that most
activities would be pursued at levels described by the Expanded Use
Alternative. In addition, DOE decided to undertake certain public
education activities analyzed under the Alternate Use of Withdrawn
Lands Alternative. As stated above, DOE also decided that, pending
programmatic decisions, NTS LLW and MLLW management operations would be
conducted under the Continue Current Operations Alternative.
Under the Continue Current Operations Alternative, the NTS EIS
analyzed the environmental impacts for a ten-year period of disposal of
349,294 cubic meters of LLW in either of two Radioactive Waste
Management Sites (Areas 3 and 5) at the NTS and 18,285 total shipments
via legal weight trucks on public highways. Under the Expanded Use
Alternative, the NTS EIS analyzed 1,041,422 cubic meters of LLW to be
disposed of and 39,084 shipments. While there is a substantial
difference in the volumes of waste and numbers of
[[Page 10066]]
shipments under the two alternatives, DOE found in the NTS EIS that the
incremental environmental impacts associated with waste management
activities of Expanded Use as compared to Continue Current Operations
were negligible.
Inasmuch as DOE is now making complex-wide decisions for its LLW
and MLLW waste management program, which includes continuing to use the
NTS for disposal of LLW and initiating use of the NTS for disposal of
MLLW, as addressed in the WM PEIS, DOE is also hereby amending its
December 9, 1996, NTS EIS ROD. DOE will implement the Expanded Use
Alternative for waste management activities at NTS, including LLW and
MLLW disposal. This amendment is based on the analysis in the NTS EIS
and is tiered from the WM PEIS and the associated programmatic
decisions for LLW and MLLW.
Issued in Washington, D.C. this 18th day of February, 2000.
Carolyn L. Huntoon,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 00-4439 Filed 2-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P