[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39950-39953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19235]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Finding of No Significant Impact for Operation of the Glass 
Melter Thermal Treatment Unit at the U.S. Department of Energy's Mound 
Plant, Miamisburg, Ohio

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Finding of no significant impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an 
environmental assessment (DOE/EA-0821) for the proposed operation of 
the Glass Melter thermal treatment unit (``Glass Melter'') at DOE's 
Mound Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio. The Glass Melter would thermally treat 
mixed waste (hazardous waste contaminated with radioactive 
constituents, largely tritium, plutonium-238, and/or thorium-230), that 
was generated at the Mound Plant and is now in storage, by stabilizing 
the waste in glass blocks. Depending upon the radiation level of the 
waste, the Glass Melter may operate for as short a time as one year, 
but not longer than six years. DOE considered two onsite alternatives 
to the proposed action and seven offsite alternatives.
    Based on the analysis presented in the environmental assessment, 
DOE believes that the proposed action does not constitute a major 
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Therefore, the preparation of an 
environmental impact statement is not required and the DOE is issuing 
this finding of no significant impact.

DATES: Proposed operation of the Mound Plant Glass Melter thermal 
treatment unit was the subject of a public meeting in Miamisburg, Ohio, 
on March 10, 1994. No unfavorable written comments from stakeholders 
were received by the DOE as a result of this meeting. The environmental 
assessment for the proposed operation of the Glass Melter was approved 
by DOE on October 27, 1994. A proposed finding of no significant impact 
(FONSI) was published in the Federal Register (FR) on November 3, 1994 
(FR 59 55085) for public review and comment. No comments on the 
proposed FONSI were received, although a small number of individuals 
requested, and were provided, copies of the environmental assessment 
(EA).

ADDRESSES: Mail any requests for further information on the Glass 
Melter project, or the associated EA and FONSI, to: Ms. Sue Smiley, 
NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Ohio Field Office, 
P.O. Box 3020, Miamisburg, Ohio 45343-3020, Phone: (513) 865-3987, 
Facsimile: (513) 865-4402.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information on the DOE National 
Environmental Policy Act process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, 
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department 
of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 
(202) 586-4600 or 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action would bring the Mound 
Plant Glass Melter out of cold shutdown mode and use it for treating 
mixed waste that was generated at the Mound Plant and is now in 
storage. The Glass Melter, housed in an annex of the Liquid Waste 
Disposal Building, consists of a burn chamber of stainless steel (lined 
with refractory material) with an exhaust (offgas) system connected to 
a system of pipes and scrubbers ending in a stack (scrubbers are 
devices that remove small particles, gasses, and airborne radionuclides 
generated during thermal treatment). Waste in sealed drums would be 
transported by truck from the Mound Hazardous Waste Storage Building or 
Radioactive Mixed-Waste Storage 

[[Page 39951]]
Building to the annex, staged on a concrete loading dock adjacent to 
the annex, and then moved individually to a fume hood in the annex 
where the contents would be transferred into a feed system for 
processing in the melter. The waste would be added to molten soda-lime 
silica glass in the burn chamber of the Glass Melter. Ash from the 
combustion process would fall to the glass surface, where it would be 
incorporated into the melt. When the molten glass would reach a 
prescribed chemical mix (or a prescribed level of radioactivity), it 
would be discharged from the melter into 19 liter (five gallon) 
containers. The containers would then be transferred to a storage area 
in the building using mechanical aids (e.g., hoists and a roller 
conveyor system) to cool and to await transport by truck to existing 
onsite storage facilities.
    The Glass Melter would have an estimated annual capacity of 
approximately 48,000 kg (106,000 lb) of wastes, based on an average 
throughput of 23 kg/hour (51 lb/hr) and a 2,080-hour work year. As 
originally proposed by the DOE, and as analyzed in the environmental 
assessment, operating at this capacity would have enabled DOE to 
eliminate the existing backlog of approximately 43,000 kg (95,000 lb) 
of mixed waste in approximately six years, while processing hazardous 
and mixed wastes [approximately 39,000 kg (86,000 lb) annually of 
nonradioactive solvents and mixed wastes] as generated.
    Since the environmental assessment was written, DOE has decided to 
close the Mound Plant. DOE proposes, therefore, to use the Glass Melter 
only for the mixed waste backlog. DOE has not yet fully characterized 
this waste for radioactive contamination levels. The radiation level of 
the waste feed would be limited by the need to comply with the 
Environmental Protection Agency's National Emissions Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants and by internal Mound limitations. If, after 
characterization, the radiation level of the waste is determined to be 
low enough that the capacity of the Glass Melter would be the factor 
controlling the processing rate, then the schedule for treatment of the 
backlog waste could be as short as one year.
    The environmental impacts of the proposed treatment of only the 
mixed waste backlog are adequately covered, and are bounded by, the 
analysis in the environmental assessment, because calculations of 
radiological exposures and impacts were based on assumptions of waste 
radioactivity content that would exceed the actual content under the 
current proposed action (according to the environmental assessment, the 
mixed waste backlog is estimated to have a total activity of 211 curies 
of tritium and 0.42 curies of plutonium-238; the calculations for Glass 
Melter operations, however, are based on a total waste activity content 
of 240 curies/yr of tritium and 0.48 curies/yr of plutonium-238). The 
discussion below, which is based on the environmental assessment, 
therefore, would apply equally to the new proposed action. If the DOE 
later proposes to use the Glass Melter to treat other than mixed waste 
backlog, it will undertake appropriate further review under the 
National Environmental Policy Act.
    Routine operation of the Glass Melter would generate treated 
offgas, scrubber sludge, scrubber liquid effluent, and several solid 
waste streams. The sludge generated by the scrubbing operations 
[approximately 770 kg (170 lb) per year] would be transferred by 
pipeline: (1) back to a Glass Melter feed port for reprocessing, (2) to 
an existing cementation process for immobilization in concrete, or (3) 
to container storage for any subsequent additional treatment required 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal 
restrictions. Filtered liquid scrubber effluent [approximately 36,000 
kg (79,000 lb) per year], depending on its composition, would be: (1) 
pumped to an existing wastewater treatment facility, (2) pumped to the 
cementation process for immobilization as concrete (if the waste 
processed involved significant tritium concentrations), or (3) packaged 
for any subsequent additional treatment required under RCRA land 
disposal restrictions. Most liquid effluent would be treated at Mound's 
existing radioactive wastewater treatment facility and released via an 
existing outfall permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES).
    The Glass Melter would generate, per year, approximately 3,200 kg 
(7,000 lb) of glass block (mixed waste); 8,900 kg (20,000 lb) of 
cementized scrubber effluent and sludge (also mixed waste); and 1,900 
kg (4,200 lb) of maintenance wastes (filters, replacement parts, etc.). 
The maintenance wastes would generally be considered mixed waste, 
although certain of the replacement parts may have only surface 
radioactive contamination or may not be hazardous waste. The mixed 
wastes would be stored onsite until a mixed waste disposal facility is 
available.
    The immediate result of Glass Melter treatment would be the 
conversion of waste that is primarily liquid and combustible, to a 
stable, inorganic form that would present very little environmental 
concern in storage. Most of the waste would eventually require 
transport to a radioactive mixed waste land disposal facility. Any 
waste that is not mixed waste would be disposed of with other, similar 
Mound wastes (e.g., hazardous waste is shipped offsite for disposal).
    Environmental Impacts: In a series of test burns conducted in 
January 1985, the Glass Melter demonstrated the capability to thermally 
treat hazardous wastes in compliance with regulatory requirements. In 
June 1987, the Glass Melter was further tested and demonstrated 
effective treatment of low-level radioactive waste while meeting 
applicable regulatory requirements. Proposed future treatment of wastes 
using the Glass Melter would also meet all applicable environmental 
requirements. The Glass Melter is considered a ``thermal treatment 
unit,'' not an ``incinerator,'' under the Environmental Protection 
Agency regulations (40 CFR 260.10). Under the regulations for 
miscellaneous treatment, storage, and disposal units (40 CFR Part 264, 
Subpart X), any permit for the glass melter may include appropriate 
conditions from the incinerator regulations (Subpart O). Thermal 
treatment is one of the limited options DOE currently has to meet the 
requirement for site treatment plans under the Federal Facility 
Compliance Act.
    The Environmental Protection Agency issued a Draft Strategy for 
Combustion of Hazardous Waste in Incinerators and Boilers on May 18, 
1993, initiating a reexamination of its existing regulations and 
policies on waste combustion. In the draft strategy, the Environmental 
Protection Agency indicates that, ``if conducted in compliance with 
regulatory standards and guidance, combustion can be a safe and 
effective means of disposing [of] hazardous wastes.'' To the extent 
that the Glass Melter would destroy hazardous wastes it would 
effectively ``dispose'' of that portion of the mixed waste backlog. 
Nevertheless, the thermal treatment of mixed wastes would necessitate 
the disposal of treatment residues as a mixed waste. These residues 
would be stored, pending final disposal in an approved location.
    Emissions of nonradiological pollutants to the air during routine 
operation of the Glass Melter would include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 
lead, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, and 
particulates. Predicted concentrations of nonradiological pollutants 
would meet applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the 
maximum 

[[Page 39952]]
acceptable ground-level concentrations established by the Ohio 
Environmental Protection Agency. During routine operation of the Glass 
Melter, the effective dose equivalent of radiation to the maximally 
exposed individual at the Mound Plant boundary [approximately 470 
meters (510 yd) north-northeast from the Glass Melter stack] would be 
0.07 mrem/year (tritium, plutonium-238, and thorium-230) from 
inhalation and ingestion pathways. These emissions would not cause the 
Mound Plant to exceed the individual effective dose equivalent limit of 
10 mrem/year in the Environmental Protection Agency's National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Based on the 1990 population 
distribution surrounding the Mound Plant, the collective effective dose 
equivalent to the total population residing within 80 km (50 mi) of the 
facility would be 2.6 person-rem/year. The environmental assessment 
shows that the health risk from such exposures would be very small.
    Onsite personnel would not be exposed to unique hazards and would 
be adequately protected from potential exposure to radionuclides or 
other hazards by the existing health and safety programs. Existing 
facility design features would reduce direct worker contact with 
radioactive materials.
    The formation of dioxins from Glass Melter operation would be 
virtually precluded due to specific technological design features of 
the equipment. For instance, the elevated operating temperatures of the 
Glass Melter would result in a high destruction and removal efficiency 
(99.9999% in test burns). In addition, the rapid cooling of the 
offgases below dioxin-forming temperatures, as recommended by the 
Environmental Protection Agency for municipal waste incinerators, would 
also be used to preclude dioxin formation.
    The worst reasonably foreseeable accident involving the Glass 
Melter would be a fire on the loading dock that would result in the 
complete vaporization of the contents of ten mixed waste storage drums. 
The estimated frequency of such an accident is once every 100,000 
years. The effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed 
individual [approximately 200 m (220 yd) downwind] would be 0.2 mrem, 
well below Environmental Protection Agency standards. The environmental 
assessment shows that the health risk from such exposures would be very 
small. Predicted concentrations of nonradiological pollutants would 
meet the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's maximum acceptable 
ground-level concentrations. Taking into account the low probability of 
such an event, and the small magnitude of the consequences, the health 
risk posed by the accident would be very small.
    No endangered species, critical habitats, floodplains, wetlands, or 
historical or archaeological resources would be affected by the 
proposed action.
    Alternatives Considered: In the environmental assessment, DOE 
considered two onsite alternatives to the proposed action and seven 
offsite alternatives in the context of the original proposed action 
(i.e., assuming the continuing operation of the Mound Plant). The 
discussion below, however, while being based on the environmental 
assessment, reflects the current proposed use of the Glass Melter 
(based on DOE's decision to close the Mound Plant), which is to treat 
only mixed waste backlog.
     No Action: The present practice of waste storage and 
disposal would continue and the Glass Melter would not be used. Most of 
the mixed waste backlog is liquid, and much of it is combustible. 
Storage of the untreated waste, therefore, could adversely impact human 
health and the environment, especially in the case of a fire in the 
storage facility.
     Administrative Action: Another alternative would be to 
rely upon the established Mound Waste Minimization and Pollution 
Prevention Program to identify, screen, and analyze options to reduce 
the generation of waste. Waste that is in storage would not be affected 
by this program. The need for treatment options would persist.
     Offsite Treatment and Disposal: These alternatives would 
involve the transportation of mixed wastes to designated sites. DOE 
considered seven options for offsite treatment. All of the offsite 
treatment alternatives, with the exception of the Nevada Test Site, 
would involve thermal treatment.

--Quadrex HPS, Inc. (Gainesville, FL): This commercial facility cannot 
accept certain of the Mound mixed wastes, so this alternative would 
not, by itself, address the need to treat such wastes.
--Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. (Kingston, TN): This commercial 
facility could accept most of the mixed waste from Mound. Treatment, 
however, may be restricted by air permit conditions limiting the type 
of waste used for fuel and by Environmental Protection Agency 
regulations for boilers and industrial furnaces (40 CFR 266.100-112 and 
Appendices I-IX).
--Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL): INEL has a permitted 
incinerator facility, the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF), 
capable of burning radioactive material and hazardous waste. WERF is 
currently shut down, and its operation is contingent upon completion of 
National Environmental Policy Act review and DOE approval of a Safety 
Analysis Report. The current waste acceptance criteria for WERF limit 
the radioactive and chloride content of wastes and prohibit receipt of 
any free liquids. These criteria would prohibit the acceptance at WERF 
of almost all of the Mound waste proposed for treatment in the Glass 
Melter. The criteria could not be changed without substantial upgrades 
to WERF.
--Los Alamos National Laboratory: The proposed Controlled Air 
Incinerator is currently being permitted and undergoing National 
Environmental Policy Act review for operation at production capacity. 
Current operational plans do not include acceptance of offsite wastes, 
and the draft RCRA permit proposes to prohibit treatment of offsite 
waste.
--Savannah River Site: DOE is currently constructing the Consolidated 
Incinerator Facility under a construction permit from the State of 
South Carolina. This facility will not allow out-of-state waste to be 
treated. DOE is preparing an environmental impact statement on waste 
management at the Savannah River Site, which will include further 
analysis of operation of the Consolidated Incinerator Facility and 
other volume reduction alternatives. Trial burns and operation of the 
facility are being deferred until the completion of the environmental 
impact statement process.
--Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant: The incinerator at the Oak Ridge 
Gaseous Diffusion Plant currently treats mixed waste. The primary 
sources of waste treated at this incinerator are the Paducah Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and the Oak 
Ridge Reservation. A substantial backlog of waste exists that will take 
several years to treat. Thus, this alternative would not be available 
to Mound for several years and would not meet Mound's immediate needs.
--Nevada Test Site: Disposal of mixed waste at the Nevada Test site is 
considered a possible alternative to treatment in the Glass Melter. 
Land disposal restrictions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act would require, however, that any 

[[Page 39953]]
mixed waste be treated before disposal. The Nevada Test Site would 
only, therefore, be a reasonable alternative for Mound waste already 
treated at another facility. DOE has not yet decided to what extent the 
Nevada Test Site would be used for future disposal of offsite waste; 
such decisions will be made after completion of the Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement and the Nevada Test Site Sitewide Environmental Impact 
Statement.

    Proposed Determination: Based on the information and the analysis 
in the environmental assessment, DOE believes the proposed action 
(i.e., operation of the Glass Melter for treatment of backlog mixed 
waste only) does not constitute a major Federal action that would 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the 
meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, the 
preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required and 
the DOE is issuing this finding of no significant impact.

    Issued in Miamisburg, Ohio, on July 26, 1995.
Robert D. Folker,
Acting Manager, Ohio Field Office.
[FR Doc. 95-19235 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P