[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 209 (Monday, October 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55249-55254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26845]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision; Savannah River Site Waste Management, 
Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, SC

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: DOE announces its intention to implement the moderate 
treatment configuration alternative identified in the Savannah River 
Site (SRS) Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(WMEIS). DOE has evaluated the potential environmental impacts and 
costs of storing, treating, and/or disposing of liquid high-level 
radioactive, low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed (radioactive and 

[[Page 55250]]
hazardous), and transuranic wastes at SRS in the WMEIS.
    DOE plans to use a phased approach to making decisions on 
treatment, storage and disposal facilities identified in the moderate 
treatment configuration alternative. This Record of Decision (ROD) 
identifies decisions regarding continuation of existing activities and 
current operation of existing facilities, new waste recycling 
initiatives, operation of the Consolidated Incineration Facility (CIF), 
low-level waste volume reduction activities, and the operation of a 
mobile soil sort facility. After DOE and the State of South Carolina 
complete negotiations under the Federal Facility Compliance Act 
(FFCAct), DOE will issue additional RODs on the treatment of mixed low-
level radioactive and mixed transuranic waste.
    The final SRS WMEIS provides a baseline for the analysis of future 
SRS waste management needs. DOE will continue to review its SRS waste 
management activities at the SRS to ensure that those activities are 
adequately addressed by this EIS, or in the event they are not, that 
the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews are 
initiated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on Savannah 
River Site Waste Management, write or call: A. R. Grainger, 
Environmental Compliance Division, SR NEPA Compliance Officer, Savannah 
River Operations Office, P.O. Box 5031, Aiken, South Carolina 29804, 
Phone/FAX: (800) 242-8269, e-mail: [email protected].
    For general information on the U.S. Department of Energy NEPA 
process, write or call: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of 
NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20580, Telephone: (202) 586-
4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the regulations of 
the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 
Parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 
1021). This Record of Decision is based on DOE's Final WMEIS, Savannah 
River Site, Aiken, South Carolina (DOE/EIS-0217). DOE's SRS occupies 
approximately 800 square kilometers (300 square miles) adjacent to the 
Savannah River, principally in Aiken and Barnwell counties of South 
Carolina, about 40 kilometers (25 miles) southeast of Augusta, Georgia, 
and about 32 kilometers (20 miles) south of Aiken, South Carolina.
    DOE's primary mission at SRS from the 1950s until the recent end of 
the Cold War was the production and processing of nuclear materials to 
support defense programs. The end of the Cold War has led to a 
reduction in the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Many of the 
facilities used to manufacture, assemble, and maintain the arsenal are 
no longer needed. Some of these facilities can be converted to new uses 
through decontamination processes; others must be decommissioned. 
Wastes generated during the Cold War also must be cleaned up in a safe 
and cost-effective manner. In addition, DOE must manage wastes that may 
be generated in the future in compliance with the applicable 
environmental requirements.
    DOE estimates that it will manage the following approximate amounts 
of wastes (expected waste forecast) at SRS over the next 30 years (1995 
to 2024): 153,000 cubic meters of liquid high-level radioactive waste; 
476,000 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste; 435,000 cubic 
meters of hazardous waste; 230,000 cubic meters of mixed waste; and 
23,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste.
    DOE analyzed three alternatives, in addition to the no action 
alternative, for minimizing, treating, storing, and/or disposing of 
wastes (low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic) in a 
manner that would protect human health and the environment, achieve 
regulatory compliance, and be cost effective. (Alternatives for 
managing high-level radioactive waste were considered in the Defense 
Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) EIS and Supplemental EIS (DOE/EIS-0082 
and DOE/EIS-0082-S) and decisions were announced in the DWPF Records of 
Decision on June 1, 1982 (47 FR 23801) and April 12, 1995 (60 FR 
18589)). Mixed wastes are regulated under both the Atomic Energy Act 
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the 
FFCAct. The FFCAct requires DOE to prepare a Site Treatment Plan (STP) 
that addressses options for treating mixed wastes currently in storage 
or that will be generated within the next 5 years at the SRS. The 
Department expects that negotiations with the State of South Carolina 
under the FFCAct will not be completed until later this year. Because 
these negotiations are an essential part of DOE's decision making 
process regarding mixed waste and mixed transuranic waste, no decision 
concerning mixed waste management options analyzed in the SRS WMEIS 
will be made until those negotiations are concluded. The sole exception 
to this is the Department's decision concerning the CIF.
    DOE prepared an environmental assessment (DOE/EA-0400) and issued a 
Finding of No Significant Impact (Federal Register, December 24, 1992, 
57 FR 61402) for the construction and operation of the CIF to 
incinerate mixed, hazardous, and low-level radioactive wastes. In 1993 
DOE decided to reexamine whether incineration was the most appropriate 
method to treat low-level radioactive waste. DOE is now deciding to 
complete construction and operate the CIF for hazardous, mixed, and 
low-level radioactive waste. This decision concerning mixed waste was 
made after consultation with the State of South Carolina.
    DOE published a Notice of Intent to prepare the SRS WMEIS in the 
Federal Register on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16494). The notice announced a 
public scoping period that ended on May 31, 1994, and solicited 
comments and suggestions on the scope of the EIS. DOE held scoping 
meetings in Savannah, Georgia, and North Augusta and Columbia, South 
Carolina on May 12, 17, and 19, 1994, respectively. Comments received 
from individuals, organizations, and government agencies during the 
scoping period were considered in the preparation of the EIS.
    On January 27, 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published a Notice of Availability of DOE's Draft SRS WMEIS in the 
Federal Register (60 FR 5388). This notice officially started the 
public comment period on the Draft SRS WMEIS, which DOE extended 
through March 31, 1995, in response to a request from the Savannah 
River Site's Citizens Advisory Board. Comments were received by letter, 
electronic mail, and formal statements made at 12 public hearings. The 
hearings (2 sessions each) provided opportunity for informal 
discussions with DOE personnel involved with waste management. They 
were held in Barnwell, South Carolina on February 21, 1995; Columbia, 
South Carolina on February 22, 1995; North Augusta, South Carolina on 
February 23, 1995; Savannah, Georgia on February 28, 1995; Beaufort, 
South Carolina on March 1, 1995; and Hilton Head, South Carolina on 
March 2, 1995.
    DOE considered comments it received on the Draft WMEIS from 
agencies, organizations, and individuals in preparing the Final WMEIS. 
EPA published a Notice of Availability of the 

[[Page 55251]]
Final WMEIS in the Federal Register on July 28, 1995 (60 FR 38817).
    DOE received three letters after issuance of the Final WMEIS. The 
South Carolina Department of Transportation stated that it had no 
comments on the project. The Centers for Disease Control, on behalf of 
the U. S. Public Health Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 4, stated that the Final EIS adequately addressed their 
comments on the Draft EIS. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
however, stated that it would have preferred that the Final EIS not 
characterize the Agency's comments as endorsing Department of Energy 
actions. The Agency noted that it does commend DOE for its efforts to 
develop a strategy for long-term waste management at SRS using the NEPA 
process, and will continue to work with DOE to ensure that waste 
management activities protect human health and the environment, comply 
with applicable environmental requirements, and minimize waste 
generation.

Alternatives Considered

    The three treatment configuration alternatives considered in this 
EIS (limited, moderate and extensive) addressed treatment, storage and 
disposal facilities using three potential waste volume forecasts. The 
minimum waste volume forecast included current inventories and current 
waste receipts from offsite, and projections of the waste that would be 
generated as a result of reasonable lower-bound estimates of ongoing 
site operations and environmental restoration and decontamination and 
decommissioning activities. The maximum waste volume forecast included 
current inventories and current waste receipts from offsite, additional 
wastes that might be received from offsite based on decisions resulting 
from the FFCAct process and ongoing DOE NEPA reviews; and projections 
of the waste that would be generated as a result of reasonable upper-
bound estimates of ongoing site operations and environmental 
restoration and decontamination and decommissioning activities. The 
expected waste volume forecast included current inventories and current 
waste receipts from offsite, additional wastes that might be received 
from offsite based on decisions resulting from the FFCAct process and 
ongoing DOE NEPA reviews, and DOE's current estimates of the waste 
volumes anticipated to result from continuing site operations, 
environmental restoration of existing waste sites, and decontamination 
and decommissioning of surplus facilities.

Limited Treatment Configuration Alternative

    This alternative consists of the siting, construction, and 
operation of facilities and the implementation of management techniques 
that would reduce impacts from treatment processes while complying 
fully with existing waste management requirements. For each waste type, 
however, the treatment under this alternative would be the minimum 
needed to meet applicable standards and allow prompt storage and/or 
disposal. The limited treatment processes under this alternative would 
produce a waste form suitable for disposal, but not one that had 
undergone the most vigorous volume reduction or stabilization treatment 
available. The volume of low-level radioactive wastes to be disposed of 
would be greater than under the moderate and extensive treatment 
configuration alternatives, the volume of mixed waste to be disposed of 
would be greater than under the moderate treatment configuration 
alternative but less than under the extensive treatment configuration 
alternative, and the potential for impacts in the future from storage 
and disposal would be greater than under the other action alternatives. 
Short-term impacts associated with treating waste generally would be 
less than under the more extensive treatment alternatives.

Moderate Treatment Configuration Alternative

    This alternative consists of the siting, construction, and 
operation of facilities and the implementation of management techniques 
that would provide a balanced mix of technologies that includes 
extensive treatment of those waste types that have the greatest 
potential to adversely affect the public or the environment because of 
their mobility or toxicity if left untreated (such as wastes containing 
plutonium-238), or that would remain highly radioactive far into the 
future (such as waste containing transuranic elements). This 
alternative would provide less rigorous treatment than the extensive 
treatment configuration alternative of wastes that do not pose high 
potential for harm to humans or the environment, or that will not 
remain highly radioactive far into the future (such as non-alpha low-
level radioactive waste). Under this alternative, the volume of low-
level radioactive waste would be reduced by onsite compactors and some 
of the low-level radioactive waste would then be sent offsite for 
supercompaction, size reduction (e.g., sorting, shredding, melting), 
and incineration as part of a low-level radioactive waste offsite 
volume reduction initiative.
    Under this alternative, the volume of low-level radioactive and 
mixed wastes to be disposed of would be less than under both the 
limited and extensive treatment alternatives. The moderate treatment 
configuration would provide the highest degree of compatibility with 
the preferred treatments for mixed wastes described in the STP that was 
prepared and submitted to the State of South Carolina under the FFCAct 
process, and would use to the maximum extent practicable existing 
facilities or facilities that are proposed for operation in the near 
future (i.e., the CIF).

Extensive Treatment Configuration Alternative

    This alternative consists of the siting, construction, and 
operation of facilities and the implementation of management techniques 
that would minimize environmental impacts from storage and disposal by 
extensive treatment of waste to reduce its toxicity and to create 
stable, migration-resistant waste forms. Under this alternative, the 
volume of low-level radioactive waste to be disposed of would be less 
than under the limited treatment alternative, but more than under the 
moderate treatment alternative. The volume of mixed waste to be 
disposed of would be greater than under either of the other action 
alternatives. The extensive treatment alternative would, however, be 
more likely than other alternatives to increase the short-term impacts 
due to the construction of additional treatment facilities and 
increased exposure to emissions that would result from more extensive 
treatment and increased handling.

No-Action Alternative

    As required by NEPA, DOE also considered potential impacts if the 
Department were to take ``no action'' other than to continue its 
current waste management practices (including building additional 
facilities to store newly generated waste, as has been done in the 
past) and vitrify high-level waste in the DWPF as discussed above. 
Under this alternative the Department would continue current practices 
for storage and treatment of liquid high-level radioactive, for storage 
of mixed and transuranic waste; for treatment, storage, and disposal of 
low-level radioactive waste; and for offsite treatment and disposal of 
hazardous waste. Under this alternative, transuranic and mixed wastes 
would remain untreated and in storage, in a state not suitable for 
disposal. Were 

[[Page 55252]]
DOE to take no action, it would not be in a position to comply with 
some regulatory requirements and compliance agreements.

Environmentally Preferrable Alternative

    In DOE's judgment the extensive treatment alternative is 
environmentally preferrable because it would minimize potential long-
term environmental impacts as a result of achieving more stable, 
migration-resistant waste forms. DOE recognizes, however, that this 
treatment alternative would result in greater short-term impacts to 
workers.

Decision

Determination

    DOE announces its intention to configure its waste management 
system according to the moderate treatment alternative. Pursuant to 10 
CFR 1021.315, DOE may revise this ROD at any time, so long as the 
revised decision is adequately supported by existing reviews prepared 
in accordance with NEPA. Upon issuance of a ROD for the DOE Waste 
Management Programmatic EIS (DOE/EIS-0200, draft issued for public 
review September 22, 1995), this ROD will be reviewed to evaluate 
whether there is consistency with decisions reached on broader 
programmatic issues or whether a revised ROD or supplemental EIS for 
SRS waste management is needed to maintain consistency. Accordingly, 
DOE has decided to initiate the following actions and activities 
included in the moderate treatment configuration alternative.
    * Continue activities to manage waste at SRS, including 
construction of additional storage capacity for mixed transuranic, and 
low-level radioactive alpha wastes.

High-Level Waste

    * Continue to store liquid high-level waste in storage tanks.
    * Operate the newly constructed New Waste Transfer Facility, 
continue to construct and operate the Replacement High-Level Waste 
Evaporator, and operate waste removal equipment. These facilities will 
transfer waste from the high-level waste storage tanks to the Defense 
Waste Processing Facility for treatment (vitrification) when the 
facility becomes operational.

Hazardous Waste

    * Continue to treat and dispose of hazardous waste offsite until 
the CIF is operational, then treat wastes, including filters, paint 
waste, organic and aqueous liquids, organics and inorganic sludges, and 
up to 50% of organic and inorganic heterogeneous debris, in the CIF.
    * Continue offsite treatment and disposal for wastes such as 
polychlorinated biphenyls, organic debris, inorganic debris, 
heterogeneous debris, metal debris, bulk equipment, glass debris, 
soils, and lead.
    * Continue to treat some aqueous liquids in the M-Area air 
stripper.
    * Continue to recycle some hazardous wastes, including solvents, 
fluorocarbons, lead, silver (from spent photographic fixatives), and 
sell excess chemicals and lead/acid batteries.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

    * Operate the CIF for volume reduction of some low-activity job-
control waste and some tritiated job-control waste.
    * Treat some low-activity job-control wastes and some low-activity 
equipment offsite (about 40% of the low-level radioactive waste in the 
expected waste forecast). About 60% of the waste sent offsite would be 
supercompacted, and the remainder reduced in size by sorting, 
shredding, or melting, and repackaged. The treated waste would be 
returned to SRS for further treatment in the CIF or for disposal in the 
low-activity waste vaults or in shallow land disposal trenches. About 
10% of the waste treated offsite would be incinerated when CIF is not 
operating, and the treatment residuals would be returned to SRS. 
(Paragraph 2.6.3.1, Low-Level Waste--Expected Waste Forecast, of the 
WMEIS)
    * Send uncompacted low-level waste (currently stored in the low-
activity waste vaults) to an offsite incinerator until CIF is operable.
    * Dispose of stabilized ash and blowdown from incineration in the 
low activity waste disposal vaults or shallow land disposal trenches.
    * Operate a mobile low-level waste soil sort facility for treatment 
of low-activity soils and suspect soils. (Paragraph 2.6.1.1, Pollution 
Prevention/Waste Minimization--Expected Waste Forecast, of the WMEIS)
    * Decontaminate and recycle some low-activity equipment waste 
(metal) in an offsite smelter. Treatment residuals would be returned to 
SRS for shallow land disposal. (Paragraph 2.2.1.4, Waste Minimization 
Practices and Initiatives, and 2.6.1.1, Pollution Prevention/Waste 
Minimization--Expected Waste Forecast, of the WMEIS)
    * Continue vault disposal of offsite job-control waste, tritiated 
soils, some tritiated job-control waste, tritiated equipment, and 
intermediate-activity job-control waste.
    * Continue disposal of naval hardware in shallow land disposal 
trenches.
Mixed Wastes
    * Treat small quantities of mixed polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) 
wastes offsite. Return treatment residuals to SRS for disposal.
    * Operate the CIF for mixed heterogeneous debris, inorganic debris, 
organic debris, DWPF benzene, organic liquid, radioactive oil, PUREX 
solvent, paint waste, and aqueous liquids.
    * Store tritiated oil to allow time for radioactive decay.
    * Recycle mixed waste, including radioactively contaminated lead 
and cadmium-coated HEPA filter frames, in an offsite facility. Return 
treatment residuals to SRS for shallow land disposal.
Transuranic and Alpha Low-Level Radioactive Waste
    * Return Rocky Flats Incinerator ash to the Rocky Flats Site for 
consolidation and treatment with similar wastes at that facility.
    * Dispose of alpha low-level waste in low-activity waste vaults.
Reasons for Determination
    DOE selected the moderate treatment configuration for SRS because 
the Department believes that alternative will provide more than 
adequate protection of human health and the environment, and will be 
consistent with expected budgetary limitations. Specifically, DOE bases 
its choice of the moderate treatment configuration alternative for SRS 
on factors listed below, including potential environmental impacts and 
regulatory commitments.
    * In the moderate treatment configuration alternative, the CIF 
would treat hazardous, mixed, and low-level waste for its entire 
project life (approximately 30 years), which is the most cost-effective 
use of the facility. CIF also provides the ``regulatory specified 
treatment'' for certain waste streams and is the Best Demonstrated 
Available Technolgy (BDAT) for other waste streams. In contrast, under 
the limited treatment configuration alternative, the CIF would treat 
hazardous and mixed waste only, which would not be cost-effective. 
Similarly, under the extensive treatment configuration alternative, 
operation of the CIF would be discontinued after approximately 10 years 
when the non-alpha vitrification facility became operational. The 
potential environmental impacts from operating the CIF under the 
moderate treatment configuration alternative would be very small. 

[[Page 55253]]

    * Mixed waste treatment technology under the moderate treatment 
configuration alternative is consistent with the Site Treatment Plan, 
which is currently being negotiated with the State of South Carolina, 
and existing commitments under the Federal Facility Compliance 
Agreement regarding land disposal restrictions, which are being 
discussed with the EPA. The moderate treatment configuration 
alternative includes the same technologies as identified as the 
preferred treatment in the proposed STP. In contrast, the limited and 
extensive treatment configuration alternatives are not consistent with 
the STP submitted to the State of South Carolina because both 
alternatives include vitrification for some wastes for which 
incineration is the BDAT. The limited and extensive treatment 
configuration alternatives are also inconsistent with costs and 
technologies specified in the STP, and schedules that are currently 
under negotiation with the State of South Carolina.
    * In the moderate treatment configuration alternative, transuranic 
waste technology is consistent with the ``planning-basis'' Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) waste acceptance criteria. Treatment 
(vitrification) is provided only for those transuranic wastes that do 
not conform to the applicable shipping requirements (i.e., plutonium-
238). All other SRS transuranic wastes are expected to meet the WIPP 
waste acceptance criteria after repackaging and characterization/
certification. DOE believes this to be the most realistic situation 
with respect to the operation of WIPP and the National TRU Program, 
which is currently being developed. The extensive treatment 
configuration alternative would use vitrification for both transuranic 
and alpha waste and would require a larger and more expensive 
vitrification facility. The limited treatment configuration alternative 
does not include a vitrification facility. It assumes that WIPP will 
receive a no-migration variance from the EPA, and that the transuranic 
waste transportation containers will be developed to allow Pu-238 waste 
to be safely transported to WIPP. Thus, all SRS transuranic waste would 
be disposed of at WIPP without additional treatment under the limited 
treatment configuration alternative. Both of these assumptions rely on 
developments that have not yet occuurred. Therefore, this alternative 
is more speculative that the moderate treatment configuration 
alternative.
    * In the moderate treatment alternative, hazardous wastes are 
treated onsite subject to availability of onsite treatment capacity and 
compatibility with onsite technologies used to manage mixed waste. This 
alternative provides the most extensive utilization of existing onsite 
facilities, supplemented by use of offsite treatment and disposal 
options. The extensive treatment configuration alternative would call 
for new facilities (i.e., non-alpha vitrification) for treatment of 
hazardous waste while the limited treatment configuration alternative 
would rely on offsite treatment and disposal of hazardous waste.
    * The moderate treatment configuration alternative provides the 
best volume reduction for low-activity waste (75 percent reduction in 
the moderate treatment alternative compared to 22 percent for the 
limted treatment configuration alternative and 70 percent for extensive 
treatment configuration), and thus conserves space in low-activity 
waste vaults, requires the lowest number of low-activity waste vaults, 
and thus avoids expenditures of land and money.
    * The moderate treatment configuration alternative results in the 
smallest number of additional transuranic and alpha waste storage pads 
(10 compared to 12 and 11 for limited and extensive treatment 
alternatives, respectively). It also results in the smallest number of 
disposal facilities (low activity waste vaults, shallow land disposal 
trenches, and RCRA-permitted vaults). The total number of these 
disposal facilities are 85 for the moderate treatment configuration 
alternative, compared to 151 under the limited treatment alternative, 
and 167 under the extensive treatment configuration alternative.
    * The moderate treatment configuration alternative results in the 
least construction-related air emissions. The largest percentage 
increase over current emissions would be from carbon monoxide (existing 
sources at 171 micrograms per cubic meter, compared to the 1-hr 
standard of 40,000 micrograms per cubic meter) at 673 micrograms per 
cubic meter for the moderate treatment configuration alternative. This 
compares to 769 and 737 micrograms per cubic meter for the limited and 
extensive treatment configuration alternatives, respectively. The 
diffferences between these increases would be insignificant.
    * The moderate treatment configuration alternative employs less 
thermal treatment than the extensive treatment configuration 
alternative, under which a greater volume of waste would undergo 
thermal treatment through vitrification. The moderate treatment 
configuration alternative would result in lower emissions and smaller 
radiological air impacts to workers and the public than would occur 
under the extensive treatment configuration alternative. Under both 
alternatives, however, the impacts would be very small and the 
difference would be insignificant. (For example, the maximally exposed 
offsite individual's probability of a fatal cancer probability is 
estimated to be 1.7  x  10-8 for the moderate treatment 
configuration alternative and 9.0  x  10-8 for the extensive 
treatment configuration alternatives.)
    * The moderate treatment configuration alternative life cycle cost 
($6.9 billion) is higher than the extensive treatment configuration 
alternative ($5.6 billion). However, the extensive treatment 
configuration alternative would require greater expenditures in the 
near term, and would be difficult for DOE to fund.

Environmental Impacts

    In eight resource categories (socioeconomic, groundwater, surface 
water, air, traffic, transportation, occupational health and public 
health) the difference among the total impacts from any one alternative 
as compared to any other would be indistinguishable. Nevertheless, the 
no action alternative would not allow DOE to comply with all applicable 
requirements, and is therefore unacceptable.
    For the expected waste forecast, the greatest differences among 
alternatives are in potential land use and potential impacts on 
ecological resources. The moderate and extensive treatment 
configuration alternatives would require the most additional land. 
These configurations would also require the most acres to be cleared. 
All of the additional land that would be needed is included within the 
current boundary of the area at the SRS that has been designated for 
waste management activities in future land use plans. In proposing 
sites for the waste management facilities, every effort was made to 
efficiently use the available land in E-Area, the current SRS waste 
management area. Land development plans have considered the change in 
demand for waste management facilities over the 30 year period 
considered in the EIS. For example, mixed waste storage buildings and 
transuranic and alpha waste storage pads required during the period 
while treatment capacity is being developed would be converted to long 
term use as long-lived waste storage buildings. In other instances, the 
buildings or pads would be removed and the land used as the location 
for new facilities. 

[[Page 55254]]

    DOE has conducted a survey of the forested lands within the SRS 
waste management area and determined that there are no threatened or 
endangered species or critical habitats on this land. The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have 
concurred in DOE's determination.

Mitigation

    Based upon the above discussion, DOE believes that all practicable 
means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the moderate 
treatment alternative have already been adopted. DOE believes that all 
appropriate mitigation measures are included in the moderate treatment 
alternative.
    There are 12 archaeological sites within the SRS waste management 
facility boundary that may be eligible for listing in the National 
Register of Historic Places. Potential impacts to these sites will be 
achieved by avoiding them, if possible. If avoidance is not possible, 
there will be an archaeological excavation of the sites before any land 
clearing begins. Mitigation will be conducted in consultation with the 
South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office.

Conclusion

    DOE has determined that the most appropriate method of managing 
low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic wastes at SRS, 
considering all relevant factors, is to implement the moderate 
treatment configuration alternative. These factors include beneficial 
and adverse environmental impacts, monetary costs, and regulatory 
commitments.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 22, 1995.
Richard J. Guimond,
Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 95-26845 Filed 10-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P