[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3880-3884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1865]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision: Environmental Impact Statement for the
Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of
Nuclear Weapon Components
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy is issuing this Record of Decision
for the continued operation of the Pantex Plant and associated storage
of nuclear weapon components. This Record of Decision is based on the
information, analysis, and public comment contained in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the
Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components
(Pantex Plant EIS) (DOE/EIS-0225, November 1996). The Department has
decided to implement the preferred alternative by: (1) Continuing
nuclear weapon operations involving assembly and disassembly of nuclear
weapons at the Pantex Plant; (2) implementing facility projects,
including upgrades and construction consistent with conducting these
operations; and (3) continuing to provide interim pit storage at the
Pantex Plant and increasing the storage level from 12,000 to 20,000
pits.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on or copies
of the Pantex Plant EIS or other information related to this Record of
Decision, please call 505-845-4351 or write to: Ms. Nanette D. Founds,
Pantex Plant EIS Project Manager, EIS Project Office, U.S. Department
of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office, P.O. Box 5400, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87175-5400.
For information on the Department's National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director,
Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy,
1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone 202-586-
4600 or leave a message at 800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Energy has prepared this
Record of Decision pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR
Parts 1500-1508) and the Department's NEPA implementing regulations (10
CFR Part 1021). This Record of Decision is based on the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the
Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components (DOE/
EIS-0225, November 1996), hereafter referred to as the Pantex Plant
EIS, and other factors.
Background
Until 1989, Pantex Plant activities were closely coupled with
operations at the Rocky Flats Plant, now the Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site, near Denver, Colorado. Two of the Rocky Flats Plant's
primary missions were: (1) The manufacture of plutonium components
(pits) which were eventually transported to the Pantex Plant for final
assembly into nuclear weapons, and (2) receipt of pits from the Pantex
Plant from disassembled weapons for recovery, reprocessing, and
fabrication of the special nuclear material into new pits. In December
1989, plutonium processing and pit fabrication operations at the Rocky
Flats Plant were curtailed by the Department of Energy pending
resolution of safety and environmental issues. The Pantex Plant
continued to disassemble weapons, but shipments of pits from dismantled
weapons between Pantex and Rocky Flats were suspended. The pits from
those weapons were staged in Zone 4 at the Pantex Plant for later
shipment to Rocky Flats. The Department had anticipated that shipments
of pits to the Rocky Flats Plant would be reinitiated when processing
activities in support of new weapons programs were resumed. Efforts to
restart plutonium processing operations continued until January 1992,
when they were terminated by the Department because of reduced
requirements for nuclear weapons production in support of the national
defense.
Because pit transfers were suspended, the Department prepared the
Environmental Assessment for Interim Storage of Plutonium Components at
[[Page 3881]]
Pantex (DOE/EA-0812, January 1994) to analyze activities necessary to
accommodate the interim storage of up to 20,000 pits from the Pantex
Plant disassembly operations. The environmental assessment did not
suggest that the environmental impacts from the storage of 20,000 pits
would be significant. However, in response to comments received from
the State of Texas, local officials, and other stakeholders, the
Department committed to store no more than 12,000 pits at the Pantex
Plant until an environmental impact statement for the site had been
completed. Accordingly, the Department issued a Finding of No
Significant Impact for interim storage of up to 12,000 pits at the
Pantex Plant (59 FR 3674, January 26, 1994).
In May 1994, the Department published a Notice of Intent (NOI) (59
FR 26635, May 23, 1994) to prepare the Pantex Plant EIS. Among
alternatives identified in the NOI for consideration in the Pantex
Plant EIS was to continue Pantex Plant nuclear weapon operations and
increase onsite storage of pits; a no action alternative continuing
Pantex Plant nuclear weapon operations but maintaining the 12,000 pit
storage level; and an alternative relocating some Pantex Plant nuclear
weapon operations and some or all pit storage activities currently
conducted at the Pantex Plant, including relocation of other nuclear
component storage from other sites. An amended Notice of Intent (60 FR
32661, June 23, 1995) was issued to redefine the scope of the Pantex
Plant EIS based on subsequent preparation of programmatic EISs,
analyses of potential interim storage locations, and public scoping
comments. Under the revised scope, the Pantex Plant EIS evaluated
potential environmental impacts of continued operation of the Pantex
Plant, including the interim storage of pits at the Pantex Plant or
alternate sites (Nevada Test Site, Savannah River Site, Hanford Site,
or Manzano Weapons Storage Facility at Kirtland Air Force Base) over an
approximately 10-year period, and alternatives for relocating some or
all Pantex Plant pit storage activities. The Pantex Plant EIS also
examines cumulative impacts to Pantex by incorporating information from
related programmatic EISs (see the discussion below entitled Other
Decisions and Environmental Impact Statements Related to the Pantex
Plant).
In March 1996, the Department published the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of Pantex Plant and
Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components and announced its
availability in the Federal Register (61 FR 15232, April 5, 1996). The
comment period for the Draft Pantex Plant EIS began on April 5, 1996,
and originally would have ended on July 5, 1996, but was extended to
July 12, 1996 (61 FR 18726, April 29, 1996). During the comment period,
public hearings were held in Amarillo, Texas; North Las Vegas, Nevada;
North Augusta, South Carolina; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Richland,
Washington. The meetings held in Amarillo and North Augusta were
conducted in concert with the Draft Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SSM PEIS) (DOE/
EIS-0236, February 1996) and the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-
Usable Fissile Material Draft Environmental Impact Statement (S&D PEIS)
(DOE/EIS-0229, February 1996). In addition, a Technical Exchange
Meeting was held in Amarillo with representatives from the State of
Texas and local governments, and the public. All comments received
during the public comment period were considered for potential changes
or additions to the Final Pantex Plant EIS. Volume III of the Final
Pantex Plant EIS contains the comments received and the Department's
responses to those comments, and identifies the areas where changes
were made to the Pantex Plant EIS.
Alternatives Considered
The scope of the Pantex Plant EIS included assessing the impacts of
operations performed at the Pantex Plant on the natural and physical
environment and the relationships of people to that environment. The
scope also included issues raised during the scoping and public comment
periods. Among the areas of public interest were plant facilities and
infrastructure, land resources (particularly agricultural resources),
geology and soils (including the current environmental restoration
program), water (particularly protection of the Ogallala aquifer), air
quality (especially related to burning of high explosives and other
material), acoustics, biotic resources, cultural resources,
socioeconomics, intrasite transportation, waste management, human
health, potential aircraft accidents, intersite transportation of
nuclear and hazardous materials, and environmental justice. In addition
to these analyses for each site, Pantex Plant potential mitigation
measures, unavoidable impacts, irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources, impacts on long-term productivity, and
cumulative impacts were assessed.
The Pantex Plant EIS examined impacts across a reasonable range of
activity levels by assessing the operations on 2,000, 1,000, and 500
weapons per year. These levels of weapons operations could involve any
mix of nuclear weapons assemblies, disassemblies, retrofits, rebuilds,
and quality assurance inspections. The scope also included those areas
of the environment that might be impacted at the four candidate sites
considered for the possible relocation of interim pit storage
activities from the Pantex Plant. These candidate sites were the Nevada
Test Site, near Las Vegas, Nevada; the Savannah River Site, near Aiken,
South Carolina; the Hanford Site, near Richland, Washington; and
Kirtland Air Force Base, near Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Pantex Plant
EIS assessed activities over a period of approximately 10 years. The
Pantex Plant EIS alternatives were the Proposed Action, No Action
Alternative, and Relocation of Interim Pit Storage Alternative, as
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative): The Department proposed to
continue nuclear weapon operations at the Pantex Plant, increase the
maximum level of interim storage from 12,000 pits to 20,000 pits, and
implement necessary facility projects consistent with conducting these
operations. Types of operations conducted at the Pantex Plant include
the assembly, disassembly, modification, and maintenance of nuclear
weapons; surveillance of the weapons stockpile; production of high
explosives components for nuclear weapons; quality assurance evaluation
and testing of weapon components; and research and development
activities supporting nuclear weapons. For the facility projects, only
the Hazardous Waste Treatment and Processing Facility involves the
construction of a new facility that will add to the overall plant
footprint. Although the Pit Reuse Facility will establish a new mission
at the Pantex Plant, an existing facility will be modified to
incorporate these new operations instead of building a new, separate
structure. The remaining four projects will be located within existing
structures vacated because of workload reductions. These projects are:
the Pit Reuse Facility, Gas Analysis Laboratory, Materials
Compatibility and Assurance Facility, Nondestructive Evaluation
Facility, and the Metrology and Health Physics Calibration and
Acceptance Facility.
No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative is presented to
provide a baseline for comparison with the Proposed Action. Under the
No Action Alternative, the Department would continue current operations
at the
[[Page 3882]]
Pantex Plant as described under the Proposed Action, but would cease
weapons dismantlement after a storage level of 12,000 pits was reached.
Only previously approved and funded projects would be implemented under
this alternative. No new facilities would be constructed as described
under the Proposed Action. Failure to construct one of these new
projects (the Hazardous Waste Treatment and Processing Facility) would
limit the Plant's waste treatment and processing capability to a level
that would not meet the Department's objectives for improvements in
environment, safety, and health conditions and operational efficiency,
and would not fulfill an agreement reached with the State of Texas
under the Federal Facility Compliance Act.
Relocation of Interim Pit Storage Alternative: Under this
alternative, the Department would transfer pit storage operations to
another site. All other operations, upgrades, and new projects would be
the same as for the Proposed Action. There are two options under this
alternative: the relocation of up to 20,000 pits from the Pantex Plant,
or the relocation of up to 8,000 pits from the Pantex Plant, leaving
12,000 pits at the Pantex Plant. The candidate sites, which provided a
reasonable range of geographic, operational, and environmental
alternatives, were the Nevada Test Site, the Savannah River Site, the
Hanford Site, and the Manzano Weapons Storage Facility at Kirtland Air
Force Base.
Preferred Alternative
Based on its analyses, the Department announced a preferred
alternative in the Notice of Availability for the Pantex Plant Draft
EIS (61 FR 15232, April 5, 1996) and in the Final Pantex Plant EIS. The
Preferred Alternative is the Proposed Action, to continue nuclear
weapons operations at the Pantex Plant, to implement facility projects
including upgrades and construction consistent with performing these
operations, and to provide interim storage for up to 20,000 pits at the
Pantex Plant. This Record of Decision selects the Preferred Alternative
for implementation.
Evaluation of Alternatives
Only the Pantex Plant was analyzed for continued weapons
operations; however, four alternative sites (Nevada Test Site, Savannah
River Site, Hanford Reservation, and Kirtland Air Force Base) in
addition to the Pantex Plant were evaluated for interim storage of up
to 20,000 plutonium pits. Each of the alternatives were evaluated for
three potential levels of activity (operations on 2,000, 1,000, and 500
weapons per year) at the Pantex Plant. The principal differences among
the alternatives lie in the number of pits that would be stored at the
Pantex Plant and the new projects that would be implemented.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives
Impacts to facilities and infrastructure, land resources, air
quality, acoustics, cultural resources, and environmental justice were
determined to be similar for each of the alternatives. Water usage and
wastewater production were found to be similar (less than 1 percent
variation) under each of the alternatives. The main differences in
impacts among the alternatives would involve the disturbance to soils
and biotic resources due to construction of a new facility, radiation
exposure to workers involved in the transfer of pits, and risks
associated with aircraft accidents. These differences are generally
small.
A suite of accident scenarios was evaluated in detail to encompass
the range of accidents at the Pantex Plant that have the potential to
affect workers or members of the public. For all alternatives evaluated
in the Final Pantex Plant EIS, the dominant accident in terms of risk
from radioactive releases to the public involves the crash of an
aircraft into a weapons storage magazine, nuclear weapons assembly/
disassembly bay or cell, or a special purpose building that results in
the detonation of the conventional explosives in the weapons. The
estimated risk associated with this potential accident is 7.2 x
10-6 excess cancer fatalities per year to the population within 80
kilometers (50 miles) of the Pantex Plant.
For all alternatives evaluated in the Final Pantex Plant EIS, the
dominant accident scenario in terms of release of hazardous chemicals
to the public involves the accidental release of up to 408 kilograms
(900 pounds) of chlorine gas from the water treatment facilities.
Approximately 10 percent of the public within 80 kilometers (50 miles)
could be exposed to concentrations of chlorine that, if experienced for
over an hour, could cause mild transient adverse health effects.
The potential for accidents that pose risks to worker safety exists
at the Pantex Plant. These accidents include normal manufacturing and
heavy equipment accidents, fires, and explosions. The types of
accidents that could result in release of radioactive or hazardous
material are bounded by those accidents discussed above. Although the
accident is the same, the consequences to a worker tends to be more
severe than to a member of the public. In the case of an explosion, the
consequence to an affected worker is generally a fatality. In the case
of a chlorine release, a higher exposure to chlorine is expected for a
worker at the Pantex Plant, but no serious or long term health impacts
would result.
All alternatives would result in unavoidable worker exposures to
radiation from normal handling of plutonium pits during transfer and
storage. Under the Preferred Alternative, workers at the Pantex Plant
would receive an additional 17 person-rem as a result of storing and
handling 20,000 pits instead of the 12,000 pits currently authorized.
However, the 20,000-pit Relocation Alternative would result in an
additional exposure of up to 283 person-rem due to additional pit
handling and loading/unloading of the Safe Secure Tractor Trailers used
to transport the pits to the alternative site. The Department will
continue to strive to reduce radiological exposures to plant workers.
Radiological exposures incurred from future weapons operations will be
controlled and minimized by Pantex Plant procedures, administrative
controls, and an active As Low As Reasonably Achievable exposure
control program that promotes minimizing exposure of workers to
radiation. Limits on allowable radiological exposures to workers are
given in 10 CFR Part 835, Occupation Radiation Protection and safe
radiological worker practices are described in the Pantex Radiological
Control Manual. Health studies of Pantex Plant workers to date indicate
that there has been no significant excess cancer mortality in the
Pantex Plant area attributable to Pantex Plant operations. There have
been no verifiable indications of any short-or long-term health impacts
to workers at the Pantex Plant. Radiological exposure to non-involved
workers and members of the public from Pantex Plant operations is
effectively zero.
The Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The environmentally preferable alternative is defined as the
alternative that would cause the least impact to the physical
environment, and best protect worker and public health. According to
the analysis conducted for the Pantex Plant EIS, the Preferred
Alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative. Under the
Preferred Alternative, the Pantex Plant would implement a new project
(the Hazardous Waste Treatment and Processing Facility) to improve the
efficiency of
[[Page 3883]]
low-level radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste processing, provide
greater environmental protection, and improve worker safety and health.
For the Pit Reuse Facility, an existing facility would be modified
instead of constructing a new facility. For the Gas Analysis
Laboratory, Materials Compatibility Assurance Facility, Nondestructive
Evaluation Facility, and Metrology and Health Physics Calibration and
Acceptance Facility, current activities would be moved into existing
facilities instead of constructing new facilities. Moving into existing
facilities is environmentally preferred to construction of new
facilities and No Action because the impacts of construction are
avoided and worker safety is improved, respectively. Retaining interim
storage of pits at the Pantex Plant would minimize the radiation
exposure to workers and the public because the pits would be handled
less than if they had to be shipped to another site for storage.
Comments on the Final Pantex Plant EIS
During the 30-day comment period which ended January 13, 1997, the
Department received two letters regarding the Pantex Plant Final EIS.
The first letter from the Environmental Protection Agency stated that
the Agency's previous comments on the Pantex Plant Draft Environmental
Impact Statement were addressed and offered no additional comments.
The second letter from the State of Tennessee, Department of
Environment and Conservation, Department of Energy Oversight Division,
expressed dissatisfaction regarding the Department's response in the
Final Pantex Plant EIS to their previous comment regarding the shipment
of depleted uranium from Pantex Plant to the Y-12 Plant at the Oak
Ridge Reservation. As noted in the Final Pantex Plant EIS, the
relocation of storage for nuclear components other than pits is not
reasonable during the time period of the Pantex Plant EIS. Accordingly,
highly enriched uranium and depleted uranium components must continue
to be shipped from the Pantex Plant to the Y-12 Plant. The decisions
announced in this Record of Decision will not affect the ongoing
depleted uranium operations at the Y-12 Plant. The Y-12 Plant currently
has existing storage capacity to accommodate the depleted uranium
returns from the Pantex Plant. The amount of depleted uranium to be
returned from the Pantex Plant is classified information. However, the
amount of depleted uranium returned coupled with the existing site
inventory will not surpass the historical maximum level of depleted
uranium stored at the Y-12 Plant. The Department, through the Oak Ridge
Operations Office, is working with the State of Tennessee to address
their concerns and will provide a briefing to appropriately cleared
State of Tennessee representatives on the depleted uranium activities
in February 1997.
Decisions
The Department is making three decisions regarding continued
operation of the Pantex Plant and associated storage of nuclear weapon
components. Details of these decisions are as follows:
(1) Continue current nuclear weapons operations: The Final Pantex
Plant EIS examines three levels of activity for weapons operations
conducted at the Pantex Plant over the next 10 years. It is expected
that the activity level for the next 3 to 5 years will be less than the
2,000 weapons level, and will then continue to decline to the 500
weapons level until SSM PEIS decisions are implemented.
(2) Implement facility projects consistent with performing current
Pantex Plant operations: Six facilities were analyzed in the Final
Pantex Plant EIS. For each facility, a proposed action, an alternative
action, and no action were examined. The following describes the
alternative selected for each facility:
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Processing Facility: The Department
has selected the Proposed Action, to construct this facility, as
described in Appendix H of the Pantex Plant EIS. Construction of the
facility will enhance Pantex Plant low-level radioactive, hazardous,
and mixed waste operations and will comply with an agreement reached
with the State of Texas under the Federal Facility Compliance Act. This
decision will be reviewed based on future decisions resulting from the
Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to
assure consistency with those programmatic decisions (see discussion
below under Other Decisions and Environmental Impact Statements). The
engineering design for this facility will proceed while the Department
is completing the Waste Management PEIS process.
Pit Reuse Facility: The Department has selected the Proposed
Action, to modify an existing Pantex Plant Zone 12 facility (Building
12-104) as described in Appendix H of the Pantex Plant EIS. This
decision is consistent with the SSM PEIS Record of Decision (61 FR
68014, December 26, 1996).
Gas Analysis Laboratory, Materials Compatibility Assurance
Facility, Nondestructive Evaluation Facility, and Metrology and Health
Physics Calibration and Acceptance Facility: The Department has
selected the Move to an Existing Facility Alternative at the Pantex
Plant as described in Appendix H of the Pantex Plant EIS rather than
constructing a new facility. This decision is consistent with the SSM
PEIS Record of Decision.
The decision to move into existing facilities rather than build new
ones will result in reduced environmental impacts because construction
activities will be minimized. In addition, modifying existing
facilities rather than constructing new facilities will reduce costs.
(3) Continue providing interim pit storage at Pantex Plant and
increase the authorized storage level to 20,000 pits: This decision
will allow the Pantex Plant to continue nuclear weapon dismantlement
operations scheduled over the next 10 years until disposition decisions
are made and implemented.
Mitigation Measures
Due to ongoing quality assurance, industrial hygiene, safety
analysis, and other programs at the Pantex Plant and the level of
impacts identified in the Pantex Plant EIS, no additional mitigation
measures will be adopted for continued operations or storage activities
at the Pantex Plant. However, because of a high level of public
interest, activities associated with reducing the risk from aircraft
accidents are worth special consideration here. Due to public concern
regarding the risk of an aircraft crash at the Pantex Plant, an
Overflight Working Group was formed, consisting of representatives of
the Department of Energy, the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S.
Air Force, the State of Texas and the public, to address ways to reduce
the number of aircraft flying over the Pantex Plant. Recommendations
included such actions as modifying the path of approaching and
departing aircraft from the Amarillo Airport to avoid flying over the
Pantex Plant boundary, and installing additional equipment at the
airport to aid in vectoring aircraft away from areas where nuclear
material is kept. The Department has committed to implement the risk
reduction measures recommended by this Overflight Working Group.
During preparation of the Pantex Plant EIS, the Pantex Plant also
undertook mitigation measures to afford the public greater protection
from a plutonium dispersal accident should such an accident occur.
Physical
[[Page 3884]]
modifications to assembly cell doors were started to significantly
reduce the amount of radioactive material that could leak from a cell
in case of an accident. These modifications are projected to be
completed by 1998.
Future Analytical Activities
The aircraft crash accident analysis of the Final EIS was based
upon the Draft Department of Energy Standard, Accident Analysis for
Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities (July 1996). The Department
will further refine the analysis of potential aircraft crash scenarios
through Safety Analysis Reports, which will be prepared in accordance
with the Final Standard, which was published in October 1996. The Basis
for Interim Operation is the current safety authorization document for
Pantex until formal Safety Analysis Reports can be completed and
approved. This document will incorporate by reference the aircraft
crash analyses. The analysis in the Final Pantex Plant EIS
substantiates prior analyses that aircraft crashes at the Pantex Plant
do not present a significant risk to Pantex workers or the surrounding
communities. The Department, through the Safety Analysis Reports, will
prepare more detailed, building-specific analyses for aircraft crash
accidents. During this process, the Department will continue to apprise
the State of Texas of our progress. Once complete, the Department will
provide the State of Texas with the opportunity to thoroughly review
all facets of the aircraft crash analyses, including evaluation, safety
standards, and implementation of mitigation measures. The Department
will encourage the Amarillo National Resource Center for Plutonium to
provide the necessary resources to the State of Texas for this effort.
Other Decisions and Environmental Impact Statements Related to the
Pantex Plant
Final Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (SSM PEIS): The SSM PEIS Record of
Decision determined that there will be over time a downsizing of the
weapons assembly/disassembly and high explosive component fabrication
missions at the Pantex Plant. The decisions made today in this Record
of Decision for the operation of the Pantex Plant over the next 10
years are consistent with those determinations. The SSM PEIS also
evaluated storage alternatives for strategic reserve material
(plutonium and highly enriched uranium that has not been declared
surplus to national security needs). However, decisions on storage of
strategic reserve materials are being made in the Record of Decision
for the S&D PEIS regarding the storage of surplus materials (see
below). In these documents, the preferred alternative is Zone 12 at the
Pantex Plant for strategic reserve storage of plutonium pits and the Y-
12 Plant at the Oak Ridge Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for
strategic reserve storage of highly enriched uranium.
Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (S&D PEIS): The S&D PEIS
Record of Decision (signed January 14, 1997) selected among
alternatives for safe and secure storage of weapons-usable fissile
materials and a strategy for the disposition of surplus weapons-usable
plutonium. The Pantex Plant was selected for the storage of strategic
reserve pits and surplus pits resulting from dismantlement operations
in upgraded facilities in Zone 12. This decision included the transfer
of pits from the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site to the
Pantex Plant (as early as 1997) for storage in Zone 4 until upgraded
facilities are available for consolidated storage in Zone 12. The
Pantex Plant is also a potential site for disposition alternatives
including a Federal government-owned mixed oxide fuel fabrication
facility and a pit disassembly/conversion facility. Additional NEPA
review will be completed before site selections are made.
Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS): The Waste Management PEIS provides a Department-wide evaluation
of management alternatives for where to treat, store or dispose of
radioactive and hazardous wastes. Pantex is one of 17 sites considered
for treatment and disposal of low-level and mixed waste, as well as one
of 11 sites evaluated for hazardous waste treatment. Under all options,
Pantex would either manage only its own wastes or ship some or all of
its waste to another site. The Final Waste Management PEIS, which will
be issued shortly, will identify the Department's preferred
alternatives for management of these wastes and the role of Pantex in
these configurations.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 17, 1997.
Hazel R. O'Leary,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-1865 Filed 1-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P