[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3629-3633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1654]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste 
Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of 
Decision on where, i.e., at which DOE sites, the Department will 
prepare and store its transuranic (TRU) waste prior to disposal. Each 
of the Department's sites that currently has or will generate TRU waste 
will prepare and store its TRU waste on site, except that the Sandia 
National Laboratory in New Mexico (SNL-NM) will transfer its TRU waste 
to the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico. LANL will 
have facilities, not available or anticipated at SNL-NM, to prepare and 
store this waste prior to disposal.
    DOE made this decision based on analyses in the Department of 
Energy Final Programmatic Waste Management Environmental Impact 
Statement (WM PEIS) (May 1997) and other information. This decision 
differs slightly from the Preferred Alternative in the WM PEIS. The 
Appendix to this Record of Decision lists the sites for which DOE 
analyzed the potential impacts of treating (which includes packaging) 
and storing TRU waste in the WM PEIS. The potential health and 
environmental impacts of this decision were identified and evaluated in 
the Decentralized Alternative of the WM PEIS.
    In the future, the Department may decide to ship TRU wastes from 
sites where it may be impractical to prepare them for disposal to sites 
where DOE has or will have the necessary capability. The sites that 
could receive such shipments of TRU waste are the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the Oak Ridge 
Reservation (ORR), the Savannah River Site (SRS) and the Hanford Site. 
However, any future decisions regarding transfers of TRU wastes would 
be subject to appropriate review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA), and

[[Page 3630]]

to agreements DOE has entered into, such as those with States, relating 
to the treatment and storage of TRU waste. Future NEPA review could 
include, but would not necessarily be limited to, analysis of the need 
to supplement existing environmental reviews. DOE would conduct all 
such TRU waste shipments between sites in accordance with applicable 
transportation requirements and would coordinate these shipments with 
appropriate State, Tribal and local authorities.
    This Record of Decision was prepared in coordination with the 
Record of Decision issued on January 16, 1998, on disposal of DOE's TRU 
waste, which is based on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WIPP SEIS-II), 
issued in September 1997. On the basis of the analyses in the WIPP 
SEIS-II, DOE decided to dispose of TRU waste generated by defense 
activities at the WIPP near Carlsbad, New Mexico, after preparation 
(i.e., treatment, as necessary, and packaging) to meet WIPP's waste 
acceptance criteria.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the WM PEIS and this Record 
of Decision are available in DOE public reading rooms and selected 
libraries located across the United States. A list of the public 
reading rooms at which the WM PEIS and this Record of Decision are 
available can also be accessed on the DOE Office of Environmental 
Management's World Wide Web site at http://www.em.doe.gov/em30/. To 
request copies of the WM PEIS, this Record of Decision, or a list of 
the reading rooms and public libraries, please write or call: The 
Center for Environmental Management Information, P.O. Box 23769, 
Washington, DC 20026-3769, Telephone: 1-800-736-3282 (in Washington, 
DC: 202-863-5084).
    For further information on DOE's national Waste Management Program, 
the WM PEIS, or this Record of Decision, please write or call: Ms. 
Patrice Bubar, Director, Office of Planning and Analysis (EM-35), 
United States Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, 
19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874, Telephone: (301) 903-7204.
    For general information on the U.S. Department of Energy National 
Environmental Policy Act process, please write or call: Ms. Carol M. 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), 
United States Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety, and 
Health, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, 
Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 
1500-1580) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021). 
This Record of Decision is based on analyses contained in the 
Department of Energy's Final Waste Management Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0200-F). DOE published a notice 
of its intent to prepare the WM PEIS in the Federal Register on October 
25, 1990. DOE issued a Draft WM PEIS on September 22, 1995, and 
hearings were held during the public comment period, which closed on 
February 19, 1996. All public comments were addressed in the Final WM 
PEIS, which DOE issued on May 30, 1997.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    DOE needs facilities to manage its radioactive and hazardous wastes 
in order to maintain safe, efficient, and cost-effective control of 
these wastes; to comply with applicable Federal and state laws; and to 
protect public health, safety and the environment. The WM PEIS is a 
Department-wide study of the environmental impacts of managing five 
types of waste generated by defense and research activities at a 
variety of DOE sites around the United States. The five waste types 
are: low-level mixed waste, low-level waste, TRU waste, high-level 
waste, and hazardous waste. The WM PEIS examines, in an integrated 
fashion, the potential impacts of managing these waste types and the 
cumulative impacts of waste management, transportation and other 
ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities.
    The WM PEIS provides information on the potential impacts of 
alternatives for nationwide waste management that DOE will use to 
decide, on a programmatic basis, where, i.e., at which DOE sites, to 
locate particular waste management facilities. However, DOE will not 
decide the specific location of new facilities at sites selected to 
manage a particular type of waste, or a facility's capacity and design, 
until DOE completes appropriate site-wide or project-specific NEPA 
reviews, such as an environmental assessment or environmental impact 
statement. These subsequent analyses would rely, to the extent 
appropriate, on the analyses in the WM PEIS.
    This Record of Decision applies only to the treatment (including 
packaging) and storage of TRU waste as analyzed in the WM PEIS. Records 
of Decision for the four other waste types analyzed in the WM PEIS will 
be issued in due course. An Appendix to this Record of Decision 
identifies the major sites evaluated in the WM PEIS as potential 
locations for waste management operations, and the sites analyzed that 
have TRU waste.

TRU Waste Treatment and Storage

    TRU waste is waste containing more than 100 nanocuries of alpha-
emitting transuranic isotopes per gram of waste, with half-lives 
greater than 20 years (a few exceptions to this definition are 
identified in the WM PEIS). Over 99% of the total volume of existing 
and anticipated TRU waste is located at the DOE sites listed in the 
Appendix. TRU waste is categorized as either contact-handled (CH) or 
remote-handled (RH), based on the radiation level at the surface of the 
waste container. CH-TRU waste constitutes more than 85% of the total 
existing and anticipated volume of TRU waste considered in the WM PEIS. 
CH containers can be safely handled by direct contact, with appropriate 
health and safety measures. RH-TRU waste contains a greater proportion 
of radionuclides that produce highly penetrating radiation, and thus RH 
containers require special handling and shielding during waste 
management operations.

Alternatives Considered

    In the WM PEIS, the term ``alternative'' refers to a nationwide 
configuration of sites for treating, storing, or disposing of a waste 
type. The alternatives analyzed for each waste type fall within the 
four broad categories described below.

No Action Alternatives

    These alternatives involve the use of currently existing or planned 
waste management facilities at DOE sites. In the NEPA process, a no 
action alternative or ``status quo'' alternative may not comply with 
applicable laws and regulations; however, analysis of such an 
alternative is required and provides an environmental baseline against 
which the impacts of other alternatives can be compared.

Decentralized Alternatives

    These alternatives involve managing waste where it is or will be 
generated. Unlike the no action alternatives, the decentralized 
alternatives may require the siting, construction, and operation of new 
facilities or the modification of

[[Page 3631]]

existing facilities. Under the decentralized alternatives, waste 
management facilities would be located at a larger number of sites than 
under regionalized or centralized alternatives.

Regionalized Alternatives

    These alternatives involve consolidating waste management 
activities by transporting wastes to a limited number of sites (fewer 
than the number of sites considered for the decentralized alternatives 
but greater than the number of sites considered for the centralized 
alternatives). In general, sites with the largest volumes of a 
particular waste type were evaluated as potential regional sites for 
consolidating waste management activities.

Centralized Alternatives

    These alternatives involve consolidating management of wastes at 
fewer locations than the regionalized alternatives (typically one to 
three locations). As was the case for the regionalized alternatives, 
generally those sites with the largest volumes of a particular waste 
type were evaluated as potential sites for centralized waste 
management.
    There are many possible combinations of the number and locations of 
DOE sites for waste management facilities. To limit these combinations 
to a reasonable number for meaningful analysis, DOE selected 
alternatives that cover the full spectrum of reasonable alternatives 
under each category for each waste type. Table 1 summarizes the 
alternatives for TRU waste treatment storage that are analyzed in the 
WM PEIS, and the preferred alternative that DOE developed based on the 
analysis and other relevant criteria identified in the WM PEIS.

                       Table 1.--Summary of TRU Waste Alternatives Analyzed in the WM PEIS                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Alternative Category                                         Description                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action..............................  Eleven sites * that anticipate generating TRU waste in the future would
                                          prepare TRU waste to meet planning-basis WIPP waste acceptance        
                                          criteria **; existing TRU waste at 16 sites would be stored           
                                          indefinitely; assumes TRU waste would not be transported among sites. 
Decentralized..........................  Either fixed or mobile characterization facilities would be operated at
                                          sites that would need to retrieve existing TRU waste, treat,          
                                          repackage, and ship the waste. TRU waste would be shipped from the 6  
                                          sites with the smallest amounts to the nearest site of the 10 sites   
                                          (ANL-E, NTS, Hanford, INEEL, LANL, LLNL, Mound, ORR, RFETS, SRS) with 
                                          the largest amounts of TRU waste for storage prior to disposal;       
                                          assumes for purposes of analysis that the waste would be prepared to  
                                          meet waste acceptance criteria for WIPP and that disposal would occur 
                                          at WIPP.                                                              
Regionalized (3 Subalternatives).......  Three subalternatives differ in the level of treatment assumed for the 
                                          purpose of impact analysis and the number of sites at which treatment 
                                          would occur; RH-TRU waste would be treated and stored at Hanford and  
                                          ORR; CH-TRU waste would be treated and stored at all sites considered 
                                          in each alternative except ORR; all three subalternatives assume for  
                                          purposes of analysis that disposal would occur at WIPP.               
                                         Subalternatives:                                                       
                                         1. TRU waste would be shipped from the 10 sites with the smallest      
                                          amounts to the 6 sites with the largest amounts (together having 95%  
                                          of current and anticipated TRU inventories) for treatment to reduce   
                                          gas generation and storage prior to disposal.                         
                                         2. TRU waste would be shipped as described for Regionalized Alternative
                                          1; the waste would be treated to meet Land Disposal Restrictions      
                                          (LDRs).                                                               
                                         3. TRU waste would be consolidated at the 4 sites with approximately   
                                          80% of the current and anticipated inventories; treatment to meet LDRs
                                          would occur at these 4 sites.                                         
Centralized............................  All CH-TRU waste would be treated at WIPP to meet LDRs; all RH-TRU     
                                          waste would be treated at Hanford or ORR to meet LDRs and stored there
                                          until disposal; assumes for purposes of analysis that disposal would  
                                          occur at WIPP.                                                        
Preferred..............................  Combination of the Decentralized Alternative, under which most TRU     
                                          waste would be treated and stored where it is located, and parts of   
                                          the Regionalized Alternative, under which some TRU waste could be     
                                          shipped to INEEL, LANL, ORR, and SRS for treatment and storage,       
                                          pending disposal, with the level of treatment and whether to dispose  
                                          of TRU wastes at WIPP to be decided on the basis of analyses in the   
                                          WIPP SEIS-II.                                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Appendix to this Record of Decision lists the sites' names and their abbreviations.                       
** WIPP waste acceptance criteria Revision 5 as defined in the WIPP SEIS-II.                                    

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The WM PEIS analyzed a number of potential impacts, including those 
on human health, air and water resources, ecological resources, land 
use, and site infrastructures for each of the major sites at which 
waste management facilities might be located. Differences in impacts 
among all of the action alternatives were small. Nonetheless, all 
potential impacts identified in the WM PEIS were considered in DOE's 
selection of the preferred alternative, its identification of the 
environmentally preferable alternative, and its decision regarding 
treatment and storage of TRU waste.
    For the 20-year period of waste management operations analyzed in 
the WM PEIS, the potential impacts under the No Action alternative for 
TRU waste management are smaller than those identified under the action 
alternatives, and on this basis, the No Action alternative could be 
considered to be the environmentally preferable alternative. However, 
the No Action alternative assumes indefinite storage, and therefore 
does not include preparing and shipping the waste for disposal, i.e., 
permanent isolation from the human environment. Although the No Action 
alternative could pose less risk to workers and communities surrounding 
DOE's sites for the first 20 years, the longer-term risks are likely to 
exceed those for the first 20 years, not only as a result of continuing 
routine storage operations, but also as a result of degradation of 
storage facilities and containers.
    Taking these circumstances into account, the Department considers 
the environmentally preferable alternative to be the Decentralized 
Alternative under which DOE will prepare the TRU waste for disposal 
with minimal transportation. Transportation of TRU waste would occur 
only in situations where the sites at which the waste is

[[Page 3632]]

located lack the capability to prepare it for disposal.

Decision: DOE National Programmatic Configuration for Treatment and 
Storage of TRU Waste Prior to Disposal

    The Department will develop and operate mobile and fixed facilities 
to characterize and prepare TRU waste for disposal at WIPP. Each of the 
DOE's sites that has, or will generate, TRU waste will, as needed, 
prepare and store its TRU waste on site, except that the SNL-NM will 
transfer its TRU waste to LANL in New Mexico. LANL will have 
facilities, not available or anticipated at SNL-NM, to prepare and 
store this waste prior to disposal.

Basis for the Decision

    Although the No Action Alternative resulted in the lowest impacts 
among the alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS over the next 20 years, 
DOE did not select this alternative because it does not meet the 
Department's needs for the continued, safe management of TRU waste. 
Under the No Action Alternative, health and environmental impacts would 
continue to occur beyond the 20-year period of analysis in the WM PEIS. 
In the WIPP SEIS-II Record of Decision (discussed further below), DOE 
decided to dispose of TRU waste at WIPP, after treatment to meet the 
planning basis waste acceptance criteria. The No Action alternative 
evaluates treatment to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria only for 
TRU waste to be generated in the future; i.e., existing retrievably 
stored TRU waste would not be prepared to meet WIPP waste acceptance 
criteria. Eventually, the stored waste as well as the newly generated 
and treated waste would have to be repackaged to maintain safe storage 
conditions.
    Among the action alternatives, health and environmental impacts are 
generally similar over the 20-year period of analysis. DOE's decision 
seeks to limit environmental impacts and costs, while providing for the 
safe management of DOE's TRU waste. Among the action alternatives, the 
life cycle costs estimated in the WM PEIS are lowest for the 
Decentralized Alternative.
    The level of treatment analyzed under the Decentralized Alternative 
in the WM PEIS corresponds to the level of treatment selected in the 
Record of Decision for the WIPP SEIS-II for preparing the TRU waste for 
disposal. Thus the potential health and environmental impacts of 
treating TRU waste in accordance with the WIPP waste acceptance 
criteria are identified and evaluated in the analysis of the 
Decentralized Alternative, which also identifies the potential impacts 
of treating and storing waste from SNL-NM at LANL.

Future Decisions

    The Department may, in the future, decide to transfer TRU wastes 
from sites where it may be impractical to prepare them for disposal to 
sites where DOE has or will have the necessary capability. The sites 
that could receive such shipments of TRU waste are INEEL, ORR, SRS and 
Hanford. However, any future decisions regarding transfers of TRU waste 
would be subject to appropriate NEPA review, and to agreements, such as 
those between DOE and States, relating to the treatment and storage of 
TRU waste. Future NEPA review could include, but would not necessarily 
be limited to, analysis of the need to supplement existing 
environmental reviews.
    DOE would conduct all such TRU waste shipments between sites in 
accordance with applicable transportation requirements and would 
coordinate these shipments with appropriate State, Tribal and local 
authorities.
    As provided by 10 CFR Sec. 1021.315, the DOE may revise this Record 
of Decision in the future as long as the revised decision is adequately 
supported by existing environmental impact statements. Revision of this 
Record of Decision could occur, for example, as new technology or 
information from ongoing studies becomes available, or as DOE 
identifies situations in which it would be appropriate to transfer TRU 
waste to INEEL, ORR, SRS or Hanford. Implementation of the Record of 
Decision is subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, 
and local requirements.

Differences From the Preferred Alternative in the WM PEIS

    This decision differs from the preferred alternative identified in 
the WM PEIS in three respects. First, the preferred alternative in the 
WM PEIS included treatment and storage of ORR's RH-TRU waste on site, 
and treatment and storage of ORR's CH-TRU waste at SRS. Since 
publication of the WM PEIS, the Department has been considering 
treatment, as needed, of both ORR's CH-TRU and RH-TRU waste at ORR, 
because the radiation levels of ORR's CH-TRU waste are close to the 
levels of ORR's RH-TRU waste, and because the two waste forms share 
other physical characteristics. By including treatment of ORR's CH-TRU 
waste with its RH-TRU waste, DOE would reduce the need to transport CH-
TRU waste and achieve economies of scale. The proposed action for a TRU 
waste facility at ORR that could treat, as needed, both its CH-TRU and 
RH-TRU wastes is subject to appropriate site-specific review under 
NEPA.
    The second difference between this decision and the preferred 
alternative in the WM PEIS concerns RH-TRU waste at SRS. The preferred 
alternative called for transferring this waste to ORR for treatment and 
storage. The Department has now decided that it should defer any 
determination whether to transfer RH-TRU waste from SRS to ORR until 
DOE has the results of the NEPA review for the proposed ORR facility 
and additional information regarding its capability to meet 
transportation requirements for shipping the RH-TRU waste to ORR.
    The third difference between this decision and the preferred 
alternative in the WM PEIS concerns the transfer of a portion of the 
TRU waste at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) to 
INEEL. Since publication of the WM PEIS, additional information about 
the characteristics of the TRU waste at RFETS has become available 
indicating that existing or anticipated facilities at RFETS may be able 
to prepare this waste for disposal. If, in the future, RFETS needs to 
use another site's capability to prepare some of its TRU waste for 
disposal, DOE will complete any further review under NEPA that may be 
necessary, and will notify the appropriate State, Tribal and local 
authorities prior to making a final decision.

Coordinated Decision on Level of Treatment and Disposal of TRU 
Waste

    This Record of Decision has been prepared in coordination with the 
WIPP SEIS-II Record of Decision (January 16, 1998), which specifies the 
level of treatment for, and the disposal location of, TRU waste 
generated by defense activities. The decisions on the level of 
treatment of TRU waste and where to dispose of it are based on analyses 
in the WIPP SEIS-II. In the WIPP SEIS-II Record of Decision, DOE has 
decided that TRU waste destined for disposal at WIPP will be treated to 
meet the planning basis waste acceptance criteria (Revision 5 of the 
waste acceptance criteria as defined in the WIPP SEIS-II), which 
establish the minimum requirements for preparing TRU waste for disposal 
at WIPP. DOE has treated in the past and based on site-specific 
circumstances, may decide in the future to treat TRU waste at some 
sites more extensively than is required under the WIPP waste acceptance 
criteria.

[[Page 3633]]

Mitigation

    Chapter 12 of the WM PEIS describes measures that DOE takes in 
order to minimize the impacts of its waste management activities. 
Mitigation measures are an integral part of the Department's 
operations, so as to avoid, reduce, or eliminate potentially adverse 
environmental impacts. Some of the more important mitigation measures 
that DOE will continue during the treatment and storage of TRU waste 
are:
     Use of pollution prevention plans;
     Assistance to States, Tribes, local governments, and other 
public entities concerning human health, environmental, and economic 
impacts, including transportation planning and emergency response 
assistance;
     Use of ``cleaner'' waste treatment and storage 
technologies as they become available;
     Rigorous quality assurance programs for the 
characterization of TRU waste;
     Reuse of existing facilities wherever feasible rather than 
construction of new facilities;
     Occupational safety and health training to ensure that 
workers understand operational safety procedures.
    Site-specific, non-routine mitigation measures may also be 
identified and implemented in the course of further decision making 
under site-specific NEPA reviews based on the WM PEIS.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. this 20th day of January, 1998.
James M. Owendoff,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management.

                        Appendix--Sites Evaluated in the WM PEIS and Sites With TRU Waste                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Abbreviation              Full name              State              Major site \1\            TRU waste   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANL-E..................  Argonne National         IL               Yes.........................  Yes.           
                          Laboratory--East.                                                                     
BNL....................  Brookhaven National      NY               Yes.........................  No.            
                          Laboratory.                                                                           
ETEC...................  Energy Technology        CA               No..........................  Yes.           
                          Engineering Center.                                                                   
FEMP...................  Fernald Environmental    OH               Yes.........................  No.            
                          Management Project.                                                                   
Hanford................  Hanford Site...........  WA               Yes.........................  Yes.           
INEEL..................  Idaho National           ID               Yes.........................  Yes.           
                          Engineering and                                                                       
                          Environmental                                                                         
                          Laboratory.                                                                           
LBL....................  Lawrence Berkeley        CA               No..........................  Yes.           
                          Laboratory.                                                                           
LLNL...................  Lawrence Livermore       CA               Yes.........................  Yes.           
                          National Laboratory.                                                                  
LANL...................  Los Alamos National      NM               Yes.........................  Yes.           
                          Laboratory.                                                                           
Mound..................  Mound Plant............  OH               No..........................  Yes.           
NTS....................  Nevada Test Site.......  NV               Yes.........................  Yes.           
ORR....................  Oak Ridge Reservation..  TN               Yes.........................  Yes.           
PGDP...................  Paducah Gaseous          KY               Yes.........................  Yes.           
                          Diffusion Plant.                                                                      
Pantex.................  Pantex Plant...........  TX               Yes.........................  No.            
PORTS..................  Portsmouth Gaseous       OH               Yes.........................  No.            
                          Diffusion Plant.                                                                      
RFETS..................  Rocky Flats              CO               Yes.........................  Yes.           
                          Environmental                                                                         
                          Technology Site.                                                                      
SNL/NM.................  Sandia National          NM               Yes.........................  Yes.           
                          Laboratories-New                                                                      
                          Mexico.                                                                               
SRS....................  Savannah River Site....  SC               Yes.........................  Yes.           
UofMO..................  University of Missouri.  MO               No..........................  Yes.           
WIPP...................  Waste Isolation Pilot    NM               Yes.........................  No.            
                          Plant.                                                                                
WVDP...................  West Valley              NY               Yes.........................  Yes.           
                          Demonstration Project.                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Sites analyzed in the WM PEIS as potential locations for waste management facilities for one or more types  
  of waste.                                                                                                     

[FR Doc. 98-1654 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P