[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8068-8076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Second Record of Decision on Management of Certain Plutonium 
Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental 
Technology Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing a Second Record of 
Decision for processing certain categories of plutonium residues for 
disposal or other disposition as specified in the Preferred Alternative 
contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Management of 
Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats 
Environmental Technology Site (the Final EIS, DOE/EIS-0277F, August 
1998). The material categories covered by this Record of Decision are: 
(1) Incinerator ash residues, (2) Graphite fines residues, (3) 
Inorganic ash residues, (4) Molten salt extraction/electrorefining salt 
residues, (5) Direct oxide reduction salt residues (high plutonium 
concentration), (6) High-efficiency particulate air filter media 
residues, and (7) Sludge residues.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS, the first Record of Decision, and 
this Second Record of Decision are available in the public reading 
rooms and libraries identified in the Federal Register Notice that 
announced the availability of the Final EIS (63 FR 46006, August 28, 
1998), or by calling the Center for Environmental Management 
Information at 1-800-736-3282 (toll free) or 202-863-5084 (in 
Washington, DC).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the management of 
plutonium residues and scrub alloy currently stored at the Rocky Flats 
Environmental Technology Site, contact: Ms. Patty Bubar, Acting 
Director, Rocky Flats Office (EM-64), Office of Nuclear Material and 
Facility Stabilization, Environmental Management, U.S. Department of 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: 
301-903-7130.
    For information concerning the Final EIS or either Record of 
Decision, contact: Mr. Charles R. Head, Senior Technical Advisor, 
Office of Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization (EM-60), 
Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: 202-586-5151.

[[Page 8069]]

    For information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy 
and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: 202-586-4600, or leave a 
message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Synopsis of the Decision

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced issuance of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Certain Plutonium 
Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental 
Technology Site (Final EIS, DOE/EIS-0277F) on August 28, 1998 (63 FR 
46006, August 28, 1998). In the Final EIS, DOE considered the potential 
environmental impacts of a proposed action to process certain plutonium 
residues and scrub alloy currently stored at the Rocky Flats 
Environmental Technology Site (Rocky Flats) near Golden, Colorado in 
preparation for disposal or other disposition. After consideration of 
the Final EIS, including public comments submitted on the Draft EIS, 
and public comments submitted following issuance of the Final EIS, DOE 
issued a First Record of Decision on November 25, 1998 (63 FR 66136, 
December 1, 1998), on nine of the categories of material addressed in 
the Final EIS.
    After further consideration of the Final EIS, including public 
comments submitted on the Draft EIS, and public comments submitted 
following issuance of the Final EIS, DOE has decided to implement the 
Preferred Alternative specified in the Final EIS for the remaining 
categories of material covered in the Final EIS, namely: (1) 
Incinerator ash residues, (2) Graphite fines residues, (3) Inorganic 
ash residues, (4) Molten salt extraction/electrorefining salt residues, 
(5) Direct oxide reduction salt residues (high plutonium 
concentration), (6) High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter media 
residues, and (7) Sludge residues.
    Implementation of the Preferred Alternative for these materials 
will involve the following:
    1. Up to approximately 32,160 kg of plutonium residues (containing 
up to approximately 1,970 kg of plutonium) will be processed at Rocky 
Flats and packaged in preparation for disposal in the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. This includes all of the residues 
covered by this Record of Decision, except for the residues discussed 
in the following paragraph.
    2. Approximately 727 kg of direct oxide reduction (DOR) salt 
residues (containing up to about 139 kg of plutonium) will either be 
(1) pyro-oxidized (if necessary), followed by repackaging (with 
blending, if necessary, to no more than 10 percent plutonium), at Rocky 
Flats, or (2) pyro-oxidized at Rocky Flats (if necessary), followed by 
acid dissolution/plutonium oxide recovery at the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory (LANL). DOE expects that no more than approximately 306 kg 
of the DOR salts will have to be shipped to LANL for processing, with 
the remainder, and possibly all, of the DOR salts being processed at 
Rocky Flats. Any plutonium that is separated at LANL will be converted 
to an oxide and will be placed into safe and secure storage, along with 
a larger quantity of plutonium already in storage at LANL, until DOE 
has completed the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact 
Statement (DOE/EIS-0283, under preparation, draft issued in July 1998; 
see Section VI. E. 2, below, for additional discussion of the plutonium 
disposition topic) and made final decisions on the disposition of the 
separated plutonium. Transuranic wastes generated during the acid 
dissolution operations at LANL will be sent to WIPP for disposal. Other 
wastes generated during the chemical separations operations will be 
disposed of in accordance with LANL's normal procedures for disposing 
of such wastes.
    The only shipments of plutonium residues for offsite processing 
that might occur under this Record of Decision are shipments of no more 
than about 306 kg of high assay DOR salt residues to LANL. Shipment of 
transuranic wastes from processed Rocky Flats plutonium residues was 
analyzed in National Environmental Policy Act documentation previously 
completed for WIPP.
    The actions summarized above are scheduled to take place at Rocky 
Flats and LANL between 1999 and 2004.

II. Background

    During the Cold War, DOE and its predecessor agencies conducted 
various activities associated with the production of nuclear weapons. 
Several intermediate products and wastes were generated as a result of 
those operations, some of which are still in storage at various DOE 
sites, including Rocky Flats. Now that the Cold War is over and the 
United States has ceased production of fissile nuclear weapons 
materials, DOE is conducting activities to safely manage, clean up, and 
dispose of (where appropriate) the intermediate products and wastes 
from prior nuclear weapons production activities. Among the 
intermediate products and wastes requiring proper management and 
preparation for disposal or other disposition are approximately 106,600 
kg of plutonium residues and 700 kg of scrub alloy currently stored at 
Rocky Flats.
    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), in its 
Recommendation 94-1, addressed health and safety concerns regarding 
various materials at Rocky Flats, including the plutonium residues and 
scrub alloy. The Board concluded that hazards could arise from 
continued storage of these materials in their current forms and 
recommended that they be stabilized as expeditiously as possible. 
Approximately 64,400 kg of the plutonium residues in storage at Rocky 
Flats contain very low concentrations of plutonium and are currently 
being stabilized under the Solid Residue Treatment, Repackaging, and 
Storage Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact 
(Solid Residue EA, DOE/EA-1120, April 1996), thus preparing them for 
disposal. However, the remaining 42,200 kg of plutonium residues, which 
contain higher concentrations of plutonium, and all 700 kg of scrub 
alloy (not analyzed in the Solid Residue EA) require processing for 
stabilization and to prepare them for disposal or other disposition. 
These materials are addressed in the Final EIS.
    The approximately 42,200 kg of plutonium residues consist of 
several heterogeneous categories of materials (e.g., ashes, salts, 
combustible materials, sludges, pieces of glass, pieces of graphite). 
On average, the plutonium residues contain about 6% plutonium by 
weight, although a small amount of the plutonium residues contains well 
above the average percentage of plutonium by weight. For example, the 
315 kg of plutonium fluoride residues (less than 1 percent of the 
material addressed in the Final EIS) contains approximately 45% 
plutonium by weight. The approximately 700 kg of scrub alloy (less than 
2 percent of the material addressed in the Final EIS) consists 
primarily of a metallic alloy of magnesium, aluminum, americium, and 
plutonium, containing approximately 29% plutonium by weight.
    Although the average concentration of plutonium in the 42,200 kg of 
residues is small, there is still enough plutonium present (about 2,600 
kg) to subject the residues to a special set of requirements (referred 
to as ``safeguards and security'' requirements) to maintain control of 
the materials and ensure that the plutonium in them is not stolen or 
diverted for illicit use, perhaps in a nuclear weapon. The 700 kg of 
scrub alloy, with its

[[Page 8070]]

greater plutonium concentration, is also subject to safeguards and 
security requirements. Prior to disposal or other disposition of the 
residues and scrub alloy, action must be taken to reduce the plutonium 
concentration in the materials, make the plutonium more difficult to 
remove from the materials, or otherwise implement steps to ensure that 
the plutonium would not be stolen or diverted for illicit purposes. 
This process is referred to as ``termination of safeguards'' or 
``meeting safeguards termination limits''.
    Accordingly, the Purpose and Need for Agency Action addressed in 
the Final EIS was to evaluate action alternatives for processing the 
approximately 42,200 kg of plutonium residues and 700 kg of scrub alloy 
currently in storage at Rocky Flats to address the health and safety 
concerns regarding storage of the materials, as raised by the Board in 
its Recommendation 94-1, and to prepare the materials for offsite 
disposal or other disposition (including termination of safeguards, 
when appropriate). The action alternatives evaluated would be 
implemented in a manner that supports closure of Rocky Flats by 2006 
and limits worker exposure and waste production. Disposal or other 
disposition would eliminate the health and safety concerns associated 
with indefinite storage of these materials.
    Subsequent to completion of the Final EIS, DOE completed 
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the 
Endangered Species Act. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 
provides Federal agencies with the authority to determine whether a 
proposed Federal action may affect protected species or habitats and, 
if the agency determines that it will not (i.e., makes a ``no effect'' 
determination), then no consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service 
is required. Rather than specifying a ``no effect'' determination, the 
Final EIS concludes that the proposed processing of plutonium residues 
and scrub alloy is not likely to adversely affect threatened or 
endangered species or critical habitats in areas involved in this 
proposal. (Although indicating some effect on threatened or endangered 
species, a ``not likely to adversely affect'' determination falls short 
of a determination that a species or critical habitat is likely to be 
adversely affected overall by the proposed action.)
    Upon further review of the likely impacts of the proposed 
processing, DOE concludes that a ``no effect'' determination would have 
been more appropriate in this case because DOE does not believe that 
the proposed processing will affect protected species or critical 
habitats overall. Therefore, no consultation with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service is required.
    The decision process reflected in this Record of Decision complies 
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 
U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations at 10 
CFR Part 1021. Further, section 308 of the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-245) specifies 
that: ``None of the funds in this Act may be used to dispose of 
transuranic waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant which contains 
concentrations of plutonium in excess of 20 percent by weight for the 
aggregate of any material category on the date of enactment of this 
Act, or is generated after such date.'' The decisions specified in this 
Record of Decision comply with the requirements of P.L. 105-245.
    As noted above and in accordance with a plan described in Section 
1.4.2 of the Final EIS, DOE has already issued a first Record of 
Decision on the other categories of materials (plutonium residues and 
scrub alloy) within the scope of the Final EIS. The material categories 
covered by the First Record of Decision are: (1) Sand, slag and 
crucible residues, (2) Direct oxide reduction salt residues (low 
plutonium concentration), (3) Combustible residues, (4) Plutonium 
fluoride residues, (5) Ful Flo filter media residues, (6) Glass 
residues, (7) Graphite residues, (8) Inorganic (metal and other) 
residues, and (9) Scrub alloy. All of these materials will also be 
processed in accordance with the Preferred Alternative specified in the 
Final EIS.

III. Alternatives Evaluated in the Final EIS

    DOE evaluated the following alternatives for management of the 
Rocky Flats plutonium residues covered by this Record of Decision. 
These alternatives are the same as the alternatives described in the 
first Record of Decision, although the processing technologies listed 
here are those that apply to the material categories covered by this 
Second Record of Decision:

III. A. Alternative 1 (No Action--Stabilize and Store)

    This alternative consists of stabilization or repackaging to 
prepare the material for interim storage as described in the Rocky 
Flats Solid Residue Environmental Assessment. Under this alternative, 
further processing to prepare the materials for disposal or other 
disposition would not occur. Under this alternative, approximately 40 
percent of the Rocky Flats plutonium residues would be left in a form 
that would not meet the requirements for termination of safeguards, 
thus making these materials ineligible for disposal. Thus, while 
implementation of this alternative would address the immediate health 
and safety concerns associated with near-term storage of the materials, 
the health and safety risks associated with potential long-term storage 
of these materials would remain.

III. B. Alternative 2 (Processing Without Plutonium Separation)

    Under this alternative, the materials would be processed to convert 
them into forms that would meet the requirements for termination of 
safeguards. The materials would be ready for shipment to WIPP in New 
Mexico for disposal.
    The technologies evaluated for use under this alternative for the 
material categories covered by this Record of Decision are listed in 
Table 1.

             Table 1.--Alternative 2 Processing Technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Material category                  Processing technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerator ash residues and         Calcination followed by
 Inorganic ash residues.              vitrification.
  .................................  Cold Ceramification (incinerator
                                      ash residues only).
                                     Calcination followed by blend down.
Graphite fines residues............  Vitrification.
                                     Blend down.
Molten salt extraction/              Blend down.
 electrorefining salt residues.
DOR salt residues (high plutonium    Blend down.
 concentration).
HEPA filter media residues.........  Calcination followed by
                                      vitrification.
                                     Blend down.

[[Page 8071]]

 
                                     Sonic wash.
Sludge residues....................  Calcination followed by
                                      vitrification.
                                     Blend down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the technologies specified in Table 1 would be implemented 
onsite at Rocky Flats. The blend down operation referred to in Table 1 
would consist of mixing the plutonium residues within the scope of the 
Final EIS with other, lower plutonium content residues that are also 
planned for disposal in WIPP, or with inert material, so that the 
resulting mixture would be below the safeguards termination limits.

III. C. Alternative 3 (Processing With Plutonium Separation)

    Under this alternative, the plutonium residues and scrub alloy 
would be processed to separate plutonium from the material and 
concentrate it so that the secondary waste would meet the requirements 
for termination of safeguards and be ready for disposal, while the 
separated and concentrated plutonium would be placed in safe and secure 
storage pending disposition in accordance with decisions to be made 
under the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement. 
DOE would not use this plutonium for nuclear explosive purposes.
    The technologies evaluated for use under this alternative for the 
material categories covered by this Record of Decision are listed in 
Table 2. These technologies would be implemented at the sites specified 
in Table 2.

             Table 2.--Alternative 3 Processing Technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Processing
      Material category            technology          Processing site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerator ash residues....  Purex processing....  Savannah River Site.
                              Mediated
                               Electrochemical
                               Oxidation.
Graphite fines residues.....  Mediated              Savannah River Site.
                               Electrochemical
                               Oxidation.
Inorganic ash residues......  None................
Molten salt--extraction/      Salt distillation...  Rocky Flats or LANL.
 electrorefining salt
 residues.
                              Salt scrub followed   Rocky Flats/Savannah
                               by Purex processing.  River Site.
                              Water leach.........  Rocky Flats.
DOR salt residues (high       Salt scrub followed   Rocky Flats/Savannah
 plutonium concentration).     by Purex processing.  River Site.
                              Water leach.........  Rocky Flats or LANL.
                              Acid dissolution....  LANL.
HEPA filter media residues..  Mediated              Rocky Flats.
                               Electrochemical
                               Oxidation.
Sludge residues (not incl.    Acid dissolution....  Rocky Flats.
 Item Description Codes
 [IDCs] 089, 099 and 332).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. D. Alternative 4 (Combination of Processing Technologies)

    Under this alternative, the residues would be stabilized and 
blended down, if necessary, and repackaged in preparation for shipment 
of the material to WIPP. Blend down would be conducted so that none of 
the residues processed under this alternative would contain more than 
10% plutonium by weight. Termination of safeguards would be 
accomplished through use of a variance to the safeguards requirements. 
A variance is the record of a review process whereby DOE's Office of 
Safeguards and Security approves a proposal by another part of DOE to 
terminate safeguards on specific quantities of safeguarded materials 
because of special circumstances that make the safeguards controls 
unnecessary. The variance to safeguards termination limits that is 
required to allow implementation of this alternative was approved by 
the DOE Office of Safeguards and Security after conducting a detailed 
review and extensive vulnerability assessment regarding the alternative 
mechanisms that would be used to protect and control access to the 
material. The Office of Safeguards and Security concluded that the 
nature of the residues, the relatively low concentration of plutonium 
in the residues after blend down (if necessary), and the waste 
management controls that would be in effect during the transportation 
to and staging at WIPP prior to disposal would be sufficient to provide 
a level of protection for the materials comparable to that required by 
safeguards.

III. E. Strategic Management Approaches

    Theoretically, it would be possible to process all of the residues 
using only one of the alternatives listed above (e.g., all the 
materials would be processed under a single alternative, except for 
certain material categories for which there is no processing technology 
under that alternative). Nevertheless, in practice, DOE recognized in 
preparing the EIS that the most appropriate technologies were likely to 
be chosen separately for each material category by selecting from among 
the technologies in all the alternatives. However, there are too many 
combinations of material categories, processing technologies and 
processing sites to address each individual combination in the EIS in a 
manner that would be easily understandable. As a result, in addition to 
individually evaluating technologies that could be used to implement 
the alternatives for each material category, DOE also evaluated several 
``Strategic Management Approaches.'' These approaches involve 
compilations of sets of processing technologies which would allow a 
specific management criterion to be met. The management criteria 
addressed in the Strategic Management Approaches are as follows:
    1. No Action (i.e., Alternative 1 discussed above)

[[Page 8072]]

    2. Preferred Alternative (Discussed in more detail in Section III. 
F. below).
    3. Minimizing Total Processing Duration at Rocky Flats.
    4. Minimizing Cost.
    5. Conducting all Processing at Rocky Flats.
    6. Conducting the Fewest Actions at Rocky Flats.
    7. Processing with the Maximum Amount of Plutonium Separation.
    8. Processing without Plutonium Separation.
    The decisions on which technology to implement have been made 
separately for each material category covered by this Record of 
Decision; the Strategic Management Alternatives were merely 
illustrative. Nevertheless, evaluation of the Strategic Management 
Approaches allowed presentation of the environmental impacts of the 
proposed action as one set of data, instead of separate sets of data 
representing the impacts from management of each of the material 
categories individually. Examination of the various Strategic 
Management Approaches also allowed DOE and the public to determine 
whether there are any significant differences between the impacts that 
would result from implementation of one Strategic Management Approach 
as compared to any other.

III. F. Preferred Alternative

    The preferred alternative was constructed by selecting a preferred 
technology for each material category from among the action 
alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3 and 4) described above.
    The technologies that comprise the Preferred Alternative for the 
material categories covered by this Record of Decision are listed in 
Table 3 (the bases for selection of these technologies are discussed in 
Section 2.4 of the Final EIS and in Section VI of this Record of 
Decision). These technologies would be implemented at the sites 
specified in Table 3.

         Table 3.--Preferred Alternative Processing Technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Processing
      Material category            technology          Processing site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerator ash residues....  Repackage             Rocky Flats.
                               (Alternative 4).
Graphite fines residues.....  Repackage             Rocky Flats.
                               (Alternative 4).
Inorganic ash residues......  Repackage             Rocky Flats.
                               (Alternative 4).
Molten salt extraction/       Repackage             Rocky Flats.
 electrorefining salt          (Alternative 4).
 residues.
DOR salt residues (high       Pyro-oxidation (if    Rocky Flats and
 plutonium concentration).     necessary) followed   LANL.
                               by acid dissolution
                               (Alternative 3).
                              Pyro-oxidation (if    Rocky Flats.
                               necessary) followed
                               by blend down and
                               repackaging
                               (Alternative 4).
HEPA filter media residues..  Neutralize (if        Rocky Flats.
                               necessary) and
                               repackage
                               (Alternative 4).
Sludge residues.............  Filter/dry, if        Rocky Flats.
                               necessary, and
                               repackage
                               (Alternative 4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Other Factors

    In addition to comparing the environmental impacts of implementing 
the various alternatives, DOE also considered other factors in reaching 
the decisions announced here. These other factors included issues 
raised by comments received during scoping, or on the Draft and Final 
versions of the EIS. The other factors considered are briefly 
summarized in the following paragraphs.

IV. A. Nonproliferation

    Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons has been a fundamental 
national security and foreign policy goal of the United States since 
1945. The current United States policy is summarized in the White House 
Fact Sheet on Nonproliferation and Export Control Policy, dated 
September 27, 1993. This policy makes it clear that the United States 
does not encourage the civil use of plutonium and, accordingly, does 
not itself engage in plutonium reprocessing for either nuclear power or 
nuclear explosives purposes. In addition, it is United States policy to 
seek to eliminate where possible the accumulation of stockpiles of 
plutonium.
    The alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS, including plutonium 
separation alternatives, would result in varying levels of risk 
associated with potential use of the plutonium in nuclear weapons, 
either by the United States or an adversary. None of the alternatives 
would eliminate the plutonium from the current inventory. Nevertheless, 
as discussed in Section 4.1.9 of the Final EIS, all of the action 
alternatives would result in appropriate management of the plutonium 
residues and scrub alloy to ensure that they are not stolen or diverted 
for illicit purposes. Furthermore, all of the action alternatives set 
the stage for significantly reducing the proliferation risk posed by 
the plutonium in the plutonium residues and scrub alloy by preparing 
these materials for disposal or other disposition in a form that is 
highly proliferation resistant (i.e., a form which contains very little 
plutonium per unit weight, from which the plutonium would be especially 
difficult to extract, or for which other measures are taken to ensure 
sufficient security). In addition, because of the potential concern 
regarding any processing and consolidating of plutonium that might be 
accomplished by DOE, the Secretary of Energy has committed that any 
plutonium-239 separated or stabilized for health and safety purposes 
would be prohibited from use for nuclear explosive purposes 
(Secretarial Action Memorandum approved on December 20, 1994). This 
prohibition would apply to plutonium-239 processed through actions 
implemented by this Record of Decision.

IV. B. Technology Availability and Technical Feasibility

    DOE considered technology availability and technical feasibility in 
identifying processing technologies to be evaluated in the Final EIS 
and in making the decisions specified in Section VI of this Record of 
Decision. DOE considered the extent to which technology development 
would be required and the likelihood of success of such endeavors. All 
of the technologies evaluated in the Final EIS are technically 
feasible. In general, however, the more that processing technologies 
vary from the historical processes and facilities used by DOE, the 
greater the technical uncertainty and extent to which new facilities or 
modifications to existing facilities would have to be made (as 
discussed in Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS).

[[Page 8073]]

IV. C. Timing

    DOE considered the degree to which the various technologies that 
could potentially be used in management of the plutonium residues and 
scrub alloy would support DOE's plans for cleanup of the radioactive, 
chemical and other hazardous wastes left after 50 years of nuclear 
weapons production by the United States, as outlined in the document 
titled Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure (DOE/EM-0362, June 1998), 
including the goal of closing Rocky Flats by 2006.

IV. D. Cost

    In reaching decisions on processing technologies, an important 
consideration for DOE was cost. DOE evaluated the costs of implementing 
the various processing technologies for each material category on both 
an individual basis and collectively. DOE estimates it would cost from 
approximately $428 million to $814 million to implement the Strategic 
Management Approaches (other than No Action) analyzed in the Final EIS. 
An even larger expenditure (approximately $1.1 billion) would be 
required to pay for continued storage of the nuclear materials if DOE 
chose to implement the No Action alternative. On the other hand, DOE 
expects that the annual costs of operating and maintaining Rocky Flats 
facilities will decrease as nuclear materials are removed from the 
site. DOE expects further reductions in costs as the Rocky Flats 
facilities are deactivated.

V. Comments on the Final EIS

    The only comments on the Final EIS were received by DOE prior to 
issuance of the first Record of Decision. The responses to those 
comments were provided in Section V of the first Record of Decision.

VI. Decision

    DOE has decided to implement the proposed action in the manner 
described in this section. The alternatives that DOE has decided to 
implement are presented separately below for each material category 
because the decisions on the selected technology were based on 
considerations that are unique to the chemical and physical 
characteristics of the individual material categories. Furthermore, 
these decisions are independent of one another and are not connected to 
the decisions that were made in the first Record of Decision. Although 
alternative technologies analyzed in the EIS might use certain common 
facilities or personnel, sufficient facility capacity and personnel are 
available to allow use of any technology without interfering with any 
other.
    For clarity and brevity, this section also includes the discussion 
of the environmentally preferable alternative (as required by CEQ 
regulations [40 CFR 1505.2]) and the basis for selection of the 
alternative to be implemented.
    The analysis of alternative technologies presented in the Final EIS 
indicates that all of the alternative technologies, including those in 
the Preferred Alternative and the No Action alternative, would have 
only small impacts on the human environment on or around the DOE 
management sites and on the populations along transportation routes 
(see Sections 4.23 and 4.24 of the Final EIS). Using conservative 
assumptions (i.e., assumptions that tend to overestimate risks), the 
potential risks from incident-free operations and postulated accidents 
that are of most interest would be those associated with radiation 
exposure to workers performing processing operations on the plutonium 
residues or near loaded transportation containers, and transportation 
routes. The Final EIS also estimates (1) the risks from incident-free 
operations and postulated accidents associated with chemical releases 
and transportation accidents; (2) the amounts of various wastes and 
other materials that would result from implementation of the various 
alternative technologies; (3) the cost of implementing the various 
alternative technologies; (4) the effect on nuclear weapons 
nonproliferation; and (5) air quality impacts.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
    Although there are differences among the estimated impacts for the 
various alternatives, the impacts would be small for any of the 
alternative technologies, and the magnitude of the differences in 
potential impacts between alternatives is small. In addition, the 
nature of the potential impacts is such that comparing them is a very 
judgmental process. For example, under the salt distillation at Rocky 
Flats alternative (Alternative 3) for electrorefining and molten salt 
extraction residues (not including IDC 409), only 519 drums of 
transuranic waste would be generated, whereas the blend down at Rocky 
Flats alternative for this material (Alternative 2) would generate 
10,802 drums of transuranic waste. However, salt distillation would 
also result in generation of 569 kg of separated plutonium, whereas 
blend down would result in no separated plutonium. Comments received 
from members of the public on the Draft EIS demonstrate that different 
individuals would make different value judgements as to which of these 
product/waste materials is of most concern. In addition to having no 
indisputable means of identifying which waste or product stream would 
be most important to minimize, there is no indisputable way to trade 
off differences between the amounts of various types of waste and 
separated plutonium against differences in levels of radiological risk 
or chemical hazards, or between risks to workers versus risks to the 
public (risks to the public would be lower than those to workers for 
all technologies evaluated in the Final EIS).
    In general, because of the small risks that would result from any 
of the action alternatives (as demonstrated by Tables in Sections 2.10, 
4.2, 4.3, 4.6 and 4.7 of the Final EIS) and the absence of any clear 
basis for discerning an environmental preference, DOE considers that no 
one of the action alternatives is clearly environmentally preferable 
over any other action alternative. On the other hand, under the No 
Action alternative, the materials would be left in storage at Rocky 
Flats with no defined disposal path. There would be additional risk 
associated with both the indefinite storage and whatever processing may 
ultimately be determined to be necessary to prepare the material for 
ultimate disposition. There would also be risks from potential 
degradation of storage facilities and containers. Accordingly, in 
consideration of the long-term risks that would be associated with 
implementation of the No Action alternative, DOE considers that all of 
the action alternatives are environmentally preferable over the No 
Action alternative.
    The processing technologies that DOE has decided to implement are 
as follows for each material category addressed in this Record of 
Decision:

VI. A. Incinerator Ash Residues

VI. A. 1. Selected Alternative
    DOE has decided to repackage the incinerator ash residues to 
prepare them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). Material that is 
above 10 percent plutonium by weight will be blended with low plutonium 
concentration material from the same Item Description Code (IDC), or 
with inert material, to reach the 10 percent plutonium limit.
VI. A. 2. Basis for the Decision
    Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be 
implemented for this material category because it is the simplest and 
least costly of all processing technologies considered, and the one 
that will allow

[[Page 8074]]

DOE to complete processing and ready the material for disposal most 
expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of resources that 
would otherwise be required to manage these residues to accelerate 
other activities required to close the site.

VI. B. Graphite Fines Residues

VI. B. 1. Selected Alternative
    DOE has decided to repackage the graphite fines residues to prepare 
them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). Material that is above 10 
percent plutonium by weight will be blended with low plutonium 
concentration material from the same IDC, or with inert material, to 
reach the 10 percent plutonium limit.
VI. B. 2. Basis for the Decision
    Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be 
implemented for this material category because it is the simplest and 
least costly of all processing technologies considered, and the one 
that will allow DOE to complete processing and ready the material for 
disposal most expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of 
resources that would otherwise be required to manage these residues to 
accelerate other activities required to close the site.

VI. C. Inorganic Ash Residues

VI. C. 1. Selected Alternative
    DOE has decided to repackage the inorganic ash residues to prepare 
them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). Material that is above 10 
percent plutonium by weight will be blended with low plutonium 
concentration material from the same IDC, or with inert material, to 
reach the 10 percent plutonium limit.
VI. C. 2. Basis for the Decision
    Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be 
implemented for this material category because it is the simplest and 
least costly of all processing technologies considered, and the one 
that will allow DOE to complete processing and ready the material for 
disposal most expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of 
resources that would otherwise be required to manage these residues to 
accelerate other activities required to close the site.

VI. D. Molten Salt Extraction/Electrorefining Salt Residues

VI. D. 1. Selected Alternative
    DOE has decided to repackage the molten salt extraction/
electrorefining salt residues to prepare them for disposal in WIPP 
(Alternative 4). Material that is above 10 percent plutonium by weight 
will be blended with low plutonium concentration material from the same 
salt category, or with inert material, to reach the 10 percent 
plutonium limit.
VI. D. 2. Basis for the Decision
    Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be 
implemented for this material category because it is the simplest of 
all processing technologies considered and the one that will allow the 
site to complete processing and ready the material for disposal most 
expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of the resources that 
would otherwise be required to manage these residues to accelerate 
completion of other activities required to close the site. Finally, 
selection of repackaging avoids the technical uncertainty (discussed in 
Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS) that would be associated with 
implementation of the least expensive alternative, i.e., salt 
distillation.

VI. E. Direct Oxide Reduction Salt Residues (High Plutonium 
Concentration)

VI. E. 1. Selected Alternative
    DOE has decided to take the following action for the high plutonium 
concentration direct oxide reduction salt residues:
    a. As much of the high plutonium concentration direct oxide 
reduction salt residues as possible, and probably all, will be pyro-
oxidized (if necessary), and then repackaged (with blending to no more 
than 10 percent plutonium, if necessary) at Rocky Flats to prepare them 
for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4).
    b. If any of the high plutonium concentration direct oxide 
reduction salt residues are found to be unsuitable for processing as 
described in the preceding paragraph, they would be transported to LANL 
where the plutonium could be separated from the residues by acid 
dissolution (Alternative 3). 1. Prior to shipment, these 
residues would be pyro-oxidized at Rocky Flats (if necessary). The 
recovered plutonium would be converted into an oxide and placed into 
safe and secure storage, along with a larger quantity of plutonium 
already in storage at LANL, until DOE has completed the Surplus 
Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0283, 
under preparation, draft issued in July 1998; see Section VI. E. 2, 
below, for additional discussion of plutonium disposition) and made 
final decisions on the disposition of the separated plutonium. 
Transuranic wastes generated during the acid dissolution operations 
would be sent to WIPP for disposal. Other wastes generated during the 
chemical separations operations would be disposed of in accordance with 
LANL's normal procedures for disposing of such wastes. DOE expects 
that, at most, approximately 306 kg of the DOR salts might be shipped 
to LANL for processing, with the remainder, and probably all, of the 
DOR salts being processed at Rocky Flats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As stated in the Final EIS, Appendix B, end of Section 
B.3.3.3, there are no Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
hazardous waste codes associated with any of the DOR salts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. E. 2. Basis for the Decision
    Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be 
implemented for as much of this material category as possible because 
it is the simplest and least costly of all processing technologies 
considered and the one that will allow the site to complete processing 
and ready the material for disposal most expeditiously. This approach 
will also allow use of the resources that would otherwise be required 
to manage these residues to accelerate completion of other activities 
required to close the site.
    Acid dissolution/plutonium oxide recovery at LANL was selected as 
the technology to be implemented for any material in this category that 
cannot be repackaged as discussed above because this process will 
result in shorter exposures of the workers to radiation than would be 
experienced with the blend down process in Alternative 2, thus 
providing health and safety benefits to the workers. Selection of acid 
dissolution also avoids the technical uncertainty associated with the 
water leach plutonium separation process (see Section 4.17.7 of the 
Final EIS).
    The Final EIS specified that any plutonium separated under any 
alternative analyzed in this EIS would be disposed of using the 
immobilization process. (Final EIS, page 2-2.) Upon further review, DOE 
has decided for the following reasons not to make a determination at 
this time on the disposition of any plutonium separated under the 
decisions announced in this ROD. In December 1996, DOE published the 
Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0229, the PEIS). 
That PEIS analyzed, among other things, the potential environmental 
consequences of alternative strategies for the long-term storage and 
disposition of weapons-usable plutonium that has

[[Page 8075]]

been or may be declared surplus to national security needs. DOE 
announced the Record of Decision for that PEIS in January 1997, which 
outlines an approach to plutonium disposition that would allow for both 
the immobilization of some of the surplus plutonium, and the use of 
some of the surplus plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in existing 
domestic, commercial reactors (62 FR 3014, January 21, 1997).
    As a follow-on analysis to that PEIS, DOE is in the process of 
preparing the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact 
Statement, which addresses the extent to which each of the two surplus 
plutonium disposition approaches (immobilization and MOX) would be 
implemented. Thus, at the present time, DOE has not decided the extent 
to which either the immobilization or the MOX approach to surplus 
plutonium disposition would be implemented. Moreover, as noted above, 
even after completion of the Surplus Plutonium Disposition 
Environmental Impact Statement, DOE does not expect to make decisions 
about which, if any, of the surplus plutonium would be used in MOX fuel 
until shortly before any such material would be transferred to a MOX 
fuel fabrication facility. Thus, DOE believes at this time it is 
appropriate not to make any commitment as to which approach would be 
implemented for the disposition of any plutonium to be separated under 
the decisions announced in this Second Record of Decision.
    The plutonium declared to be surplus includes any weapons-useable 
plutonium resulting from the stabilization (for health and safety 
reasons) of the Rocky Flats DOR salt residues discussed under this 
Second Record of Decision. As a result, weapons-useable plutonium that 
is separated under actions from this Second Record of Decision is a 
candidate for both of the surplus weapons-useable plutonium disposition 
alternatives that have been identified by DOE (i.e., MOX and 
immobilization).

VI. F. HEPA Filter Media Residues

VI. F. 1. Selected Alternative
    DOE has decided to neutralize and dry the HEPA filter media in IDC 
338, as necessary, and then repackage them in preparation for disposal 
in WIPP. DOE has determined that the other HEPA filter media do not 
need to be neutralized and dried. They will be repackaged in 
preparation for disposal in WIPP.
VI. F. 2. Basis for the Decision
    The average concentration of plutonium in the HEPA filter media 
residues is less than 10 percent, allowing them to be prepared for 
disposal in WIPP with little processing. Selection of the repackaging 
alternative (Alternative 4) allows DOE to use resources that would 
otherwise be required to process the HEPA filter media to accelerate 
completion of other activities required to process other residues and 
close the site. It also allows DOE to avoid the technical uncertainty 
(discussed in Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS) that would be associated 
with selection of the less expensive vitrification technology or the 
uncertainty (also discussed in Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS) 
associated with whether the less expensive blend down alternative would 
be sufficient to eliminate the safety concerns associated with nitric 
acid contaminated filters.

VI. G. Sludge Residues

VI. G. 1. Selected Alternative
    DOE has decided to repackage all sludge residues in IDCs 089, 099 
and 332 to prepare them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). DOE has 
decided to filter and dry all of the other sludge residues, as 
necessary, and then repackage them to prepare them for disposal in WIPP 
(Alternative 4).
VI. G. 2. Basis for the Decision
    Repackaging under Alternative 4 was selected for the sludges in 
IDCs 089, 099 and 332 because they would be difficult to process by 
other means. Furthermore, their small quantity (about 7 kg bulk [0.95 
kg plutonium]) makes them particularly easy to process by repackaging. 
Use of repackaging under Alternative 4 for the sludges in IDCs 089, 099 
and 332 will avoid the technical uncertainties (discussed in Section 
4.17.7 of the Final EIS) that would be associated with the 
vitrification alternative.
    Filtration and drying, followed by repackaging under Alternative 4, 
was selected for the remaining sludge residues because it is the 
simplest of all processing technologies considered and the one that 
will allow the site to complete processing and ready the material for 
disposal most expeditiously. This approach will allow use of the 
resources that would otherwise be required to manage these residues to 
accelerate completion of other activities required to close the site. 
It will also avoid the uncertainty regarding whether the less expensive 
blend down alternative would be sufficient to address the safety issues 
related to the nitric acid and solvent contamination of the sludges.

VII. Use of All Practical Means To Avoid or Minimize Harm

    Implementation of this decision will result in low environmental 
and health impacts. However, DOE will take the following steps to avoid 
or minimize harm wherever possible:

VII. A.

    DOE will use current safety and health programs and practices to 
reduce impacts by maintaining worker radiation exposure as low as 
reasonably achievable and by meeting appropriate waste minimization and 
pollution prevention objectives.

VII. B.

    DOE will provide a level of health and safety for DOE 
transportation operations that is equivalent to or greater than that 
provided by compliance with all applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and 
local regulations. In addition to meeting applicable shipping 
containment and confinement requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission regulations on Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive 
Material (10 CFR Part 71) and Department of Transportation regulations 
at 49 CFR, all packaging for transportation of the material covered by 
this Record of Decision will also be certified by DOE. DOE also 
provides Federal, State, Tribal and local authorities with access to 
training and technical assistance necessary to allow them to safely, 
efficiently, and effectively respond to any incident involving 
transportation of the materials covered by this Record of Decision. 
Items A and B above will be accomplished under existing business 
practices in the normal course of implementing this Record of Decision.

VIII. Conclusion

    DOE has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative specified in 
the Final EIS to prepare the plutonium residue categories specified in 
Sections I and VI of this Record of Decision for disposal or other 
disposition. This decision is effective upon being made public, in 
accordance with DOE's NEPA implementation regulations (10 CFR 
1021.315). The goal of this decision is to prepare the plutonium 
residues for disposal or other disposition in a manner that addresses 
immediate health and safety concerns associated with storage of the 
materials, and that also supports Rocky Flats closure. Disposal or 
other disposition of these materials will also eliminate health and 
safety concerns and costs that would be

[[Page 8076]]

associated with indefinite storage of these materials.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. this 11th day of February, 1999.
James M. Owendoff,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 99-3987 Filed 2-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P