[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16948-16952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8606]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision For the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project 
at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

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

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department has decided to implement the Preferred 
Alternative identified in the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (AMWTP FEIS) (DOE/EIS-0290), dated 
January 1999. The decision to proceed with the construction and 
operation of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP) 
facility allows the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to treat and 
prepare for shipment and disposal of 65,000 cubic meters of DOE 
transuranic (TRU) waste, alpha-contaminated low-level mixed waste 
(alpha LLMW), and low-level mixed wastes (LLMW) currently stored at 
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 
Further, DOE could treat at the AMWTP up to 120,000 cubic meters of 
additional waste from the INEEL or other DOE sites, for a total of 
185,000 cubic meters. The AMWTP facility will treat waste to meet the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) and 
applicable requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal 
Restrictions (LDR).
    In making its decision, DOE considered several factors including 
the environmental analyses reported in the AMWTP FEIS, estimated costs 
of the alternatives reported in Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project 
Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Cost Study, regulatory 
implications of the alternatives, mission, national policy, and public 
comments on the AMWTP Draft EIS. This Record of Decision documents the 
Department's decision to implement the Preferred Alternative, which 
provides for the greatest long-term protection of the environment with 
small short-term environmental impacts and health risks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the AMWTP, 
the contract with BNFL Inc., or the EIS, please write or call: John 
Medema, AMWTP EIS Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho 
Operations Office, 850 Energy Drive, MS-1117, Idaho Falls, ID 83401, 
Telephone: (208) 526-1407.
    For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of 
NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: (202) 
586-4600 or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Since the mid-1940s, DOE and its predecessor agencies have 
generated TRU waste during the course of nuclear weapons production, 
nuclear material processing, and research and development activities. 
DOE currently defines TRU waste as waste containing alpha-emitting 
radionuclides with an atomic number greater than 92 and half-

[[Page 16949]]

lives greater than 20 years, at concentrations greater than 100 
nanocuries per gram of waste. Prior to 1982, DOE considered waste 
containing alpha-emitting radionuclides at concentrations greater than 
10 nanocuries per gram of waste to be TRU waste. Waste at INEEL that 
has concentrations greater than 10 nanocuries per gram but less than 
100 nanocuries per gram is considered to be alpha-contaminated low-
level waste, which is being managed as TRU waste. DOE has stored TRU 
waste and alpha-contaminated low-level waste at the INEEL since the 
early 1970s. Most of this waste was generated at DOE's Rocky Flats 
Plant near Denver, Colorado. The waste was shipped to the INEEL in 
drums and boxes that were retrievably stored on an asphalt pad at 
INEEL's Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) and covered with 
tarps, plywood, and soil to form an earthen-covered berm.
    Approximately 95 percent of this radioactive waste is classified as 
mixed waste because it contains chemically hazardous waste and, 
therefore, is regulated under RCRA. Some of the wastes also contain 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are regulated under TSCA. These 
wastes (radioactive, RCRA, and TSCA wastes) are mixed together within 
their storage containers. DOE needs to place these wastes in a 
configuration that will allow for their disposal at the WIPP near 
Carlsbad, New Mexico, or another appropriate facility, in a manner 
consistent with state and federal law and in compliance with the 
schedule contained in the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order.
    On October 17, 1995, the State of Idaho, the Department of the 
Navy, and DOE settled the case of the Public Service Co. of Colorado v. 
Batt, CV 91-0035-S-EJL (D. Idaho) (Lead Case). Certain conditions of 
the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order obligated DOE to:
--Commence procurement of a treatment facility at the INEEL for the 
treatment of TRU waste, alpha LLMW, and LLMW, and
--Execute a procurement contract for a treatment facility by June 1, 
1997, complete construction of the facility by December 31, 2002, and 
commence operation by March 31, 2003.

    A procurement contract for treatment services was awarded to BNFL 
Inc. on December 20, 1996. Construction and operation of the treatment 
facility is contingent upon DOE's completion of an EIS and issuance of 
a record of decision. If DOE decides not to move forward with 
construction and operation of the facility, the contract will be 
terminated.
    Also, DOE negotiated the INEEL Site Treatment Plan (STP) with the 
State of Idaho to meet the requirements of the Federal Facility 
Compliance Act (FFCA). The STP includes a schedule for constructing a 
treatment facility(ies) for TRU waste and alpha LLMW that is consistent 
with the milestones in the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order.

Alternatives Considered

    DOE analyzed four alternatives in the EIS, including the No Action 
Alternative, the Preferred Alternative, the Non-Thermal Treatment 
Alternative, and the Treatment and Storage Alternative. Under all four 
alternatives, the Department would continue with preparations at 
existing INEEL facilities to ship 3,100 cubic meters of TRU waste out 
of Idaho under the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order. The alternatives 
are summarized below.

Preferred Alternative

    The Preferred Alternative provides for construction and operation 
of the AMWTP facility in accordance with DOE's contract with BNFL Inc. 
The AMWTP facility will treat waste to WIPP WAC, TSCA, and RCRA LDR 
requirements and standards, as applicable. The waste treatment 
processes analyzed in the Preferred Alternative are supercompaction, 
macroencapsulation, incineration, and microencapsulation (see Figure 
1). The facility will have sufficient operating capacity to treat 
approximately 6,500 cubic meters of waste per year. This would 
accommodate the treatment of 65,000 cubic meters of INEEL waste by 2015 
as required by the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order, and up to 
120,000 cubic meters of additional waste from the INEEL or other DOE 
sites by 2033. Treatment of 65,000 cubic meters of INEEL waste would 
result in approximately 30,000 cubic meters (containerized volume) of 
waste for offsite disposal. This alternative will allow DOE to satisfy 
negotiated agreements and commitments and meet regulatory requirements 
under RCRA and TSCA.
    The Preferred Alternative is consistent with DOE's planning 
objectives and decisions as documented in the 1995 Record of Decision 
for the Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management 
and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and 
Waste Management Programs (60 Federal Register 28680, June 1, 1995). 
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative is also consistent with the 
Record of Decision for the Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste 
Pursuant to the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement (63 Federal Register 3629, January 23, 1998). In that Record 
of Decision, the Department decided to ``develop and operate mobile and 
fixed facilities to characterize and prepare TRU waste for disposal at 
WIPP'' and that ``each of the DOE's sites that has, or will generate, 
TRU waste will, as needed, prepare and store its TRU waste on site . . 
. prior to disposal.''

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 16950]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AP99.006



BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 16951]]

No Action Alternative

    Under this alternative, ongoing TRU waste, alpha LLMW, and LLMW 
management operations and projects would continue and existing 
facilities at the INEEL RWMC would remain in use. Waste would be 
retrieved from the earthen-covered berm, and placed in RCRA compliant 
storage facilities. These actions have been analyzed and would proceed 
as described in the Environmental Assessment for the Retrieval and Re-
storage of Transuranic Storage Area Waste at the Idaho National 
Engineering Laboratory (DOE/EA-0692). Waste would be shipped to WIPP or 
another appropriate facility, but only as could be supported by 
existing INEEL facilities. Waste that could not meet the appropriate 
receiving facility WAC would remain in storage in the RCRA storage 
modules at the RWMC indefinitely.
    The No Action Alternative was not selected because it would not 
provide appropriate long-term environmental protection (i.e., it would 
not destroy any of the hazardous organic components of the waste and 
would not permanently isolate all the wastes from the environment). The 
No Action Alternative would not comply with the Settlement Agreement/
Consent Order, RCRA, TSCA, or with the INEEL STP, and is not consistent 
with long-range DOE planning and decisions DOE has made in previous 
Records of Decision. Specifically, in the 1995 Record of Decision 
Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and 
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and 
Waste Management Programs DOE decided: ``The INEL will construct 
treatment facilities necessary to comply with the Federal Facility 
Compliance Act. Treatment of transuranic waste at a minimum will be for 
the purpose of meeting waste acceptance criteria for disposal at Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant and will occur on a schedule to be negotiated 
with the State of Idaho.'' Additionally, in the 1995 Record of 
Decision, the Department decided to make future decisions regarding 
planned waste treatment projects (i.e., Private Sector Alpha-
Contaminated Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment and Idaho Waste Processing 
Facility) at the INEEL pending further project definition, funding 
priorities, or appropriate review under NEPA. The AMWTP EIS tiers from 
the Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and 
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and 
Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/
EIS-0203-F) and provides both site-specific environmental impact 
analysis and the required NEPA review.

Non-Thermal Treatment Alternative

    Under this alternative, the AMWTP facility would be constructed 
without the capability to incinerate waste or microencapsulate 
incinerator ash. Only supercompaction and macroencapsulation would be 
used to treat wastes. Wastes requiring thermal treatment to meet 
disposal criteria (e.g., PCBs) would be repackaged and stored until a 
treatment option is developed or identified and evaluated under NEPA. 
The AMWTP facility construction schedule would be the same as for the 
Preferred Alternative. All waste that could be treated to meet WIPP WAC 
without incineration would be prepared for shipment to WIPP. Operation 
of the facility would continue until 2015, when DOE expects the need 
for it to end. Under this alternative, the 65,000 cubic meters of INEEL 
waste would be non-thermally treated. Approximately 23,000 to 29,000 
cubic meters of waste would be shipped from the INEEL for disposal and 
approximately 8,000 to 14,000 cubic meters of containerized waste would 
remain in storage indefinitely at the RWMC.
    DOE considers this alternative to be less desirable than the 
Preferred Alternative because it would not result in destruction of any 
of the hazardous organic components of the waste or the PCBs, and some 
waste would be stored indefinitely at INEEL. The Non-Thermal Treatment 
Alternative would not allow full compliance with the Settlement 
Agreement/Consent Order, RCRA, or with the INEEL STP. This alternative 
would not be consistent with DOE long-range plans or with decisions 
made in the 1995 Record of Decision regarding the construction at INEEL 
of treatment facilities necessary to comply with the FFCA STP.

Treatment and Storage Alternative

    Under this alternative, the AMWTP construction and operation, 
including the treatment processes implemented, would be the same as for 
the Preferred Alternative. The difference is that the treated waste 
(approximately 30,000 cubic meters) would be stored at the RWMC rather 
than shipped offsite for disposal. This alternative was evaluated as a 
contingency to analyze the long-term environmental impacts of storing 
the treated waste at the RWMC in the event that WIPP or another 
appropriate offsite facility is unable to receive or dispose of INEEL 
treated waste. Waste from other DOE sites could still come to the AMWTP 
for treatment. In accordance with the INEEL STP, such offsite wastes 
would be accepted at the AMWTP facility for treatment and treated waste 
would be returned to the generator.
    The Treatment and Storage Alternative is less desirable than the 
Preferred Alternative because (1) it would not comply with the 
Settlement Agreement/Consent Order (i.e., waste would not be shipped 
out of Idaho) and (2) it is not consistent with DOE's long-range plans 
to dispose of this waste.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    In identifying the Environmentally Preferable Alternative, DOE 
considered both near-term and long-term human health and environmental 
impacts. Certain alternatives would result in smaller near-term 
potential impacts but continued potential for long-term impacts, while 
other alternatives would result in larger near-term potential impacts 
but smaller long-term potential impacts.
    The AMWTP EIS analyzed a number of potential environmental impacts, 
including those to human health, air and water, ecological resources, 
environmental justice, land use, and site infrastructure under each of 
the alternatives. The analysis showed little difference in potential 
impacts among the alternatives analyzed. Nonetheless, all potential 
impacts identified were considered in DOE's decision, and in the 
identification of the Environmentally Preferable Alternative.
    For the projected 30-year period of AMWTP facility operations 
analyzed in the EIS, the short-term potential environmental impacts of 
the action alternatives would be slightly greater than the No Action 
Alternative. In the long-term, the potential impacts to health and the 
environment would be the greatest under the No Action Alternative. Over 
the long-term wastes could be released to the environment if the 
storage containers degrade. Additionally, it is reasonable to expect 
that some treatment or preparation for disposal will still be needed at 
some time in the future, and the risks associated with long-term 
storage and the loss of institutional control remain.
    The Preferred Alternative and the Treatment and Storage Alternative 
would result in the largest (although small) potential near-term 
impacts to air quality, public health and worker risk. Both the 
Preferred Alternative and the Treatment and Storage Alternative would 
render all the waste suitable for disposal at WIPP or another 
appropriate facility. The Preferred Alternative

[[Page 16952]]

would result in the least potential long-term impacts to the local 
environment because the treated waste would leave the INEEL.
    The Non-Thermal Treatment Alternative would result in smaller near-
term potential impacts to air quality than the Preferred Alternative 
and the Treatment and Storage Alternative, but more than the No Action 
Alternative. Under the Non-Thermal Treatment Alternative, there would 
be less potential health risk over the short term, but a portion of the 
RCRA waste (i.e., hazardous organic wastes) and all of the PCB waste 
would remain in storage at the INEEL indefinitely. The long-term 
potential impacts of indefinite storage under the Non-Thermal Treatment 
Alternative are smaller than the No Action Alternative but larger than 
the Preferred Alternative. If the wastes were not isolated from the 
environment in a disposal facility, they could enter the environment 
and impact public health and the environment via the air or groundwater 
pathways.
    In conclusion, the potential short-term environmental impacts from 
any of the action alternatives are small. The Preferred Alternative 
results in the least long-term potential impacts and is the only 
alternative that meets all regulatory and legal commitments. In 
addition, the Preferred Alternative is also consistent with DOE's long-
range plans to dispose of this waste. DOE therefore believes that the 
Preferred Alternative is the Environmentally Preferable Alternative.

Mitigation

    DOE is committed to operating the INEEL in compliance with all 
applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, departmental orders, 
permits and compliance agreements. Volume 1, Section 5.19 of the AMWTP 
EIS presents an overview of the mitigation measures that will be taken 
to minimize the risks associated with the construction and operation of 
the proposed AMWTP facility (e.g., watering of soil for dust control, 
strong ``Stop Work'' stipulations in the event that cultural resources 
or human remains are discovered, and runoff control). DOE considers 
these to be routine mitigation measures that do not require a 
mitigation action plan to be prepared (see 10 CFR 1021.331(a)).

Decision

    DOE selects the Preferred Alternative of the AMWTP EIS (construct 
and operate an AMWTP facility at the INEEL in accordance with DOE's 
contract with BNFL Inc). DOE will treat 65,000 cubic meters of INEEL 
waste for offsite disposal and could treat up to 120,000 cubic meters 
of additional waste from the INEEL or other DOE sites.
    DOE anticipates that construction of the AMWTP facility will begin 
during the 1999 construction season. Under the Settlement Agreement/
Consent Order, construction of the AMWTP facility will be completed by 
December 31, 2002, and operation of the facility will begin by March 
31, 2003.
    The AMWTP treatment contract requires 65 percent volume reduction 
and compliance with RCRA LDR standards, TSCA requirements, and the WIPP 
WAC, as applicable. The facility and equipment will be capable of 
processing up to 85,000 cubic meters of waste in the first 13 years of 
operation. The Preferred Alternative as analyzed in the EIS includes 
the treatment processes of supercompaction, macroencapsulation, 
incineration, and microencapsulation. The potential exists that not all 
of these treatment processes will be used because future changes in 
disposal requirements might necessitate changes in treatment processes, 
with resulting modifications to contract specifications. Other changes 
or substitutions to the proposed processes may occur, provided the 
performance requirements specified in the contract are met. For 
example, although vitrification originally was analyzed in the EIS for 
the treatment of incinerator ash, it is no longer being considered as a 
treatment process. Any proposed substitution or major change in a 
treatment process would be evaluated where appropriate under NEPA.
    DOE made this decision after considering the following factors 
associated with the Preferred Alternative:
     public comments on the EIS;
     a small potential for short-term environmental impacts;
     a waste form that will be ready for disposal at WIPP or 
another appropriate disposal facility;
     if WIPP or another appropriate disposal facility is unable 
to receive and dispose of INEEL waste, the treated waste will be in a 
form that would minimize potential impacts to the public and the 
environment during storage;
     consistency with DOE policy and previous decisions;
     compliance with negotiated agreements and commitments 
(e.g. Settlement Agreement/Consent Order) and regulatory requirements 
under RCRA and TSCA;
     smallest long-term potential impacts from continued 
management of this waste;
     cost effectiveness as shown in the AMWTP EIS Alternatives 
Cost Study; and
     use of commercially available, proven technologies.
    After consideration of all relevant information and data, DOE has 
decided to implement the Preferred Alternative.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. this 22nd day of March 1999.
James M. Owendoff,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 99-8606 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P