[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 165 (Thursday, August 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46661-46663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22149]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste 
Management Program: Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has decided to store 
immobilized high-level radioactive waste (HLW), at three DOE-owned 
sites (the Hanford Site in the State of Washington, the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site 
in South Carolina) and one DOE-managed site (the West Valley 
Demonstration Project in New

[[Page 46662]]

York, a project that is managed by DOE under the West Valley 
Demonstration Project Act, at a site owned by the State of New York). 
Immobilized HLW is a final waste form that will remain in storage until 
accepted for disposal at a geologic repository. This decision is based 
on the Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement (WM PEIS).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the WM PEIS and this Record 
of Decision (ROD) 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 ROD 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 ROD, or a list of the reading rooms and public 
libraries, please write or call: 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 the WM PEIS or this ROD, please write or 
call: Ms. Karen Guevara, WM PEIS Program Manager, Office of Planning 
and Analysis (EM-35), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Environmental Management, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874, 
telephone: 301-903-4981.
    For general information on the DOE National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) process, please write or call: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, 
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. 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 1-800-472-2756.

Supplementary Information:

Background

    The Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
(WM PEIS), DOE/EIS-0200F, issued in May 1997, studied the potential 
nation-wide impacts of managing four types of radioactive waste (low-
level waste, mixed low-level waste, transuranic waste, high-level waste 
(HLW)) and hazardous waste generated by defense and research activities 
at 54 sites around the United States. Two Records of Decision (RODs) 
have been issued, based in part on the analyses in the WM PEIS. These 
are the transuranic waste treatment and storage ROD (63 FR 3629, 
January 23, 1998) and the non-wastewater hazardous waste treatment ROD 
(63 FR 41810, August 5, 1998). The ROD for low-level and mixed low-
level waste treatment and disposal is expected to be issued shortly.
    The WM PEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of broad 
alternatives for DOE's waste management program, and was designed to 
provide part of the basis for DOE to decide upon a programmatic 
configuration of sites for waste management activities. In addition, 
DOE will perform site-wide or project-specific NEPA reviews, as needed, 
to more specifically analyze site-specific waste management activities, 
consistent with the selected programmatic approach. Those reviews 
provide more focused analysis, including specific storage facility 
capacities and design parameters. DOE will not decide the specific 
location of any new facilities at sites selected to store HLW, or 
specific facility capacities and designs, until the completion of these 
follow-on NEPA reviews.
    This ROD applies only to the storage of immobilized HLW as analyzed 
in the WM PEIS. DOE prepared this ROD in accordance with NEPA (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality's 
regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and DOE's 
NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021).

High-Level Waste Storage

    HLW is the highly radioactive waste resulting from the reprocessing 
of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in 
reprocessing and any solid material derived from the liquid waste that 
contains fission products in sufficient concentrations, and other 
highly radioactive material that is determined, consistent with 
existing law, to require permanent isolation (DOE Order 435.1, 
Radioactive Waste Management, July 1999). In Chapter 9 of the WM PEIS, 
DOE analyzed alternatives for the storage of HLW, immobilized to a 
final form, that has been or will be generated at three DOE-owned 
sites: the Hanford Site in Washington, the Idaho National Environmental 
Engineering Laboratory (INEEL), and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in 
South Carolina, as well as at the West Valley Demonstration Project 
(WVDP) in New York. The State of New York retains title to the WVDP 
site and the stored HLW, but the waste has been treated by DOE pursuant 
to the West Valley Demonstration Project Act. Discussion and agreement 
with the State of New York would be necessary if DOE were to move the 
HLW canisters to another site.
    For all four sites, DOE needs to decide where to store the 
immobilized HLW until its acceptance for disposal at a geologic 
repository managed by DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. The Department is preparing an EIS on a proposal to 
construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic 
repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada for the disposal of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Department plans to 
distribute the draft Yucca Mountain EIS in August of 1999 for public 
comment, and issue the Final EIS in the Fall of 2000. If Yucca Mountain 
were eventually approved as the site of the nation's first geologic 
repository, DOE intends to dispose high-level radioactive waste there. 
For the HLW at Hanford, WVDP, and SRS, DOE has already selected 
borosilicate glass poured into stainless steel canisters as the final 
waste form. No decision on a final immobilized waste form has yet been 
made for the HLW at INEEL but DOE is currently preparing the Idaho 
High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition at the INEEL EIS (DOE/EIS-
02870) which will evaluate the environmental impacts associated with 
alternative strategies for treatment, storage, and disposal (including 
the waste form) of high-level and associated radioactive wastes at the 
site, including offsite treatment options.

Alternatives Considered for Storage of Immobilized High-Level Waste

    In the WM PEIS, the term ``alternative'' generally refers to a 
nationwide configuration of sites for treating, storing, or disposing 
of a waste type. In the case of HLW, however, the analysis did not 
include the impacts of storing non-immobilized HLW, treating HLW, or 
disposing of HLW. The following summarizes the alternatives DOE 
analyzed for immobilized HLW storage.
    No Action Alternative. A no action or ``status quo'' alternative 
may not comply with applicable laws and regulations; however, analysis 
of such an alternative is required under NEPA regulations, and provides 
an environmental baseline against which the impacts of other 
alternatives can be compared. Selection of the No Action Alternative, 
in this case, would involve using only currently existing or approved 
HLW storage facilities at DOE sites. Immobilized HLW canisters would be 
stored at Hanford, SRS, and WVDP until transfer to a geologic 
repository managed by DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. HLW at INEEL would be stored as a solidified calcine 
material (a dry noncorrosive

[[Page 46663]]

granular solid) or as liquids, until its final disposition is 
determined. Because sufficient storage capacity for the projected 
number of HLW canisters is not already existing or approved at Hanford 
and SRS, immobilization activities would have to be interrupted or 
delayed, based on the rate at which a repository could accept the 
immobilized HLW.
    Decentralized Alternative. Selection of this alternative would 
result in storing HLW, immobilized to a final form, where it was 
generated or will be generated in the future. The activities that 
differentiate the Decentralized Alternative from the No Action 
Alternative would be the siting, construction and operation of new 
storage facilities or the modification of existing storage facilities 
at some sites. Hanford, SRS, and WVDP would store immobilized HLW 
canisters, and INEEL would store HLW in a final immobilized form, yet 
to be determined, until transfer to a geologic repository. This was 
designated as the preferred alternative in the WM PEIS.
    Regionalized Alternatives. Two alternatives were considered for 
regionalized storage of immobilized HLW. Under Regionalized Alternative 
1, immobilized HLW canisters would be stored at Hanford and SRS, 
immobilized HLW canisters from WVDP would be transported to SRS, and 
HLW at INEEL would be stored there after immobilization until the HLW 
is accepted at a geologic repository. Under Regionalized Alternative 2, 
HLW canisters would be stored at Hanford and SRS, HLW canisters from 
WVDP would be transported to Hanford, and immobilized INEEL HLW would 
be stored there until transfer to a geologic repository.
    Centralized Alternative. Immobilized HLW from INEEL, and HLW 
canisters from WVDP and SRS would be transported to Hanford where all 
of the HLW would be stored with Hanford HLW canisters until transfer to 
a geologic repository.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Table 9.16-1 in the Final WM PEIS summarizes the key impacts that 
may be associated with storage of immobilized HLW. This table 
quantifies potential worker health risks, transportation risks, and 
costs for the various HLW alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS. Chapter 
9 details additional HLW impact areas analyzed in the WM PEIS, 
including cultural resource and environmental justice concerns. All of 
these impacts were considered in identifying environmentally preferable 
alternatives and in making this waste storage decision.
    The potential health and environmental impacts for all immobilized 
HLW storage alternatives are generally low. Differences among the 
alternatives are small, but the No Action, Decentralized (the preferred 
option), and Regionalized 1 Alternatives have 1-2 fewer estimated 
potential fatalities, over twenty years, than the Regionalized 2 and 
Centralized Alternatives (total fatalities are estimated to range from 
8 to 10 among each of the five alternatives.) Under the No Action 
Alternative, however, immobilization of large quantities of HLW to a 
stable, durable form would be delayed or interrupted, posing an 
environmentally undesirable condition. Environmental impacts of the 
Decentralized and Regionalized 1 Alternatives are essentially 
comparable; however, the need for additional construction of a larger 
facility under the Regionalized 1 Alternative makes the Decentralized 
Alternative marginally more environmentally preferable. Additionally, 
under the Decentralized Alternative, immobilized HLW would need to be 
loaded and unloaded for transportation purposes less often, compared to 
the other action alternatives, thereby reducing worker radiological 
exposure. None of the alternatives would pose environmental justice 
concerns.

Decision: Storage of High-Level Waste

    The Department has selected the Decentralized Alternative, to store 
immobilized HLW in a final form at the site of generation--Hanford, 
INEEL, SRS, or WVDP--until transfer to a geologic repository.
    This decision is the same as the WM PEIS preferred alternative. The 
decision allows use of existing immobilized HLW storage capacity at SRS 
and WVDP, and use of the previously decided, almost complete Canister 
Storage Building at Hanford, which will provide partial storage for its 
immobilized HLW. This approach also reduces environmental impacts that 
would result from constructing larger storage facilities that would be 
needed under the Regionalized and Centralized Alternatives.
    Although transportation-related fatalities are essentially the same 
for all the alternatives, the Decentralized Alternative results in 
reduced immobilized HLW loading and unloading operations for 
transportation purposes, as compared to the other action alternatives. 
Additionally, transportation-related administrative considerations 
involving the need for notification and emergency preparedness 
training, and public concerns in transportation corridor states, 
weighed in favor of the Decentralized Alternative when compared to the 
Regionalized and Centralized Alternatives.
    DOE also considered uncertainties about the timing of accepting HLW 
at a geologic repository. Stakeholders and local governments have 
expressed concerns that sites may store immobilized HLW for much longer 
periods than the Department's plans currently indicate. The 
Department's selection of the Decentralized Alternative apportions the 
amount of such HLW to be stored according to the quantity of HLW 
generated at each site.

Mitigation

    Although a mitigation action plan is not required because no non-
routine mitigation commitments are being made, 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 routine mitigation measures that DOE will continue to use in 
its management of radioactive waste are:
     Modifying engineering facility designs to reduce or 
eliminate risk or impacts;
     Implementing strict and mandatory safety programs for all 
facility workers;
     Using safety analyses to establish safety limits within 
which facilities can operate, while limiting risks and adequately 
protecting the environment; and
     Reviewing and modifying, as appropriate, existing 
emergency action plans at DOE sites to ensure appropriate response to 
accidents or other emergencies.
    Site-specific, non-routine mitigation measures may also be 
identified and implemented in the course of further decision-making 
under site-specific NEPA reviews.

    Issued in Washington, DC this 12th day of August, 1999.
Carolyn L. Huntoon,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 99-22149 Filed 8-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P