[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10061-10066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4439]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste 
Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed 
Low-Level Waste; Amendment of the Record of Decision for the Nevada 
Test Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: For the management of low-level waste (LLW) analyzed in the 
Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM 
PEIS), the Department of Energy (DOE) has decided to perform minimum 
treatment at all sites and continue, to the extent practicable, 
disposal of on-site LLW at the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the Los Alamos National Laboratory 
(LANL) in New Mexico, the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) in Tennessee, and 
the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. In addition, the 
Department has decided to make the Hanford Site in Washington and the 
Nevada Test Site (NTS) available to all DOE sites for LLW disposal. 
INEEL and SRS also will continue to dispose of LLW generated by the 
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. For the management of mixed low-level 
waste (MLLW) analyzed in the WM PEIS, the Department has decided to 
treat MLLW at the Hanford Site, INEEL, ORR and SRS, and to dispose of 
MLLW at the Hanford Site and NTS. The Department also has decided to 
amend its 1996 ROD for the NTS Environmental Impact Statement, to 
implement the Expanded Use Alternative for waste management activities 
at NTS.
    The Department acknowledges the impacts this decision will have in 
the States of Nevada and Washington, which will continue their role in 
supporting the nation's goal to clean up the nuclear weapons complex, 
much as they supported the nation's nuclear weapons program. This 
decision enables the Department to integrate waste management 
activities among sites to promote expeditious, compliant, and cost 
effective cleanup.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the Final WM PEIS and this 
Record of Decision (ROD) are available in DOE public reading rooms and 
selected libraries located across the United States; the WM PEIS also 
is available on the internet at www.osti.gov/bridge (select ``Advanced 
Search,'' go to the box labeled ``Select Field'' and scroll down to 
``Identifying Number,'' then key in ``DOE/EIS-0200-F''). A list of the 
public reading rooms can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.em.doe.gov under ``Publications'' and then ``List of 
Publications.'' To request copies of the WM PEIS, this ROD, or a list 
of the reading rooms and public libraries, contact: 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 information on the WM PEIS or this ROD, contact: Ms. Karen 
Guevara, WM PEIS Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Environmental Management, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874; 
telephone 301-903-4981.
    For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) process, contact: 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 WM PEIS (DOE/EIS-0200F), issued in May 1997, studied the 
potential nation-wide impacts of managing four types of radioactive 
waste (LLW, MLLW, transuranic waste, and high-level waste) and non-
wastewater hazardous waste generated by defense and research activities 
at 54 sites around the United States. 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 decisions on programmatic configurations of sites for waste 
management activities. WM PEIS analyses include evaluating potential 
impacts associated with transporting wastes by truck and by rail.
    Three RODs have been issued under the WM PEIS. These are the 
transuranic waste ROD (63 FR 3629, January 23, 1998), the non-
wastewater hazardous waste ROD (63 FR 41810, August 5, 1998), and the 
high-level waste ROD (64 FR 46661, August 26, 1999).
    This ROD applies only to the treatment and disposal of LLW and MLLW 
as analyzed in the WM PEIS.\1\ DOE prepared this ROD in accordance with 
NEPA (42 U.S.C. Sec. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ After the Final WM PEIS was issued in May 1997, DOE issued 
``Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure.'' In that document, DOE 
provided estimates of waste volumes that would result from the 
planned operations and accelerated cleanup processes at DOE sites. 
Because some of the estimates differed from those provided in the WM 
PEIS, DOE examined the LLW and MLLW volumes to determine if the 
updated volume estimates constitute significant new information 
relevant to environmental concerns that would warrant preparation of 
a supplemental EIS or a new PEIS. This examination extended only to 
LLW and MLLW volumes, because the transuranic, hazardous and high-
level waste volume estimates did not change from those analyzed in 
the Final WM PEIS.
    The treatment and disposal site locations were chosen based on 
factors that would not be affected by the changed waste volume 
estimates. Waste volume considerations could have influenced the 
choice of treatment and disposal sites only if the estimated volume 
of LLW, the estimated volume of MLLW, or the expected nationwide 
distribution of waste had changed dramatically, none of which 
occurred. Therefore, DOE has concluded that its decisionmaking 
process for LLW and MLLW can proceed without preparing a 
supplemental EIS or a new PEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions of LLW and MLLW

    Low-Level Waste is all radioactive waste not classified as high-
level waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product 
tailings containing uranium or thorium from processed ore (as defined 
in Section 11(e)2 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [42 U.S.C. 2011 et 
seq.]), and not classified as hazardous waste under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Test specimens of fissionable 
material irradiated for research and development only, and not for the 
production of power or plutonium, may be classified as LLW provided 
that the concentration of transuranics is less than 100 nanocuries per 
gram. Since the World War II Manhattan Project, DOE and its predecessor 
agencies have generated LLW from a variety of activities, including 
weapons production, nuclear reactor operations, environmental 
restoration activities, and research.
    Mixed Low-Level Waste is managed according to requirements 
established under RCRA for hazardous waste and the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954 for its radioactive components. The hazardous

[[Page 10062]]

component of MLLW is subject either to Environmental Protection Agency 
regulations promulgated under RCRA or State hazardous waste regulations 
promulgated under RCRA. DOE has generated MLLW as a result of research, 
development, production of nuclear weapons, and environmental 
restoration activities.

Alternatives Considered for Treatment and Disposal of LLW and MLLW

    In the WM PEIS, the term ``alternative'' generally refers to a 
nationwide configuration of sites for treating, storing, or disposing 
of a waste type. The WM PEIS analyzed No Action, Decentralized, 
Regionalized, and Centralized Alternatives for LLW and MLLW treatment 
and disposal. As shown in Tables 3.4-2 and 3.6-2 for LLW, and Tables 
3.4-1 and 3.6-1 for MLLW, the number of sites considered for treatment 
and disposal of LLW and MLLW under the action alternatives is greatest 
for the Decentralized Alternatives and fewest for the Centralized 
Alternatives. The WM PEIS action alternatives for LLW and MLLW did not 
include storage alternatives; LLW and MLLW will be stored at the site 
where they are generated until they are treated and disposed of.
    For LLW treatment, in addition to these categories of alternatives, 
the WM PEIS evaluated two treatment approaches: minimum treatment and 
volume reduction. Minimum treatment is defined as the least amount of 
LLW treatment required to allow either on-site disposal or 
transportation to another site for disposal. Minimum LLW treatment 
includes basic handling, packaging, and solidification of liquid and 
fine particulate LLW. Therefore, in all LLW alternatives, all sites 
with LLW perform at least minimum treatment on all of their LLW, 
regardless of whether the waste is further treated using volume 
reduction methods and regardless of whether the waste is to be disposed 
of on-site or at another site. For volume reduction, the WM PEIS 
analyzed thermal treatment (e.g., incineration), compaction, and size 
reduction (e.g., shredding) to decrease the volume of LLW needing 
disposal.
    For MLLW treatment, the WM PEIS analyzed thermal treatment (e.g., 
incineration), separations processes, evaporation, and solidification 
(e.g., grouting) to meet RCRA land disposal restrictions.
    The following summarizes the alternatives that DOE analyzed for 
treatment and disposal of LLW and MLLW.
    No Action Alternative. For each waste type, the WM PEIS analyzed a 
single ``no action'' alternative involving the use of currently 
existing or planned waste management facilities at DOE sites. Although 
the no action (or ``status quo'') alternative may not comply with 
applicable laws and regulations, 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. Under 
the No Action Alternative for LLW, LLW would be treated using existing 
facilities and then disposed of at the six existing DOE LLW disposal 
sites as follows: INEEL, LANL, and ORR would each dispose of its own 
LLW; and the Hanford Site, NTS, and SRS would each dispose of its own 
waste and waste from specific DOE sites. Under the No Action 
Alternative for MLLW, no new facilities would be constructed, not all 
MLLW would be treated to meet RCRA land disposal restrictions, and MLLW 
would be placed in indefinite storage.
    Decentralized Alternative. For each waste type, the WM PEIS 
analyzed a single decentralized alternative for treating and disposing 
of waste at a large number (16) of DOE sites. Unlike the ``no action'' 
alternative, a decentralized alternative may require the siting, 
construction and operation of new facilities or the modification of 
existing facilities. Under the LLW Decentralized Alternative, as shown 
in Table 7.3-2, LLW would undergo only minimum treatment at all DOE 
waste generating sites and would be disposed of at 16 DOE sites. Under 
the MLLW Decentralized Alternative, as shown in Table 6.3-2, MLLW would 
be treated on-site at DOE waste generating sites and would be disposed 
of at 16 DOE sites.
    Regionalized Alternatives. For each waste type, the WM PEIS 
analyzed several alternatives to consolidate waste management 
activities by transporting wastes to fewer sites for treatment or 
disposal. For LLW, the WM PEIS analyzed seven Regionalized 
Alternatives, with volume reduction treatment at 11 or fewer DOE sites, 
followed by disposal at up to 12 sites. For MLLW, the WM PEIS analyzed 
four Regionalized Alternatives, ranging from treatment at 37 DOE sites 
to treatment at only four sites, followed by disposal at 12, six or a 
single DOE site.
    Centralized Alternatives. For each waste type, the WM PEIS analyzed 
one or more alternatives for consolidating waste management activities 
at a small number of centralized sites for treatment or disposal. For 
LLW, the WM PEIS analyzed five Centralized Alternatives, with volume 
reduction treatment at seven sites or at a single site, followed by 
disposal at a single site. For MLLW, the WM PEIS analyzed one 
Centralized Alternative, with MLLW treatment and disposal occurring at 
a single site.
    Preferred Alternatives. The WM PEIS identified preferred 
alternatives using criteria established (after considering public 
comments) in Section 1.7.3 of the Final WM PEIS. For LLW treatment, DOE 
identified its preferred alternative to be minimum treatment of LLW at 
all sites that generate LLW (the Decentralized Alternative). For MLLW 
treatment, DOE identified its preferred alternative to be a combination 
of regionalized and decentralized alternatives, consisting of treatment 
at the Hanford Site, INEEL, ORR and SRS, or on-site treatment, as would 
be consistent with Site Treatment Plans issued under the Federal 
Facility Compliance Act, Pub. L. 102-386.
    The Final WM PEIS also identified DOE's preferred alternatives for 
LLW and MLLW disposal as regional disposal at two or three disposal 
sites, to be selected from the six candidate sites at which DOE 
currently disposes of LLW or MLLW: the Hanford Site, INEEL, LANL, NTS, 
ORR, and SRS. On December 10, 1999, DOE published (64 FR 69241) a 
Notice of Preferred Alternatives announcing its preferred LLW and MLLW 
disposal sites. For LLW disposal, DOE identified its preferred 
alternative to be disposal at the Hanford Site and NTS. In addition, to 
the extent practicable and consistent with current practice, DOE would 
continue disposal of on-site LLW at INEEL, LANL, ORR, and SRS. INEEL 
and SRS also would continue to dispose of LLW generated by the Naval 
Nuclear Propulsion Program. This preferred alternative for LLW disposal 
is a combination of the preferred LLW disposal alternative identified 
in the Final WM PEIS (i.e., regionalized disposal at two sites--the 
Hanford Site and NTS) and the Decentralized Alternative described in 
the Final WM PEIS (disposal of on-site generated LLW at four sites--
INEEL, LANL, ORR, and SRS). For MLLW disposal, DOE identified its 
preferred alternative to be disposal at the Hanford Site and NTS (a 
Regionalized Alternative).

Public Comments on Preferred Alternatives and DOE Responses

    In response to the December 1999 Notice, the Department received 
eight letters as discussed below.
    The Governor of Nevada, in the context of addressing concerns about 
DOE's activities regarding Yucca Mountain (which is outside the scope 
of the WM PEIS), urged the Secretary of Energy ``to continue to assist 
the state in

[[Page 10063]]

assuring that adequate health, safety, and environmental safeguards are 
in place to ensure the safety of Nevada's citizens upon receipt of the 
additional low-level and mixed waste at the NTS.'' The ``Mitigation of 
Impacts from Treatment and Disposal of LLW and MLLW'' section of this 
ROD includes several commitments that address this request, including: 
(1) Assistance to States, Tribal and local governments, and other 
public entities concerning human health, environmental, and economic 
impacts; (2) stringent application of administrative controls, 
including disposal facility waste acceptance criteria and stable waste 
form requirements; (3) implementation of transportation planning and 
control programs to reduce transportation risk; and (4) rigorous 
quality assurance programs for the characterization of LLW and MLLW. 
Previously, the Department entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with 
the State of Nevada (July 1998) to provide State regulators with 
greater involvement in waste disposal matters.
    In a separate letter, the Nevada Department of Transportation 
indicated concern with vehicle configuration and routing as it would 
relate to safe operations on various highway systems. While the WM PEIS 
evaluated potential impacts associated with transporting wastes by 
truck and by rail (as noted in the ``Background'' section of this ROD), 
this ROD does not make transportation routing or mode decisions. In 
implementing this decision, DOE will comply with all applicable 
Department of Transportation regulations. In addition, as mentioned 
above, a later section of this ROD lists mitigation measures DOE will 
continue during LLW and MLLW treatment and disposal; two of these 
address the Nevada Department of Transportation's concern: (1) Training 
to ensure DOE and non-DOE emergency response personnel are 
knowledgeable of emergency response procedures; and (2) implementation 
of transportation planning and control programs to reduce 
transportation risk.
    The Hanford Advisory Board (one of several site-specific advisory 
boards chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act) advised that 
before off-site LLW and MLLW are imported into the Hanford Site, 
``there should be adequate opportunity for public education and 
involvement.'' The Department believes it has provided adequate 
opportunity for public education and involvement during the process of 
reaching the decisions presented in this ROD. The Department provided a 
150-day public comment period for the WM PEIS and received more than 
1,500 comments. The Final WM PEIS responded to these, including 
comments of the Hanford Advisory Board. In addition, since publication 
of the Final WM PEIS, the Department has continued to share information 
and discuss the pending decisions in various public forums. The pending 
decision was among the topics discussed in the Intersite Discussions 
convened by the League of Women Voters in the Summer of 1998 and a LLW 
Seminar sponsored by the Nevada Citizens' Advisory Board in August 
1998, both of which were attended by members of the Hanford Advisory 
Board. Further, the Department issued a September 1998 Information 
Package on Pending LLW and MLLW Disposal Decisions, which was provided 
to all site-specific advisory boards (including the Hanford Advisory 
Board), and others.
    In a separate letter, the Hanford Advisory Board also advised that 
no off-site wastes be disposed of in LLW burial grounds on the Hanford 
Site until regulators determine whether waste previously disposed of 
there has been accurately characterized as LLW and not MLLW. This site-
specific implementation issue is beyond the scope of the WM PEIS. 
However, DOE will consult with regulators to determine an appropriate 
course of action.
    An individual from Washington State stated that DOE was in 
violation of NEPA when it named preferred disposal sites because the 
May 1997 WM PEIS only covered LLW and MLLW treatment. In fact, however, 
the WM PEIS analyzed both treatment and disposal of LLW and MLLW.
    The State of Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration 
noted its support of the Department's stated preferences for LLW and 
MLLW disposal and offered no further comments. The State of Missouri 
Office of Administration stated that the agency had completed its 
review and had no comments or recommendations to offer. A letter from 
the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources provided no comments 
or recommendations on the December 1999 notice.
    Upon consideration of comments received during the WM PEIS public 
comment period and, as detailed above, on the December 1999 notice, the 
Department has reached the following decisions for LLW and MLLW 
treatment and disposal.

LLW Treatment

    Tables 7.16-1 and 7.16-2 in the Final WM PEIS compare alternatives 
with respect to the treatment of LLW. In general, the tables present 
estimates of potential worker and off-site population fatalities, the 
ability of sites to meet air and groundwater quality standards, and 
costs for the various LLW alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS. Chapter 
7 also discusses other types of LLW impacts, including cultural 
resource and environmental justice concerns. All of the environmental 
factors were considered in identifying environmentally preferable 
alternatives and in making the decision stated below.
    Environmentally Preferable Alternatives: For LLW treatment, seven 
of the alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS (the Decentralized, 
Regionalized 1, 3, 6 and 7, and Centralized 1 and 2 Alternatives) would 
result in similarly low environmental impacts and are the 
environmentally preferable LLW treatment alternatives. These 
alternatives involve only minimum treatment (as defined earlier), and 
thus would result in the fewest potential worker fatalities. No 
alternative would present environmental justice concerns. None of these 
alternatives would result in off-site transportation risks for 
treatment, because each site would treat its own waste on-site.
    Decision: The Department has decided to implement the Preferred 
Alternative specified in the Final WM PEIS for the treatment of LLW. 
Under this decision, each site will perform minimum treatment on its 
LLW, although each site may perform additional treatment as would be 
useful to decrease overall costs. This decision does not preclude DOE's 
use of commercial treatment facilities, consistent with current DOE 
orders and policy.
    Basis for Decision: DOE has decided to pursue minimum treatment as 
its overall strategy for LLW treatment because volume reduction would 
not offer sufficient benefits to offset the increase in human health 
effects and costs it would entail. All DOE sites with LLW must perform 
at least minimum treatment on all of their LLW, regardless of whether 
the waste is further treated using volume reduction methods. A 
programmatic volume reduction treatment strategy would pose greater 
worker hazards, because workers would be exposed to risks from 
additional treatment processes. The analyses did not demonstrate that 
these more immediate worker risks would be offset by corresponding 
long-term human health or environmental risk reduction due to volume 
reduction. Volume reduction also could pose additional transportation 
impacts; because not all

[[Page 10064]]

sites have volume reduction treatment facilities, some LLW would have 
to be shipped for treatment. Finally, volume reduction would cost twice 
as much as minimum treatment, and the increased treatment costs 
generally would not be offset by potential savings from disposing of 
less waste or other benefits.

Disposal of LLW

    Tables 7.16-1 and 7.16-2 in the Final WM PEIS compare alternatives 
with respect to the disposal of LLW. In general, the tables present 
estimates of potential worker and off-site population fatalities, the 
ability of sites to meet air and groundwater quality standards, and 
costs for the various LLW alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS. Chapter 
7 also discusses other types of LLW impacts, including cultural 
resource and environmental justice concerns. All of the environmental 
factors were considered in identifying environmentally preferable 
alternatives and in making the decision stated below.
    Environmentally Preferable Alternatives: For LLW disposal, the 
Decentralized and Regionalized Alternatives pose the least 
environmental impacts and are the environmentally preferable disposal 
alternatives. The Decentralized and all Regionalized Alternatives pose 
similar transportation fatality impacts, which are lower than for the 
Centralized Alternatives. Potential fatalities from facility operation 
are low and similar for all alternatives. No alternative would present 
environmental justice concerns.
    Decision: The Department has decided to establish regional LLW 
disposal at two DOE sites: the Hanford Site and NTS. Specifically, the 
Hanford Site and NTS will each dispose of its own LLW on-site, and will 
receive and dispose of LLW that is generated and shipped (by either 
truck or rail) by other sites that meets the waste acceptance criteria. 
In addition, DOE will continue, to the extent practicable, disposal of 
on-site LLW at INEEL, LANL, ORR, and SRS. INEEL and SRS also will 
continue to dispose of LLW generated by the Naval Nuclear Propulsion 
Program.
    Use of the term ``regional'' disposal does not impose geographical 
restrictions on which DOE sites may ship waste to a disposal site; the 
term is used only to be consistent with the WM PEIS analysis of 
regionalized alternatives. This decision also does not preclude DOE's 
use of commercial disposal facilities, consistent with current DOE 
orders and policy.
    This decision is the preferred alternative that DOE announced in 
the December 1999 Notice discussed above. Under this decision, DOE will 
implement a combination of the preferred LLW disposal alternative 
identified in the Final WM PEIS (i.e., regionalized disposal at two DOE 
sites--the Hanford Site and NTS) and the Decentralized Alternative 
(disposal of on-site generated LLW at four sites --INEEL, LANL, ORR, 
and SRS).
    Basis for Decision: DOE's decision is based on low impacts to human 
health, operational flexibility, and relative implementation cost. The 
Hanford Site and NTS provide environmental safety benefits inherent to 
arid sites, where evaporation rates exceed rainfall by approximately 10 
to 1 or more. The local geology at NTS greatly restricts the potential 
for any contamination to move into the groundwater, which is located 
800 feet below the surface. Both the Hanford Site and NTS LLW disposal 
facilities have expansion capability and can dispose of a wide range of 
radionuclides. Using two disposal facilities provides operational 
flexibility to align waste streams with facility waste acceptance 
criteria and access to an alternate disposal facility should the other 
facility's operations be interrupted for any reason.

MLLW Treatment

    Tables 6.16-1 and 6.16-2 in the Final WM PEIS compare alternatives 
with respect to the treatment of MLLW. In general, the tables present 
estimates of potential worker and off-site population fatalities, the 
ability of sites to meet air and groundwater quality standards, and 
costs for the various MLLW alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS. 
Chapter 6 also discusses other types of MLLW impacts, including 
cultural resource and environmental justice concerns. All of the 
environmental factors were considered in identifying environmentally 
preferable alternatives and in making the decision stated below.
    Environmentally Preferable Alternatives: For MLLW treatment, all 
action alternatives are environmentally preferable because their 
potential environmental impacts (including transportation impacts) are 
not substantially different, are small, and present long-term benefits. 
The No Action Alternative could pose less risk than action alternatives 
to workers and communities surrounding DOE's sites for the first 20 
years. Longer-term risks from no action are likely to exceed those for 
the first 20 years, not only from continuing routine storage 
operations, but also from degradation of storage facilities and 
containers. (Under the No Action Alternative, MLLW would be 
indefinitely stored rather than disposed of.)
    Decision: DOE has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative 
specified in the Final WM PEIS for the treatment of MLLW. DOE will 
conduct regional MLLW treatment at the Hanford Site, INEEL, ORR, and 
SRS, or on-site, as would be consistent with current Site Treatment 
Plans. Current Site Treatment Plans were negotiated among DOE, the host 
state, and/or the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal 
Facility Compliance Act, and may undergo periodic renegotiation. Use of 
the term ``regional'' treatment does not impose geographical 
restrictions on which DOE sites may ship waste (by either truck or 
rail) to a given treatment site; the term is used only to be consistent 
with the WM PEIS analysis of regionalized alternatives. DOE's decision 
does not preclude DOE's use of commercial treatment facilities, 
consistent with DOE orders and policy.
    Basis for Decision: The four regional treatment sites offer unique 
treatment capabilities needed by other sites in the DOE complex. This 
decision takes advantage of infrastructure capabilities that already 
exist or have been decided upon at the Hanford Site, INEEL, ORR and 
SRS--which are capable of MLLW treatment to meet RCRA land disposal 
restrictions. The decision also avoids environmental impacts and costs 
associated with construction of new facilities.
    Potential impacts from the selected configuration are within those 
estimated for regionalized and decentralized alternatives as analyzed 
in the WM PEIS. With the appropriate project-specific NEPA review, any 
site could conduct MLLW treatment on-site. The potential environmental 
impacts of all alternatives for treatment of MLLW evaluated in the WM 
PEIS are small, with no individual alternative clearly showing the 
lowest overall impacts. The No Action Alternative is not acceptable 
because it would not meet DOE's long-term waste management goals nor 
comply with applicable RCRA requirements.

MLLW Disposal

    Tables 6.16-1 and 6.16-2 in the Final WM PEIS compare alternatives 
with respect to the disposal of MLLW. In general, the tables present 
estimates of potential worker and off-site population fatalities, the 
ability of sites to meet air and groundwater quality standards, and 
costs for the various MLLW alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS. 
Chapter 6 also discusses other types of MLLW impacts, including 
cultural resource and

[[Page 10065]]

environmental justice concerns. All of the environmental factors were 
considered in identifying environmentally preferable alternatives and 
in making the decision stated below.
    Environmentally Preferable Alternatives: For MLLW disposal, all of 
the alternatives have low and similar impacts, with Regionalized 
Alternative 3 being the environmentally preferable alternative because 
disposal would require the fewest engineered enhancements to avoid 
exceeding drinking water standards. No alternative would present 
environmental justice concerns.
    The No Action alternative is based on indefinite storage and does 
not prepare the waste for disposal, i.e., permanent isolation from the 
human environment. For the 20-year waste management period considered 
in the WM PEIS, the potential impacts under the No Action alternative 
for MLLW disposal are smaller than those identified under the action 
alternatives, and on this short-term basis, the No Action alternative 
could be considered to be the environmentally preferred alternative. 
However, the No Action alternative does not include shipment (or 
transportation impacts) of MLLW for disposal. Further, the No Action 
alternative would not protect human health and the environment from 
such long-term threats as deteriorating containers or loss of 
institutional control and cannot be considered environmentally 
preferable.
    Decision: The Department's decision is to establish regional MLLW 
disposal operations at two DOE sites: the Hanford Site and NTS. The 
Hanford Site and NTS will each dispose of its own MLLW on-site, and 
will receive and dispose of MLLW generated and shipped (by truck or 
rail) by other sites, consistent with permit conditions and other 
applicable requirements. Use of the term ``regional disposal'' does not 
impose geographical restrictions on which DOE sites may ship waste to a 
disposal site; the term is used only to be consistent with the WM PEIS 
analysis of regionalized alternatives. This decision does not preclude 
DOE's use of commercial disposal facilities, consistent with current 
DOE orders and policy. This decision is the preferred alternative that 
DOE announced in its December 10, 1999 Notice of Preferred 
Alternatives.
    Basis for Decision: DOE's decision to regionalize MLLW disposal at 
the Hanford Site and NTS is based on low impacts to human health, 
operational flexibility, and relative implementation cost. The Hanford 
Site and NTS are the only two DOE sites that have MLLW disposal 
facilities already constructed. Use of these existing facilities will 
avoid environmental impacts and costs associated with facility 
construction. Further, DOE does not foresee needing a third regional 
MLLW disposal facility for the estimated volume of MLLW to be disposed 
of during the next 20 years. Using two disposal facilities provides 
operational flexibility to align waste streams with facility waste 
acceptance criteria and access to an alternate disposal facility should 
the other facility's operations be interrupted for any reason.

Mitigation of Impacts from Treatment and Disposal of LLW and MLLW

    Chapter 12 of the WM PEIS describes measures that DOE could take to 
minimize the potential 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 disposal of LLW and 
MLLW are:
     Development and implementation of pollution prevention 
plans.
     Assistance to States, Tribal and local governments, and 
other public entities concerning human health, environmental, and 
economic impacts.
     Development of ``cleaner'' waste treatment, storage and 
disposal technologies.
     Stringent application of administrative controls, 
including disposal facility waste acceptance criteria and stable waste 
form requirements.
     Maintenance and enhancement of pollution control systems 
to reduce toxicity of air and surface water effluents.
     Reuse of existing facilities rather than construction of 
new facilities.
     Training to ensure workers understand operational safety 
limits within which a facility can operate while limiting risks and 
adequately protecting the environment.
     Training to ensure DOE and non-DOE emergency response 
personnel are knowledgeable of emergency response procedures.
     Implementation of transportation planning and control 
programs to reduce transportation risk.
     Rigorous quality assurance programs for the 
characterization of LLW and MLLW.
    These are routine mitigation measures for which a mitigation action 
plan is not required. Site-specific, non-routine mitigation measures 
may also be identified and implemented in the course of further 
decision making under site-specific NEPA reviews.

Amendment of the Record of Decision for NTS

    On December 9, 1996, DOE issued a ROD (61 FR 65551) for the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site 
Locations in the State of Nevada (NTS EIS). That ROD cited the then-
pending Final WM PEIS and stated that subsequent programmatic decisions 
``may require changes to the Waste Management Program at NTS in the 
future,'' and ``that in the interim, pending those programmatic 
decisions, DOE will maintain the current level of LLW and MLLW 
management activity as described in the No Action Alternative in the 
NTS EIS.'' For LLW, the decision meant that ``disposal of LLW will 
continue for waste streams from current [DOE approved] on-site and off-
site generators'' and that ``approval of other waste generators for 
disposal is pending future programmatic decisions.'' For MLLW, the 
decision meant that ``DOE will continue to manage MLLW which is 
currently on-site or which may be generated by DOE at NTS.''
    The NTS EIS addressed the environmental impacts of four operational 
scenarios: (1) Continue Current Operations (No Action), (2) Discontinue 
Operations, (3) Expanded Use, and (4) Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands. 
The ROD identified DOE's decision to implement a combination of 
elements of three of these alternatives. DOE decided that most 
activities would be pursued at levels described by the Expanded Use 
Alternative. In addition, DOE decided to undertake certain public 
education activities analyzed under the Alternate Use of Withdrawn 
Lands Alternative. As stated above, DOE also decided that, pending 
programmatic decisions, NTS LLW and MLLW management operations would be 
conducted under the Continue Current Operations Alternative.
    Under the Continue Current Operations Alternative, the NTS EIS 
analyzed the environmental impacts for a ten-year period of disposal of 
349,294 cubic meters of LLW in either of two Radioactive Waste 
Management Sites (Areas 3 and 5) at the NTS and 18,285 total shipments 
via legal weight trucks on public highways. Under the Expanded Use 
Alternative, the NTS EIS analyzed 1,041,422 cubic meters of LLW to be 
disposed of and 39,084 shipments. While there is a substantial 
difference in the volumes of waste and numbers of

[[Page 10066]]

shipments under the two alternatives, DOE found in the NTS EIS that the 
incremental environmental impacts associated with waste management 
activities of Expanded Use as compared to Continue Current Operations 
were negligible.
    Inasmuch as DOE is now making complex-wide decisions for its LLW 
and MLLW waste management program, which includes continuing to use the 
NTS for disposal of LLW and initiating use of the NTS for disposal of 
MLLW, as addressed in the WM PEIS, DOE is also hereby amending its 
December 9, 1996, NTS EIS ROD. DOE will implement the Expanded Use 
Alternative for waste management activities at NTS, including LLW and 
MLLW disposal. This amendment is based on the analysis in the NTS EIS 
and is tiered from the WM PEIS and the associated programmatic 
decisions for LLW and MLLW.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. this 18th day of February, 2000.
Carolyn L. Huntoon,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 00-4439 Filed 2-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P