[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48683-48688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20093]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision on Treating Transuranic (TRU)/Alpha Low-Level 
Waste at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of 
Decision (ROD) for the treatment of transuranic (TRU)/alpha low-level 
waste at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), located on the Oak 
Ridge Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. DOE has selected the Low-
Temperature Drying Alternative [the Preferred Alternative in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for Treating Transuranic (TRU)/Alpha 
Low-Level Waste at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee (DOE/EIS-0305-F, June 2000)] and will proceed with a contract 
with the Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (Foster Wheeler) to 
construct, operate, and decontaminate and decommission a TRU Waste 
Treatment Facility. The facility will use low-temperature drying to 
treat TRU mixed waste sludge and associated low-level waste supernate, 
and will treat TRU solid waste by sorting and compacting. Any solid 
waste containing hazardous constituents regulated under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) will be macroencapsulated.
    The waste to be treated is legacy waste, i.e., waste generated from 
past isotope production and research and development that supported 
national defense and energy initiatives. The legacy tank waste is 
currently being stored or consolidated in the Melton Valley Storage 
Tanks (MVSTs), and legacy solid waste is stored in bunkers, subsurface 
trenches, and metal storage buildings. Waste that would be generated 
from ongoing operations at ORNL during the operation of the TRU Waste 
Treatment Facility (expected to operate for about 5 years) will also be 
treated in the facility. DOE will dispose of the treated TRU waste at 
DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located near Carlsbad, New 
Mexico, and treated low-level waste at DOE's Nevada Test Site (NTS).
    In making its decision, DOE considered the analysis in the Final 
EIS and public comments on it. In addition, DOE considered consistency 
with previous Departmental programmatic decisions and agreements and 
the costs associated with the treatment technologies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the TRU 
Waste Treatment Project or the Final EIS, or to receive a copy of the 
Final EIS, contact: John O. Moore, Waste Operations Integration Team 
Leader, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations, 55 Jefferson 
Avenue, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831; Telephone: (865) 
576-3536. Facsimile: (865) 576-5333. E-mail: [email protected]. For 
further information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy 
and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave 
a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Since the mid-1940s, DOE and its predecessor agencies have 
generated TRU waste,\1\ alpha low-level waste,\2\ mixed waste,\3\ and 
low-level waste \4\ at ORNL during isotope production and research and 
development activities. ORNL currently manages the largest inventory of 
remote-handled TRU/alpha low-level waste \5\ in the DOE complex, and 
also manages a smaller portion of the contact-handled TRU/alpha low-
level waste.\6\ DOE is storing legacy waste at ORNL, which consists of 
about 550 cubic meters of solid remote-handled TRU/alpha low-level 
waste stored in concrete bunkers and subsurface trenches and 1,000 
cubic meters of contact-handled TRU/alpha low-level waste stored in 
metal buildings. Some of the solid TRU/alpha low-level waste containers 
may also contain mixed waste. DOE also is consolidating 900 cubic 
meters of TRU mixed waste sludge and 1,600 cubic meters of associated 
remote-handled

[[Page 48684]]

low-level waste supernate in the MVSTs at ORNL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ TRU waste is waste containing alpha-emitting radionuclides 
with an atomic number greater than 92 and half-lives greater than 20 
years, at concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of 
waste.
    \2\ Alpha low-level waste is low-level waste that contains 
alpha-emitting isotopes.
    \3\ Mixed waste contains radioactive waste regulated under the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and a hazardous component 
subject to RCRA regulation.
    \4\ Low-level waste is any radioactive waste that is not 
classified as high-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, TRU waste, 
byproduct material, or mixed waste.
    \5\ Remote-handled TRU/alpha low-level waste contains alpha-, 
beta-, and gamma-emitting isotopes with a surface dose rate greater 
than 200 millirem per hour.
    \6\ Contact-handled TRU/alpha low-level waste contains alpha-, 
beta-, and gamma-emitting isotopes with surface dose rates of 200 
millirem per hour or less.
    \6\ Contact-handled TRU/alpha low-level waste contains alpha-, 
beta-, and gamma-emitting isotopes with surface dose rates of 200 
millirem per hour or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In September 1995, the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation (TDEC) Commissioner issued an order to implement the ORNL 
Site Treatment Plan (under the Federal Facility Compliance Act) that 
mandates specific requirements for the treatment and disposal of ORNL 
TRU/alpha low-level waste and sets out specific milestones. Two primary 
milestones are: (1) The submittal of a Project Management Plan by 
September 30, 2001, which includes schedules for treatment and shipment 
off-site of the ORNL legacy TRU waste; and (2) the completion of the 
first shipment of treated TRU waste sludge to WIPP by January 2003.
    Accordingly, DOE needs to treat a total of about 4,050 cubic meters 
of legacy TRU/alpha low-level wastes in preparation for disposal of TRU 
waste at the WIPP and of low-level waste at NTS. These disposal sites 
were designated in RODs for TRU waste, for the WIPP Supplemental EIS 
and the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
(WM PEIS) (DOE-EIS-0200-F) (63 FR 3624, January 23, 1998 and 63 FR 
3629, January 23, 1998, respectively), and the ROD for low-level and 
low-level mixed waste for the WM PEIS and the amended ROD for the NTS 
Site-wide EIS (65 FR 10061, February 25, 2000).
    In accordance with the provisions of Section 216 of DOE's NEPA 
regulations (10 CFR part 1021), the Department awarded a contingent 
contract to Foster Wheeler in August of 1998 for the construction, 
operation, and decontamination and decommissioning of a TRU Waste 
Treatment Facility. Proceeding with construction, operation, and 
decontamination and decommissioning of the treatment facility under the 
contract was contingent upon DOE's completion of the NEPA review 
process and issuance of a ROD that selected the low-temperature drying 
waste treatment process proposed by Foster Wheeler. Based on the 
provisions of the contingent contract, construction of the TRU Waste 
Treatment Facility would begin in December 2000 and be completed by 
December 2002, with operation of the facility by January 2003. After 
DOE certification that the waste has been treated to meet the waste 
acceptance criteria (WAC), shipments would begin to the appropriate 
disposal facility before the end of January 2003.

II. Alternatives Analyzed in the EIS

    DOE analyzed five alternatives in the EIS, which are summarized 
below: the No Action Alternative; the Low-Temperature Drying 
Alternative (Preferred Alternative); the Vitrification Alternative; the 
Cementation Alternative; and the Treatment and Waste Storage at ORNL 
Alternative. For all the action alternatives, TRU sludge and liquid 
alpha low-level waste would be transported through an above-ground 
pipeline from the MVSTs to an onsite treatment facility. DOE would 
deliver the solid waste (casks of solid remote-handled TRU/alpha low-
level waste and drums and boxes of solid contact-handled TRU/alpha low-
level waste) to the treatment facility by truck. The treatment facility 
would be constructed, operated, and decontaminated and decommissioned 
by a contractor. Any waste not conforming to the treatment facility's 
WAC would be returned to DOE for management. TRU waste from ongoing 
operations at ORNL, generated during the operation of the TRU Waste 
Treatment Facility, would also be treated at the facility.
    DOE would require that all activities associated with the proposed 
action be performed safely and in compliance with applicable Federal 
and State regulatory requirements. The selected contractor would be 
responsible for achieving compliance with all applicable environmental, 
safety, and health laws and regulations. Regulatory agencies would be 
responsible for monitoring compliance by the contractor. The State of 
Tennessee would regulate the selected contractor according to permits 
under the State's purview (the RCRA Part B permit and the Aquatic 
Resource Alteration Permit to be issued by the State of Tennessee). DOE 
would regulate occupational safety and health and nuclear safety 
according to specific environment, safety and health requirements.

The No Action Alternative

    No treatment facility would be constructed under the No Action 
Alternative. DOE would continue to store legacy solid remote-handled 
and contract-handled TRU/alpha low-level in concrete bunkers, 
subsurface trenches, and metal buildings, and would continue to store 
legacy TRU mixed waste sludge and the associated low-level waste 
supernate in the MVSTs. For purposes of analysis, institutional control 
was assumed for 100 years, after which DOE assumed there would be a 
loss of institutional control.
    The No Action Alternative would violate RCRA regulations that 
prohibit indefinite storage of hazardous waste without treatment, 
milestones contained in the ORNL Site Treatment Plan under the Federal 
Facility Compliance Act, and the Order issued by the State of Tennessee 
regarding the treatment and shipment of TRU waste. The No Action 
Alternative would also result in the continued release of contaminants 
to the soil, ground water, and surface waters from the solid TRU/alpha 
low-level waste stored in subsurface trenches in the Solid Waste 
Storage Area (SWSA) 5 North.

The Low-Temperature Drying Alternative (Preferred Alternative in the 
Final EIS)

    Under the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative, a waste treatment 
facility would be constructed on about 5 acres of land adjoining the 
MVSTs. Supernate would be pumped from the MVSTs through an above-ground 
pipeline to tanks in the facility. A low-temperature dryer would 
receive the supernate from the facility tanks for concentration and 
drying. TRU mixed waste sludge would be retrieved from the MVSTs by 
sluicing and transferred through an above-ground pipeline to tanks in 
the facility. Gravity settling would concentrate the sludge, which 
would be transferred to the low-temperature dryer for treatment.
    All solid waste would be characterized by nondestructive 
examination and assay methods. Containers of only alpha low-level waste 
would be compacted for a 50% volume reduction. Solid TRU/alpha low-
level waste would be remotely sorted to segregate any RCRA waste. Once 
segregated, solid TRU waste would be compacted. All waste containing 
RCRA constituents would be treated by macroencapsulation to meet RCRA 
land disposal restrictions (LDR) standards.
    The duration of the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative would be 
about 11.5 years: with 2.5 years for licensing, permitting and design 
reviews; 2 years for facility construction; less than 5 years for waste 
treatment, during which treated waste would be transported to the 
appropriate disposal facility; and less than 2 years for 
decontamination and decommissioning of the treatment facility. The 
licensing, permitting, and preliminary design review process is 
currently underway. As a result of waste treatment and decontamination 
and decommissioning of the facility, about 600 cubic meters of TRU 
waste would be shipped to WIPP, and about 2,800 cubic meters of low-
level waste would be shipped to NTS.

Vitrification Alternative

    Under the Vitrification Alternative, a waste treatment facility 
would be constructed on 5 to 7 acres of land

[[Page 48685]]

adjoining the MVSTs. The waste in the MVSTs would be retrieved by 
pulsed jet mixing and transported through an above-ground pipeline to 
the treatment facility, where the waste would be mixed with additives 
and heated to form a stable glass product (vitrified). Contact-handled 
solid waste would be treated before any remote-handled solid waste was 
received at the treatment facility. All solid waste would be 
characterized by nondestructive examination and assay methods and then 
sorted in a hotcell. All RCRA wastes would be segregated and 
macroencapsulated to meet RCRA LDR standards. Special waste material, 
such as batteries, aerosols, and gas bottles, would be segregated for 
treatment or sent to some other applicable treatment facility, as 
directed by DOE. The remaining contact-handled or remote-handled solid 
waste would be compacted. Compacted solid waste would be placed in 55-
gallon drums, and the drums would be filled with grout.
    The total duration of the Vitrification Alternative would be about 
10 years: with 2.5 years for licensing, permitting, and design reviews; 
2 years for facility construction; 3.5 years for waste treatment, 
during which treated waste would be transported to the appropriate 
disposal facility; and 2 years for decontamination and decommissioning 
of the treatment facility. As a result of waste treatment and 
decontamination and decommissioning of the facility, about 1,100 cubic 
meters of TRU waste would be shipped to WIPP, and about 5,000 cubic 
meters of low-level waste would be shipped to NTS.

Cementation Alternative

    Under the Cementation Alternative, a waste treatment facility would 
be constructed on about 5 acres of land adjoining the MVSTs. Waste 
would be retrieved from the MVSTs by sluicing and transported through 
an above-ground pipeline to the treatment facility. The TRU waste 
sludge and low-level liquid waste would be separated with a 
hydrocyclone followed in series with a centrifuge. Supernate would be 
recycled back to the MVSTs for sluicing operations. Additives would be 
mixed with the separated sludge and liquid waste streams to form a 
stable grout mixture. A grout pump would transfer the waste and grout 
mixture into 50-gallon drum liners, and the mixture would be allowed to 
harden. The liners would be placed inside 55-gallon carbon steel 
overpack drums before for shipment. All contact-handled and remote-
handled TRU/alpha low-level solid waste would be characterized by 
nondestructive examination and assay methods, sorted and compacted (as 
appropriate), and grouted before packaging for shipment similar to the 
methods described for the Vitrification Alternative.
    The total duration of the Cementation Alternative would be about 
12.5 years: with 2.5 years for licensing, permitting, and design 
reviews; 2 years for construction of the treatment facility; 6 years 
for waste treatment operations during which waste would be transported 
to the appropriate disposal facility; and 2 years for the 
decontamination and decommissioning of the treatment facility. As a 
result of waste treatment and decontamination and decommissioning of 
the facility, about 1,800 cubic meters of TRU waste would be shipped to 
WIPP, and about 5,400 cubic meters of low-level waste, including 
remote-handled low-level waste, would be shipped to NTS.

Treatment and Waste Storage at ORNL Alternative

    Under the Treatment and Waste Storage at ORNL Alternative, a waste 
treatment facility would be constructed using any one of the treatment 
processes described previously. About 5 to 7 acres of land would be 
used for the treatment facility, depending on the treatment technology 
used (described above). In addition, 0.75 to 2 acres of land (depending 
the treatment technology used) would be required for the construction 
of waste storage facilities at ORNL. DOE plans to ship treated waste 
offsite for disposal as soon as it is treated, but if off-site waste 
disposal facilities were not available, treated waste would require 
storage at ORNL. For purposes of analysis, institutional control of the 
treated waste in storage was assumed for 100 years, after which DOE 
assumed there would be a loss of institutional control. This 
alternative, if implemented, would not meet the milestones set in the 
ORNL Site Treatment Plan regarding the treatment and shipment of 
regulated TRU waste and would violate the TDEC Commissioner's order 
that requires implementation of the ORNL Site Treatment Plan.
    The schedule for waste treatment under this alternative and the 
volume of waste resulting from treatment and decontamination and 
decommissioning of the treatment facility depend on the treatment 
process used, as described above.

III. Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts

    In the Final EIS, DOE analyzed the potential environmental impacts 
associated with each alternative. The potential environmental impacts 
for all the alternatives would be small and are summarized below.
    None of the alternatives analyzed would result in a change in land 
use classification (currently industrial) or scenic resources. The 
action alternatives would result in further development of 5 to 7 acres 
of land for the treatment facility, and the Treatment and Waste Storage 
at ORNL Alternative would require an additional 0.75 to 2 acres of land 
for buildings to store the treated waste. For both the No Action and 
the Treatment and Waste Storage at ORNL Alternatives, the Final EIS 
analysis assumed loss of institutional control after 100 years. 
Assuming loss of institutional control, the land where the waste was 
stored would be permanently committed to waste storage, which, if 
implemented, would result in an irreversible and irretrievable 
commitment of land.
    All of the action alternatives would result in a temporary loss of 
a small amount of forested habitat (5 to 7 acres) for the treatment 
facility. The No Action Alternative would not result in loss of the 
forested habitat.
    All action alternatives would reduce soil and water contamination 
because a source of contaminants in SWSA 5 North would be removed. 
Under the No Action Alternative, contaminants from the SWSA 5 North 
waste trenches would continue to be released to the soils, groundwater, 
and surface water, resulting in a small impact to aquatic biota. Under 
the No Action Alternative, assuming loss of institutional control after 
100 years, the TRU waste in the MVSTs, bunkers, and buildings also 
would eventually be released into the soils and groundwater. Under the 
Treatment and Waste Storage at ORNL Alternative, assuming loss of 
institutional control after 100 years, the treated waste eventually 
would be released from storage buildings. However, because the wastes 
would have been treated under the Treatment and Waste Storage at ORNL 
Alternative, the impacts would be less than under No Action.
    Implementation of any of the action alternatives would result in 
the elimination of a small wetland (0.03 acres) when the treatment 
facility was constructed. The No Action Alternative would have no 
impact on the wetland as long as institutional control is maintained.
    Under the action alternatives, construction of the proposed 
treatment facility, although not located in a floodplain, and therefore 
not subject to the provisions of 10 CFR part 1022

[[Page 48686]]

regarding floodplains, would have a small impact in the 100- and 500-
year floodplain of White Oak Creek due to increased surface runoff. The 
increased sediment in the White Oak Creek floodplain would provide 
additional shielding from existing radioactive contamination (a small 
beneficial impact). Under the No Action Alternative the contaminants in 
SWSA 5 North trenches would continue to be released to the soil and 
groundwater, which would subsequently enter surface water and the White 
Oak Creek floodplain.
    Under the action alternatives, all legacy TRU-alpha low-level waste 
would be treated and some secondary waste would be produced. The total 
volume of waste that would be produced under the different treatment 
alternatives were estimated to be about 10,500 cubic meters for Low-
Temperature Drying, 34,000 cubic meters for Vitrification, and 29,000 
cubic meters for Cementation. The volume of contact- and remote-handled 
TRU waste \7\ that would be produced ranges from about 600 cubic meters 
for the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative, to about 1,000 and 1,800 
cubic meters for the Vitrification and Cementation Alternatives, 
respectively. The volume of low-level waste \8\ that would be produced 
ranges from about 2,800 cubic meters for both the Low-Temperature 
Drying and Cementation Alternatives, to about 5,000 cubic meters for 
the Vitrification Alternative. Only the Cementation Alternative would 
produce remote-handled low-level waste (about 2,500 cubic meters). All 
the treatment alternatives would produce small quantities, i.e., less 
than 25 cubic meters, of mixed low-level waste.\9\ The volume of 
sanitary wastewater \10\ that would be produced ranges from about 1,600 
cubic meters for the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative, about 7,000 
cubic meters for the Vitrification Alternative, and about 7,500 cubic 
meters for the Cementation Alternative. The volume of non-radioactive 
construction debris that would be produced ranges from about 5,500 
cubic meters for the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative to about 20,800 
cubic meters for the Vitrification Alternative and 14,000 cubic meters 
for the Cementation Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative the 
legacy TRU/alpha low-level waste would continue to be stored, along 
with the 60 cubic meter of liquid low-level waste and 20 cubic meters 
of TRU waste that would be produced annually from research and 
environmental remediation activities at ORNL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ TRU waste would be disposed of at WIPP.
    \8\ Low-level and remote-handled low-level waste would be 
disposed of at NTS.
    \9\ Mixed low-level waste would be disposed of at a DOE site or 
at an off-site commercial disposal facility.
    \10\ Sanitary wastewater and non-radioactive construction debris 
would be disposed of at offsite commercial disposal facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The action alternatives would result in minor emissions of air 
pollutants during normal operations. The Low-Temperature Drying 
Alternative would result in slightly higher volatile organic emissions 
than the other treatment technologies. The Vitrification Alternative 
would result in slightly higher nitrogen dioxide emissions than the 
other treatment technologies. The Cementation Alternative would result 
in slightly higher particulate emissions than the other treatment 
technologies. The No Action Alternative would not result in air 
emissions. All alternatives would comply with applicable air quality 
regulations.
    The probability of a cancer fatality from radiological releases to 
involved workers, non-involved workers and the offsite maximally 
exposed individual (MEI) were estimated to be small for the Low-
Temperature Drying, Vitrification, and Cementation Alternatives. The 
highest collective offsite dose to the public, estimated to be 6.8E-01 
person-rem and would potentially result in 3.0E-04 latent cancer 
fatalities (LCFs), was from the Vitrification Alternative. Under both 
the No Action and Treatment and Waste Storage at ORNL Alternatives, an 
estimated 2.2E-02 LCFs would occur in the involved worker population, 
and impacts to non-involved workers and the public would be small.
    The accident scenario estimated to have the greatest impact would 
occur under the No Action Alternative if the MVSTs were breached during 
an earthquake, releasing 50,000-gallons of TRU waste into the 
environment. (This accident was not evaluated for the action 
alternatives since waste treatment would occur in less than 10 years 
and the probability of this type of earthquake occurring during so 
brief a time would be small.) The consequence of this accident, were it 
to happen, was estimated to be 108 LCFs for the affected population. 
The frequency for this kind of accident happening was estimated to be 
1E-04 per year. The calculated risk for this accident (evaluated by 
multiplying the accident consequence, frequency, and time period) would 
be 1.1 LCFs to the population during a 100 year time period and 
proportionately higher for longer periods. The MEI and non-involved 
worker were estimated to have a 1.1E-05 and 9.2E-04 probability of a 
cancer fatality, respectively.
    Under the action alternatives, the accidental breach of the waste 
transfer line during a transfer between the MVSTs and the proposed 
facility was the accident with the greatest impact. The consequence of 
this accident, were it to happen, was estimated to be 52 LCFs for the 
population (for all action alternatives). The frequency of this kind of 
accident happening ranged from 1E-02 to 1E-04 per year. The EIS 
estimated the risks from this accident scenario as ranges from 0.16 
LCFs for Low-Temperature Drying Alternative to 0.31 LCFs for the 
Cementation Alternative. The probability of a cancer fatality for the 
MEI was estimated to range from 3.2 E-06 for the Low-Temperature Drying 
and Vitrification Alternatives, to 6.3E-06 for the Cementation 
Alternative. The probability of a cancer fatality for the non-involved 
worker was estimated to range from 2.8E-04 for Low-Temperature Drying 
and Vitrification Alternatives, to 5.5E-04 for the Cementation 
Alternative.
    Routine exposures from waste retrieval activities were estimated to 
result in 8.0E-03 LCFs in the involved worker population under all 
action alternatives. Radiological emissions from waste retrieval 
accidents were estimated to result in 6.3E-05 LCFs to the public. 
Industrial-type accidents from retrieval activities were estimated to 
result in 7.5E-04 fatalities in the involved worker population.
    All the action alternatives would result in 300 truck shipments of 
remote-handled solid waste and 245 shipments of contact-handled solid 
waste from the ORNL storage locations to the treatment facility. 
Radiological emissions from onsite transportation accidents between the 
current storage locations and the treatment facility were estimated to 
result in 2.9 E-05 LCFs to the public. The probability of a cancer 
fatality for a non-involved worker and public MEI were estimated to be 
5.3E-07 and 6.2E-09, respectively, from waste retrieval and 
transportation accidents. In addition, 3.3E-05 non-radiological 
fatalities from onsite transportation accidents were estimated for the 
worker population.
    The Treatment and Storage at ORNL Alternative would involve about 
3,340 shipments of treated waste from the treatment facility to storage 
buildings at ORNL, using the waste volumes produced by the Cementation 
Alternative as the bounding case. These shipments are estimated to 
result in 2.3E-04 transportation related fatalities to involved 
workers. In addition, construction of the onsite storage

[[Page 48687]]

facilities and the loading and unloading of the treated waste were 
estimated to result in 3.4E-04 and 2.5E-03 non-radiological accident 
fatalities, respectively, to the involved worker population.
    The No Action and Treatment and Storage at ORNL Alternatives would 
not result in off-site shipments of treated waste. The number of off-
site truck shipments of treated TRU waste were estimated for the Low-
Temperature Drying Alternative (400), the Vitrification Alternative 
(1,000), and the Cementation Alternative (2,400). The estimated number 
of non-radiological LCFs related to routine transportation of contact-
handled TRU waste ranged from 5.3E-03 for both the Vitrification and 
Cementation Alternatives, to 8.7E-03 for the Low-Temperature Drying 
Alternative. LCFs from routine transportation of remote-handled TRU 
waste ranged from 3.1E-02 for the Low Temperature Drying Alternative to 
2.7E-01 for the Cementation Alternative. The number of fatalities 
estimated from transportation accidents ranged from 4.4E-02 for the 
Low-Temperature Drying Alternative to 3.0E-01 for the Cementation 
Alternative.
    The number of offsite shipments of treated low-level waste were 
estimated to be about 300 for the Low-Temperature Drying and 
Vitrification Alternatives, and more than 900 for the Cementation 
Alternative. The LCFs related to routine offsite transportation of 
treated low-level waste were estimated to be small for all the action 
alternatives, with the largest being 7.5E-09 for the Cementation 
Alternative. The number of transportation accident fatalities was 
estimated to range from 3.6E-02 for both the Low-Temperature Drying and 
Vitrification Alternatives, to 1.2E-01 for the Cementation Alternative.
    The estimated electricity requirements ranged from 2,200 megawatts 
(MW) (No Action Alternative) to 47,200 MW (Treatment and Waste Storage 
at ORNL, using vitrification as the treatment technology). The 
Cementation Alternative would have the lowest electricity requirements 
(11,250 MW) of the action alternatives. Because adequate electricity is 
available from utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed TRU Waste 
Treatment Facility, impacts would be minimal.
    The estimated total water usage varied from 5 million gallons (No 
Action and Low-Temperature Drying) to 20 million gallons (Treatment and 
Waste Storage at ORNL, using cementation as the treatment technology). 
Water for the TRU Waste Treatment Facility would be supplied from a 
City of Oak Ridge Water Treatment Facility via a local main. The 
impacts on the Water Treatment Facility would be small because the 
daily water usage under any of the alternatives would be small and the 
Oak Ridge Water Treatment Facility is currently operating at only 50% 
capacity (28 million gallons per day).
    There are no special circumstances that would result in any greater 
impacts on minority or low-income populations than on the population as 
a whole, and no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority 
or low-income populations would be expected.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    As described above, all impacts from the proposed action would be 
small, and the greatest potential human health and environmental 
impacts would occur under the No Action Alternative. Under the No 
Action Alternative, waste contaminants would continue to be released to 
the environment from the unlined, subsurface trenches in SWSA 5 North 
and the potential impacts from a breach of the MVSTs would be high 
should institutional control be lost. In addition, although the long-
term impacts of the Treatment and Waste Storage at ORNL Alternative 
would be less than No Action because the waste would have been treated, 
the Treatment and Waste Storage at ORNL Alternative would not provide a 
permanent solution for controlling the waste contaminants.
    The Low-Temperature Drying Alternative, and the other action 
alternatives involving off-site shipment of treated waste, would result 
in small, short-term potential impacts to public and worker health, air 
quality, utility usage, and transportation; however, treatment would 
prepare the waste for disposal at WIPP or NTS, as appropriate. The Low-
Temperature Drying Alternative would result in lower impacts than the 
other action alternatives because it would generate the least amount of 
treated and other waste, would require the lowest water usage (but not 
electricity) of the action alternatives, and would require the least 
number of offsite shipments for disposal.
    In conclusion, while the potential impacts for all of the action 
alternatives are small, the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative results 
in the lowest potential impacts of any of the action alternatives. DOE 
therefore believes that the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative is 
environmentally preferable.

IV. Public Comments on the Final EIS

    DOE distributed approximately 80 copies of the Final EIS to 
appropriate Congressional members and committees; the States of 
Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, and Tennessee; various American Indian 
Tribal governments and organizations; local governments; other Federal 
agencies; and other interested stakeholders. DOE received comments on 
the Final EIS from the U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which are 
addressed below.
    In a letter dated July 13, 2000, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
stated that the Biological Assessment contained in the Final EIS was 
``adequate and supports the conclusion of not likely to adversely 
affect.'' The Service concurred with this conclusion, and that the 
requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act had been 
fulfilled. As the Fish and Wildlife letter indicates, DOE will 
reconsider its obligations under the Endangered Species Act if new 
information reveals that the TRU Waste Treatment Facility may affect 
listed species in a manner or to an extent not considered, the proposed 
action is modified to include activities not addressed in the 
Biological Assessment, or new species are listed or critical habitat is 
designated that might be affected by the proposed action.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service also indicated that DOE's response to 
Fish and Wildlife Service comments on the Draft EIS (Volume 2 of the 
Final EIS) is not consistent with the Biological Assessment (Appendix E 
of the Final EIS), with regard to the presence of habitat for the gray 
bat. In DOE's response to comments from the Fish and Wildlife Service 
on the Draft EIS, DOE indicated that ``[Q]ualified biologists did a 
site walkover * * * and [n]o habitat for the gray bat was identified. * 
* *'' In this statement, DOE was referring to the 5-7 acre ``site'' for 
the proposed treatment facility (not the Oak Ridge Reservation). The 
discussion of gray bat habitat in the Biological Assessment (and in 
section 4.3 of the Final EIS) indicates that the nearest potential 
habitat for the gray bat is at least 1 mile away from the proposed TRU 
Waste Treatment Facility boundary and activities at the proposed site 
are not expected to impact the gray bat habitat. While DOE's response 
to comments made by the Fish and Wildlife Service on the Draft EIS 
could have been clearer, the wording in the comment response document 
does not conflict with the Biological Assessment

[[Page 48688]]

or other sections of the Final EIS addressing ecological resources.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service also stated in its comments on the 
Final EIS that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Title 16 United States 
Code, Chapter 701) should have been included in Chapter 8 (Applicable 
Laws and Regulations) of the Final EIS. DOE did consider the 
requirements of Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but because the proposed 
site for the TRU Waste Treatment Facility will be small (5-7 acres) in 
comparison to other nearby suitable habitat, and there were no known 
unique or special features associated with the proposed site that would 
be important to migratory bird species, DOE did not provide a reference 
to or a discussion of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in Chapter 8 of the 
Final EIS.
    In a letter to DOE dated July 20, 2000, regarding the Final EIS, 
EPA acknowledged that, in general, its comments on the Draft EIS were 
addressed satisfactorily. However, EPA indicated continuing concern 
about potential process releases and project impacts. DOE notes, 
however, that the estimated impact EPA is addressing--3E-04 LCFs from 
the project's releases--is small, and the EIS shows that the releases 
would not contribute significantly to cumulative impacts in the exposed 
population. Moreover, the methods used to estimate these releases and 
their impact are conservative--i.e., likely to overstate the impacts. 
Finally, the alternative DOE has decided to implement (see below) is 
the environmentally preferred alternative.

V. Consistency With DOE Programmatic Decisions and Agreements

    The selection of any of the action alternatives, except Treatment 
and Waste Storage at ORNL, would be consistent with DOE's programmatic 
decisions for the treatment, storage, and disposal of TRU and low-level 
wastes. As stated in the Record of Decision for the Department of 
Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic 
Waste, DOE decided to ``develop and operate mobile and fixed facilities 
to characterize and prepare TRU waste for disposal at WIPP'' and 
``[E]ach 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.'' In the 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, DOE decided to establish regional low-level waste 
disposal capabilities at DOE's Hanford Site and NTS, which are to 
receive low-level waste from other DOE sites when the waste meets the 
WAC for the site.
    The Low-Temperature Drying, Vitrification, and Cementation 
Alternatives would all be consistent with previous negotiated 
agreements and commitments, and allow DOE to comply with the primary 
milestones of the ORNL Site Treatment Plan. The No Action and Treatment 
and Waste Storage at ORNL Alternatives would not be consistent with 
previous agreements and commitments. The No Action Alternative would 
not comply with the two primary milestones identified in the ORNL Site 
Treatment Plan. The Treatment and Waste Storage at ORNL Alternative 
would not comply with the ORNL Site Treatment Plan milestone requiring 
shipment of treated TRU waste sludge to the WIPP to be initiated by 
January 2003.

VI. Costs Associated With the Technologies

    Analyses of the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative showed that it 
is cost effective based on previous cost studies conducted by DOE and 
comparison of the submitted private sector proposals for the treatment 
of TRU/alpha low-level waste at ORNL. The cost for implementing the 
Low-Temperature Drying Alternative was estimated to be about $193 
million, compared with about $700 million estimated for both the 
Vitrification and Cementation Alternatives. Implementing the Treatment 
and Waste Storage at ORNL Alternative would entail costs of 
constructing and maintaining onsite waste storage facilities in 
addition to the costs associated with the each action alternative 
without storage on site.

VII. Decision

    DOE has selected the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative (Preferred 
Alternative) in the Final EIS for treating TRU/alpha low-level waste at 
ORNL. DOE will proceed with the Foster Wheeler contract to construct, 
operate, and decontaminate and decommission a TRU Waste Treatment 
Facility to treat a total of about 4,050 cubic meters of legacy waste 
\11\ in preparation for offsite disposal at the WIPP and the NTS. This 
decision is based on the following factors: the analysis in the Final 
EIS indicates the impacts of all action alternatives would be small; 
the choice of the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative is consistent with 
previous DOE programmatic decisions and agreements on the treatment, 
storage and disposal of TRU, low-level, and mixed low-level wastes; and 
costs associated with the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative are the 
lowest of the action alternatives and the other action alternatives do 
not have compensating advantages for higher cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the future, DOE may treat small quantities of TRU waste 
from other DOE sites at the TRU Waste Treatment Facility (e.g., 15 
cubic meters of TRU waste from the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant). 
DOE would need to conduct further NEPA review, as appropriate, for 
any proposal to ship TRU waste to ORNL for treatment from the 
Paducah Site or any other site in the DOE complex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Mitigation of Impacts

    The DOE is committed to operating a TRU Waste Treatment Facility in 
compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, DOE 
orders, permits, and compliance agreements. DOE is consulting with the 
State of Tennessee on State mitigation measures related to wetlands (an 
Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit has been filed with TDEC), and a 
Mitigation Action Plan required by 10 CFR 1021.331 will be prepared. 
Volume 1, Chapter 6, of the Final EIS described the mitigation measures 
that will be taken to minimize the potential impacts associated with 
the construction, operation, and decontamination and decommissioning of 
the proposed TRU Waste Treatment Facility (e.g., use of dust control 
measures during facility construction; use of efficient emission 
controls and erosion control measures; and protocol to be followed in 
the event that cultural resources are found).

IX. Conclusion

    DOE has selected the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative (Preferred 
Alternative) in the Final EIS for treating TRU/alpha low-level waste at 
ORNL. DOE will proceed with the Foster Wheeler contract to construct, 
operate, and decontaminate and decommission a TRU Waste Treatment 
Facility to treat a total of about 4,050 cubic meters of legacy waste 
in preparation for offsite disposal at the WIPP and the NTS.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. this 3rd day of August 2000.
Carolyn L. Huntoon,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 00-20093 Filed 8-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P