[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 84 (Friday, April 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23733-23737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9726]



[[Page 23733]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Logistics Agency


Record of Decision for the Final Mercury Management Environmental 
Impact Statement; Notice

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, Defense National Stockpile Center, 
DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a Record of Decision for the Final 
Mercury Management Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) announces the availability 
of the Record of Decision for the Final Mercury Management 
Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). This announcement is made 
pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508) and the DLA regulation (DLAR 1000.22, Environmental 
Considerations in DLA Actions in the United States) that implement the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Notices of Availability 
for the Final EIS were published in the Federal Register on March 26, 
2004 (69 FR 15820 and 15830).
    The Defense National Stockpile Center (DNSC) has decided to 
consolidate its commodity-grade, elemental mercury stockpile at one 
site. This decision is based on a combination of environmental and 
economic factors, policy considerations, and stakeholder comments. The 
Consolidated Storage Alternative and the rationale for selecting it are 
presented in detail in the Supplementary Information section. DNSC will 
select a site for consolidated storage after completion of a 
procurement process. If a site other than one of those evaluated in the 
Final EIS is selected, additional environmental documentation may be 
required.
    The Final EIS analyzes in detail three alternatives for managing 
the National Defense Stockpile inventory of excess mercury: (1) No 
action, i.e., leave the mercury at the existing storage locations; (2) 
consolidated storage of the mercury stockpile at one site; and (3) sale 
of the stockpile. Agencies are required by regulation to identify a 
preferred alternative in the final EIS. The preferred alternative is 
the one that best meets an agency's objectives. The Consolidated 
Storage Alternative is DNSC's Preferred Alternative in the Draft and 
Final EIS. DNSC has selected Consolidated Storage at one site in this 
Record of Decision as the alternative it will implement.
    NEPA requires identification of an environmentally preferable 
alternative in the record of decision. An environmentally preferable 
alternative is the alternative that poses the fewest overall impacts 
and the least risk. It may differ from both the preferred alternative 
and the alternative selected for implementation in the record of 
decision. DNSC has identified the No Action Alternative as the 
Environmentally Preferable Alternative. Details are provided in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paper copies of the Final EIS (about 
1,000 pages) and the Executive Summary (about 20 pages) are available 
by writing to: Attention: Project Manager, Mercury Management EIS; 
DNSC-E; Defense National Stockpile Center, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, 
Suite 3229, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6223, or by calling toll free 
at 1-888-306-6682. Electronic versions of the Final EIS, the Executive 
Summary, and this Record of Decision are available on the Internet at 
www.mercuryeis.com. Requests for information can be made by: leaving a 
voice message at 1-888-306-6682 or faxing a message to 1-888-306-8818 
(through May 31, 2004); emailing a request to 
[email protected]; or accessing the Mercury Management EIS Web 
site at www.mercuryeis.com.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    DNSC is responsible for the disposition of stockpiled materials 
declared in excess of national defense needs. The U.S. Congress has 
determined that the U.S. Department of Defense no longer needs to 
maintain a stockpile of commodity-grade mercury because of the 
increased use of mercury substitutes and because of increases in the 
Nation's secondary mercury production through recovery and recycling. 
Therefore, as custodian of the mercury, DNSC must decide on a strategy 
for long-term management of this material.
    The DNSC inventory of mercury (approximately 4,890 tons [4,436 
metric tons]) is safely stored in enclosed warehouses at four sites in 
the United States: Hillsborough, New Jersey (2,885 tons [2,617 metric 
tons]); New Haven, Indiana (614 tons [557 metric tons]); Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee (770 tons [699 metric tons]); and Warren, Ohio (621 tons [563 
metric tons]). DNSC excess mercury was offered for sale in open 
competitions until 1994, when concerns over mercury accumulation in the 
environment prompted DNSC to suspend sales. Mercury is a pollutant of 
environmental concern because it is toxic and persistent; it 
accumulates in the environment; and it poses human health and 
ecological risks.
    The potential impacts of transporting and storing mercury under the 
various alternatives are summarized in this document. Terms used in 
this Record of Decision and their definitions are provided in Tables 1 
and 2.

                                   Table 1.--Impact Categories and Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Impact category                                             Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficial impacts:
    Major....................................  An action that would greatly improve current conditions.
    Moderate.................................  An action that would moderately improve current conditions.
    Minor....................................  An action that would slightly improve current conditions.
Negligible or no impact......................  An action that would neither degrade nor improve current
                                                conditions.
Adverse impacts:
    Minor....................................  An action that would slightly degrade current conditions.
    Moderate.................................  An action that would moderately degrade current conditions.
    Major....................................  An action that would greatly degrade current conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Impacts may also be categorized as short term (less than 5 years) or long term.


[[Page 23734]]


                                    Table 2.--Risk Categories and Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Risk category                                              Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced risk:
    Major....................................  An action that would greatly reduce risk.
    Moderate.................................  An action that would moderately reduce risk.
    Minor....................................  An action that would slightly reduce risk.
Negligible or no risk increase...............  An action that would neither reduce nor increase risk.
Increased risk:
    Minor....................................  An action that would slightly increase risk.
    Moderate.................................  An action that would moderately increase risk.
    Major....................................  An action that would greatly increase risk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Impacts may also be categorized as acute (less than or equal to 24 hours) or chronic.

Alternatives Considered

    In compliance with NEPA and DLAR 1000.22, DNSC prepared an EIS to 
evaluate the environmental impacts of a range of reasonable 
alternatives for long-term management (i.e., 40 years) of the excess 
mercury. The alternatives evaluated in detail in the EIS are: (1) No 
Action; (2) Consolidated Storage; and (3) Sales.
    Under the No Action Alternative, DNSC would continue to store its 
excess mercury at the four current storage sites for up to 40 years. 
Monitoring and maintenance would continue. There would be no major 
modifications to existing storage buildings or the mercury storage 
containers. This alternative would not allow DNSC to downsize or close 
storage depots and is not compatible with the U.S. Department of 
Energy's (DOE's) mission at the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) 
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    Under the Consolidated Storage Alternative, which DNSC has selected 
for implementation, the entire DNSC mercury stockpile would be stored 
for up to 40 years at one of the three DNSC depots where mercury is 
currently stored (i.e., in Hillsborough, New Jersey; near New Haven, 
Indiana; or near Warren, Ohio) or at a non-DNSC site. DNSC mercury is 
also stored at a fourth site, Y-12. Y-12 is not considered for 
consolidated storage because it does not have enough space, and long-
term storage of DNSC mercury is not part of its national security 
mission.
    The non-DNSC sites analyzed in the Final EIS are the Hawthorne Army 
Depot in Hawthorne, Nevada; the PEZ Lake Development near Romulus, New 
York; and the Utah Industrial Depot in Tooele, Utah. These sites, 
together with the DNSC storage locations, represent a wide range of 
environmental and socioeconomic settings. The PEZ Lake Development is 
no longer under consideration as a consolidated storage site because 
the facility managers withdrew it from consideration based on business 
and site development plans.
    The Sales Alternative consists of two options: (1) Selling the 
mercury at the proposed maximum allowable market rate over a period of 
approximately 26 years and (2) selling the entire inventory in one year 
to reduce mercury mining.
    Under the first sales option, the mercury would be sold at the 
estimated maximum allowable market rate of 5,000 flasks per year. The 
mercury could be sold directly to producers and users or to traders or 
brokers, who would then sell it to producers and users. Producers 
include mercury mining, refining, and recovery companies. Users include 
chemical processors and manufacturers of such products as lights, 
electrical switches, thermometers, dental materials, medicine, and 
medical equipment.
    The second sales option calls for sale of the entire inventory to a 
mercury mining company. To avoid undue disruption of the mercury 
market, as required by the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock 
Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98, et seq.), an agreement would be negotiated 
requiring the mining company to sell DNSC mercury at a rate no greater 
than the rate of sale for newly mined mercury.
    DNSC considered evaluating alternatives for treatment of mercury 
that would enable disposal in a qualified landfill. However, there are 
currently no viable commercially-available technologies capable of 
rendering large quantities of elemental mercury stable enough for 
placement in landfills. For this reason, and because the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not approved a path forward 
for treatment and disposal of elemental mercury, this alternative is 
not evaluated in detail in the EIS.

Preferred Alternative

    Agencies are required by regulation (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) to identify 
a preferred alternative in the final EIS and are encouraged to identify 
one as early as possible in the NEPA process. Consolidated Storage at 
one site is identified as DNSC's Preferred Alternative in both the 
Draft and Final EIS.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Agencies are required by regulation (40 CFR 1505.2(b)) to identify 
an environmentally preferable alternative in the record of decision. An 
environmentally preferable alternative is the one that poses the fewest 
overall impacts and the least risk. It may differ from both the 
preferred alternative and the alternative selected for implementation 
in the record of decision.
    Identification of the environmentally preferable alternative is 
based on weighing higher-intensity, short-term impacts and risks (e.g., 
transportation risks) against lower-intensity, long-term impacts and 
risks that could occur during storage of mercury.
    DNSC has identified the No Action Alternative as the 
Environmentally Preferable Alternative. The analysis in the Final EIS 
indicates that it would have negligible long-term environmental impacts 
and negligible-to-low human health and ecological risk. Because the 
mercury would not be relocated under this alternative, there would be 
no additional transportation risks.
    As described in the Final EIS, few discriminating factors among the 
impacts associated with the alternatives were identified. The 
differences in environmental impacts are largely due to the number of 
sites affected and the duration of the impacts. The differences in 
human health and ecological risks are primarily a function of the 
distance shipped.
    Although the No Action Alternative is considered marginally 
environmentally preferable, this alternative would not allow DNSC to 
downsize or close storage depots and is not compatible with DOE's 
national security mission at Y-12.

Public Participation

    DNSC began the mercury management EIS process by publishing a 
notice of

[[Page 23735]]

intent in the Federal Register on February 5, 2001. The Notice of 
Intent described the proposed action, provided background information 
on anticipated issues and potential impacts, and identified a 
preliminary list of alternatives to implement the proposed action.
    As part of this early and open process, DNSC sought input from the 
public to help identify the alternatives, issues, and potential 
environmental impacts to be analyzed in the Draft EIS. Five public 
scoping meetings were held in communities near current mercury storage 
sites and in Washington, DC, during the scoping period that ended on 
June 30, 2001. Issues that were raised at the meetings and those 
submitted in comments by letter, e-mail, fax, and phone are documented 
in the report, Scope of the Mercury Management EIS (December 2001). 
Scoping comments were considered in developing the Draft EIS and are 
summarized in that document.
    The Draft EIS or its Executive Summary was mailed to more than 830 
individuals and organizations. The public comment period for the Draft 
EIS began with the publication of the EPA Notice of Availability in the 
Federal Register on April 11, 2003, and continued until July 18, 2003. 
In response to public requests to extend the comment period, the 
deadline for submittal of comments was extended informally until 
September 2, 2003.
    During the comment period, DNSC held seven meetings to receive 
comments on the Draft EIS. The meetings were held in the communities 
that could be affected by the proposed actions, as well as in 
Washington, DC. Approximately 230 people attended the public meetings.
    DNSC received 295 comment documents (i.e., letters, e-mails, faxes, 
voice messages, comment forms, and meeting transcripts) containing 633 
comments. Volume II of the Final EIS presents the comment documents, 
identifies the specific comment(s) within each, and provides DNSC's 
responses. The majority of the comments received on the Draft EIS are 
related to the Consolidated Storage Alternative, impacts on human 
health and safety, and environmental and economic impacts. Input from 
the public meetings along with comments received by other means, was 
considered in preparing the Final EIS. DNSC considered these comments 
as well when preparing this Record of Decision.
    The Notices of Availability for the Final EIS were published in the 
Federal Register on March 26, 2004 (69 FR 15820 and 15830). The Final 
EIS or the Executive Summary was mailed to more than 1,200 individuals 
and organizations.

Summary of Environmental Impacts

    As described in the Final EIS, the potential environmental and 
socioeconomic impacts of alternatives for mercury management are 
generally negligible to minor. The Final EIS analyzes weather, air 
quality and noise, waste management, socioeconomics, geology and soils, 
water resources, ecological resources, cultural resources, land use and 
visual resources, infrastructure, and environmental justice. These 
would be largely unaffected, because the alternatives involve low-
intensity activities associated with maintaining the stored mercury and 
do not involve building construction and land disturbance. Human 
health, ecological, and transportation risks are discussed in the 
Summary of Risks section.
    The absence of transportation and the low level of activity 
associated with the No Action Alternative would result in negligible 
impacts. However, because DNSC depots would not be able to downsize or 
close, this alternative is not compatible with DNSC's long-term closure 
strategy. This alternative is also not compatible with DOE's national 
security mission at Y-12.
    The Consolidated Storage Alternative would result in negligible-to-
minor impacts. The impacts of the Consolidated Storage Alternative 
would be slightly greater than the No Action Alternative because of the 
higher level of activity associated with shipping the mercury. There 
would be minor beneficial impacts at the existing storage locations 
after removal of the mercury.
    The Sales Alternatives would result in negligible-to-minor impacts 
from continuing to store the mercury until it is shipped and from 
preparing the mercury for shipment. Impacts of the Sales Alternatives 
would be slightly greater than those of the No Action Alternative 
because of the activities associated with shipping the mercury. Under 
the Sales at the Maximum Allowable Market Rate Alternative, the impacts 
of mercury storage would continue for up to 26 years until all the 
mercury is sold. Under the Sales to Reduce Mercury Mining Alternative, 
the impacts of mercury storage would end after one year. Minor 
beneficial impacts would occur at the existing storage locations after 
the mercury is removed.
    Mercury would be sold directly or indirectly to users where the 
mercury would be employed in commercial processes. Because changes to 
the supply and cost of mercury on the world mercury market are expected 
to be negligible under either sales option, it is anticipated that 
users would continue their commercial processes as before and would not 
be expected to use more or less mercury because of DNSC mercury sales. 
Therefore, it is likely that there would be no additional impact at the 
users' locations resulting from implementation of either DNSC mercury 
sales option. In addition, sales to reduce mercury mining would result 
in moderate beneficial impacts of reduced mercury mining and refining.

Summary of Risks

    Mercury is toxic and may pose human health and ecological risks. 
The human health and ecological risks of mercury storage, handling, and 
transportation activities during routine operations and accident 
conditions were evaluated. This analysis considered potential impacts 
on sensitive individuals such as children and the elderly.
    ``Routine operations'' refers to the conduct of activities without 
incident. Activities entail use of equipment such as mercury vapor 
detectors and personal protective gear, and procedures designed to 
protect workers and minimize any emissions of mercury to the 
environment. Facility accident scenarios evaluated include slow leaks, 
dropped and punctured flasks, pallet collapse, forklift fires, building 
fires, wildfires, earthquakes, high winds and tornadoes, lightning, 
snow loads, aircraft and vehicle crashes, and explosions and fires at 
nearby facilities. In addition, truck and rail car spills and 
associated fires were analyzed.
    Human health and ecological risks for the No Action Alternative 
would be negligible during normal operations and facility accidents. 
Because the mercury would not be transported under this alternative, 
there would be no transportation risks.
    When compared with the No Action Alternative, the Consolidated 
Storage Alternative requires the transport of mercury, which could 
result in low, short-term risk to the public and negligible-to-low, 
short-term ecological risk. Higher levels of activity associated with 
preparing the mercury for transport could result in low risk to the 
public from facility accidents and negligible-to-low ecological risk. 
Negligible-to-moderate ecological risks could result if an accident 
resulting in a spill of mercury and a fire occurs while it is raining. 
The Consolidated Storage Alternative would result in reduced human 
health and ecological risk at the existing storage locations after the 
mercury is removed.

[[Page 23736]]

    When compared with the No Action Alternative, the Sales 
Alternatives require the transport of mercury, which could result in 
moderate, short-term risk to the public and negligible-to-moderate, 
short-term ecological risk. Like the Consolidated Storage Alternative, 
higher levels of activity associated with preparing the mercury for 
transport could result in low risk to the public from facility 
accidents and negligible-to-low ecological risk.
    If, during a rainstorm, a facility accident occurs that results in 
both a spill of mercury and a fire, negligible-to-moderate ecological 
risks would be expected. If, during a rainstorm, a transportation 
accident occurs that results in both a spill of mercury and a fire, 
negligible-to-high ecological risks would be expected. However, Chapter 
4 of the Final EIS states that an accident during a rainstorm and 
resulting in a fire is a low probability event that is predicted to 
occur once in 10,000 to 1 million years.
    In addition, the Sales Alternatives would result in reduced human 
health and ecological risk at existing storage locations after the 
mercury is removed. The Sales to Reduce Mercury Mining Alternative is 
estimated to result in reduced human health and ecological risk from 
reduced mercury mining and refining.

Mitigation

    All practicable measures to avoid and minimize environmental 
impacts and risks that could result from consolidated storage are in 
place. These measures are found in DNSC's standard operating practices. 
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.

Cumulative Impacts

    As described in the Final EIS, the impacts from implementing any of 
the mercury management alternatives would represent a negligible-to-
minor contribution to cumulative impacts in the areas near the sites 
and to regional and global environments.

Summary of Costs

    As described in the Final EIS, the estimated cost for 40 years of 
storage under the No Action Alternative is approximately $26 million. 
The estimated cost for 40 years of storage under the Consolidated 
Storage Alternative is $29 million. The Sales at the Maximum Allowable 
Market Rate Alternative costs range from $6.1 million to revenues of 
$12 million. For purposes of evaluation in the EIS, the market price of 
mercury is assumed to range from $58 to $195 per flask. This 
alternative includes the cost of storage for up to 26 years while the 
mercury is being sold. The estimated revenue from the Sales to Reduce 
Mercury Mining Alternative ranges between $7.5 and $25 million. This 
alternative does not include storage costs, because it is assumed that 
all the mercury would be sold in less than 1 year.

Basis for the Decision

    DNSC has selected Consolidated Storage at one site for 
implementation. Consolidated Storage at one site is identified as the 
Preferred Alternative in the Draft and Final EIS. Selection of this 
alternative gives consideration to environmental and economic factors; 
policy considerations, and stakeholder comments, as summarized below:
    Consolidating the DNSC mercury inventory at one site results in 
negligible-to-minor environmental impacts at that site and improves 
environmental conditions at sites from which the mercury would be 
removed;
    Human health risks to the public are negligible for normal 
operations and negligible to low for facility and transportation 
accidents;
    Ecological risks are negligible for normal operations and 
negligible to low for facility and transportation accidents with dry 
deposition. Ecological risks are negligible to moderate for facility 
and transportation accidents if it is raining during an accident which 
results in a release of mercury and a fire;
    Consolidating the mercury inventory simplifies storage operations 
and results in economies of scale (i.e., fewer resources required to 
manage the mercury inventory);
    Consolidating the excess mercury inventory facilitates DNSC's long-
term closure strategy at the sites from which the mercury is removed;
    Removing DNSC's excess mercury inventory is consistent with the 
national security mission of Y-12; and,
    The stored DNSC commodity-grade elemental mercury will be available 
for future uses.
    DNSC will select a site for consolidated storage after completion 
of a procurement process. If a site other than one of those evaluated 
in the Final EIS is selected, additional environmental documentation 
may be required. DNSC will announce the selection of its consolidated, 
long-term mercury storage site after completion of the procurement 
process.
    Recent legislation, (section 113 of Pub. L. 108-199, Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies), requires the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report on the consolidation of the mercury 
stockpile to Congress on June 1, 2004. Additionally, for 180 days after 
the report is submitted to Congress, DNSC is prohibited from making a 
decision to consolidate at a site that is not currently storing DNSC 
mercury.
    Mercury flasks at the New Haven, Somerville, and Warren depots are 
currently stored in 30-gallon (114-liter) drums (overpacks); flasks 
from Y-12 are not overpacked. As described in the Final EIS, to provide 
an additional layer of protection, DNSC has made a commitment to 
overpack the flasks currently stored at Y-12 before they are placed in 
the consolidated storage facility.
    Because of the lack of space and rigid security constraints, it is 
not feasible to overpack the flasks at Y-12. The Warren Depot, located 
536 miles (863 kilometers) from Y-12, has warehouse space available for 
this overpacking. Therefore, these mercury flasks will be transported 
by truck to the Warren Depot, near Warren, Ohio, for overpacking and 
storage pending selection of the consolidated storage location.
    The impacts and risks of overpacking and storing the mercury at the 
Warren Depot are comparable to those identified in the Mercury 
Reflasking Environmental Assessment (EA), for which a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on October 19, 2000; and in the 
Mercury Overpacking at Somerville, New Jersey EA, for which a FONSI was 
signed on May 24, 2001. The impacts and risks of overpacking the Y-12 
mercury flasks at the Warren Depot would be similar to or less than 
those evaluated in these documents.
    The risks of transporting to and storing the mercury at the Warren 
Depot are less than those associated with the Consolidated Storage 
Alternative analyzed in the Final EIS. Under the Consolidated Storage 
Alternative, the shipment of 4,890 tons (4,436 metric tons) of mercury 
to the Warren Depot is analyzed. The Final EIS estimates that 
transportation of the entire stockpile of mercury would result in low 
risk to human health and moderate risk to plants and animals. Because 
only 16 percent (770 tons [699 metric tons]) of the total amount of 
mercury analyzed in the Final EIS (4,890 tons [4,436 metric tons]) 
would be transported to the Warren Depot for overpacking, the impacts 
would be considerably less than the EIS analysis indicates, and no 
significant human health or ecological risks would be expected. 
Similarly, storing a total of 30 percent of the mercury stockpile at 
Warren would pose

[[Page 23737]]

no significant human health or ecological risks.
    In accordance with DLAR 1000.22, a Record of Determination, based 
on the EAs and FONSIs discussed above and the Final EIS, has 
established that no significant impacts can be expected to result from 
moving the mercury from Y-12 to the Warren Depot and overpacking and 
storing it at the Warren Depot. A copy of this Record of Determination 
has been placed in the Administrative Record.

    Issued in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, on this 22nd day of April, 
2004.
Cornel A. Holder,
Administrator, Defense National Stockpile Center.
[FR Doc. 04-9726 Filed 4-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3620-01-P