[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 115 (Thursday, June 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35073-35077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11882]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management Activities

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: In the Final West Valley Demonstration Project Waste 
Management Environmental Impact Statement (WVDP WM EIS, Department of 
Energy (DOE)/EIS-0337, December 2003), DOE considered alternatives for 
the management of WVDP low-level radioactive waste (LLW), mixed 
(radioactive and hazardous) LLW (MLLW), transuranic (TRU) waste, and 
high-level radioactive waste (HLW). DOE prepared the WVDP WM EIS 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 United 
States Code (U.S.C.) 4321 et seq., the Council on Environmental 
Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-
1508), and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021). To 
make progress toward fulfilling its responsibilities under the WVDP 
Act, DOE needs to disposition the wastes that are either currently in 
storage at the site or that will be generated at the site over the next 
ten years. DOE evaluated three alternatives for the management of the 
wastes: A No Action Alternative (Continuation of Ongoing Waste 
Management Activities), Alternative A (Off-site Shipment of HLW, LLW, 
MLLW, and TRU Wastes to Disposal), and Alternative B (Off-site Shipment 
of LLW and MLLW to Disposal, and Shipment of HLW and TRU Waste to 
Interim Storage [prior to disposal]). Based on the analysis of the 
potential impacts documented in the EIS, implementation of any of the 
alternatives would result in very low impacts to human health and the 
environment.
    DOE has decided to partially implement Alternative A, the preferred 
alternative, for the management of WVDP LLW, MLLW, and HLW that are 
either currently in site over the next ten years:
    DOE will ship LLW and MLLW off site for disposal in accordance with 
all applicable regulatory requirements, including permit requirements, 
waste acceptance criteria (WAC), and applicable DOE Orders. DOE will 
dispose of LLW and MLLW at commercial sites (such as Envirocare, a 
commercial radioactive waste disposal site in Clive, Utah), one or both 
of two DOE sites (the Nevada Test Site [NTS] in Mercury, Nevada; or the 
Hanford Site in Richland, Washington), or a combination of commercial 
and DOE sites, consistent with DOE's February 2000 decision regarding 
LLW and MLLW disposal.\1\ Disposal of WVDP LLW and MLLW at Hanford 
would be subject to the limits DOE has imposed upon non-Hanford waste 
receipts in its June 2004 decision regarding waste management at the 
Hanford Site,\2\ and contingent upon the resolution of ongoing Hanford 
litigation in which a preliminary injunction has been entered against 
shipping off site LLW and MLLW to Hanford.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Record of Decision for the Department'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 (65 FR 10061, February 25, 2000).
    \2\ Record of Decision for the Solid Waste Program, Hanford 
Site, Richland, Washington: Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste 
and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed 
Low-Level Waste, and Storage, Processing and Certification of 
Transuranic Waste for Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
(69 FR 39449, June 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement High-Level Waste Record of Decision (64 FR

[[Page 35074]]

46661, August 26, 1999), DOE will store canisters of vitrified HLW at 
the WVDP site until transfer to a geologic repository. Contingent upon 
issuance of a license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 
construct and operate the repository and the execution of a disposal 
contract between DOE and the State of New York, DOE plans to dispose of 
the canisters there when the repository becomes available.
    DOE is deferring a decision on the disposal of WVDP TRU waste, 
pending a determination by DOE that the waste meets all statutory and 
regulatory requirements for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
(WIPP).

ADDRESSES: Copies of the WVDP WM EIS and this Record of Decision (ROD) 
may be obtained by calling (716) 942-2152 or (800) 633-5280 (toll-
free), by sending an e-mail request to [email protected], or by 
mailing a request to: Mr. Daniel W. Sullivan, EIS Document Manager, DOE 
West Valley Area Office, 10282 Rock Springs Road, WV-49, West Valley, 
New York 14171-9799.
    This ROD will be available on the DOE NEPA Web site, http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/pub_rods_toc.html, and the WVDP Web site, http://www.wv.doe.gov. The WVDP WM EIS is available at the WVDP Web site and 
through DOE's NEPA Web site at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning WVDP waste 
management activities can be submitted by calling (716) 942-2152 or 
(800) 633-5280 (toll-free), by sending an e-mail request to 
[email protected], or by mailing them to Mr. Daniel W. Sullivan at 
the above address.
    For general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: 
Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, 
(EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at 
(800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Western New York Nuclear Service Center (Center) comprises 14 
square kilometers (5 square miles) in West Valley, New York, and is 
located in the town of Ashford, approximately 50 kilometers (30 miles) 
southeast of Buffalo, New York. It was the only commercial nuclear fuel 
reprocessing plant to have operated in the United States. The Center 
operated under a license issued by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1966 
to Nuclear Fuel Services, Incorporated, and the New York State Atomic 
and Space Development Authority, now known as the New York State Energy 
Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).
    During reprocessing, spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear 
power plants and DOE sites was chopped, dissolved, and processed by a 
solvent extraction system to recover uranium and plutonium. Fuel 
reprocessing ended in 1972, when the plant was shut down for 
modifications to increase its capacity, reduce occupational radiation 
exposure, and reduce radioactive effluents. At the time, the owner and 
operator of the reprocessing plant, Nuclear Fuel Services, 
Incorporated, expected that the modifications would take two years and 
$15 million to complete. However, between 1972 and 1976, there were 
major changes in regulatory requirements, including more stringent 
seismic and tornado siting criteria for nuclear facilities and more 
extensive regulations for radioactive waste management, radiation 
protection, and nuclear material safeguards. In 1976, Nuclear Fuel 
Services, Incorporated, judged that over $600 million would be required 
to modify the facility to increase its capacity and to comply with 
these changes in regulatory standards.
    As a result, the company announced its decision to withdraw from 
the nuclear fuel reprocessing business and exercise its contractual 
right to yield responsibility for the Center to NYSERDA. Nuclear Fuel 
Services, Incorporated, withdrew from the Center without removing any 
of the in-process nuclear wastes. NYSERDA now holds title to and 
manages the Center on behalf of the people of the State of New York.
    In 1980, Congress passed the WVDP Act (Public Law No. 96-368, 42 
U.S.C. 2021a). The WVDP Act requires DOE to demonstrate that the liquid 
HLW from reprocessing can be safely managed by solidifying it at the 
Center and transporting it to a geologic repository for permanent 
disposal. Specifically, Section 2(a) of the Act directs DOE to take the 
following actions:
    1. Solidify HLW by vitrification or such other technology that the 
DOE deems effective;
    2. Develop containers suitable for the permanent disposal of the 
solidified HLW;
    3. Transport the solidified HLW to an appropriate Federal 
repository for permanent disposal;
    4. Dispose of the LLW and TRU waste produced by the HLW 
solidification program; and
    5. Decontaminate and decommission the waste storage tanks and 
facilities used to store HLW, the facilities used for solidification of 
the HLW, and any material and hardware used in connection with the 
project in accordance with such requirements as the NRC may prescribe.
    In the 20 years since the WVDP Act was enacted, DOE has succeeded 
in preparing all 2.3 million liters (600,000 gallons) of waste 
resulting from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for disposal, 
including treatment of HLW by vitrification (combining liquid HLW with 
borosilicate glass), and has developed stainless-steel canisters 
suitable for HLW permanent disposal (actions 1 and 2). The 
Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the WVDP and the 
Western New York Nuclear Service Center EIS, currently being prepared, 
will address decommissioning and closure alternatives. DOE published a 
Notice of Intent to prepare the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term 
Stewardship at the WVDP and the Western New York Nuclear Service Center 
EIS on March 13, 2003 (68 FR 12044, March 13, 2003).
    Although DOE does not manage low-level radioactive waste according 
to the classes of NRC's regulations for shallow land disposal, 10 CFR 
61.55, a 1987 Stipulation of Compromise between the Coalition on West 
Valley Nuclear Wastes and DOE specified that an EIS be prepared that 
addresses the disposal of those Class B and C wastes generated as a 
result of the activities of DOE at the WVDP.

Purpose and Need for Action

    In accordance with the directives in the WVDP Act, DOE is 
responsible for the facilities used in connection with the WVDP HLW 
vitrification effort and for disposal of the LLW, MLLW, HLW, and TRU 
waste produced by the WVDP HLW solidification program. To make progress 
in fulfilling its responsibilities under the WVDP Act, DOE needs to 
identify a disposal path for the wastes that are currently stored 
onsite and that will be generated from ongoing operations and 
decontamination activities that will occur over the next ten years. 
Decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship (LTS) decisions will be 
made under the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the WVDP 
and the Western New York Nuclear Service Center EIS.

Alternatives Considered

    The WVDP WM EIS evaluates alternatives for meeting DOE's onsite 
waste management and off-site

[[Page 35075]]

transportation and disposal responsibilities under the WVDP Act. To 
address the range of reasonable alternatives, the WVDP WM EIS evaluated 
three alternatives. Each alternative is described below. In 
implementing any of these alternatives, DOE would comply with 
applicable laws, regulations, orders, agreements, receiving site 
permits and WAC, and state-approved closure plans.

No Action Alternative--Continuation of Ongoing Waste Management 
Activities

    Under this alternative, DOE would provide continued operational 
support and monitoring of WVDP waste management facilities to meet the 
requirements for safety and hazard management.
    Waste management activities currently in progress would continue 
for onsite storage of existing Class A, B, and C (per 10 CFR 61.55) LLW 
and MLLW, TRU waste and HLW waste and off-site disposal of a limited 
quantity of Class A LLW at a commercial facility such as Envirocare in 
Utah, or at DOE disposal facilities at the Hanford Site in Washington 
or NTS in Nevada. Removal of these wastes for off-site disposal would 
require 169 truck shipments or 85 rail shipments. The HLW storage tanks 
and their surrounding vaults would continue to be ventilated to manage 
moisture levels as a corrosion prevention measure until decommissioning 
and/or LTS decisions are made based in part on the impact assessment to 
be provided by the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the 
WVDP and the Western New York Nuclear Service Center EIS.

Alternative A (Preferred Alternative)--Off-Site Shipment of HLW, LLW, 
MLLW, and TRU Wastes to Disposal

    Under this alternative, DOE would ship Class A, B, and C LLW and 
MLLW to either or both of two DOE potential disposal sites (the Hanford 
Site or NTS) and/or to a commercial disposal site (such as Envirocare), 
ship TRU waste to WIPP (near Carlsbad, New Mexico), and ship HLW to the 
Yucca Mountain Repository (in Nye County, Nevada). LLW and MLLW would 
be shipped over the next ten years (requiring approximately 1,966 truck 
shipments or 608 rail shipments). TRU waste shipments to WIPP could be 
completed within the next ten years if the TRU waste is determined to 
meet all the requirements for disposal at WIPP (requiring approximately 
270 truck shipments or 172 rail shipments); however, if some or all of 
WVDP's TRU waste does not meet these requirements, the DOE would need 
to explore other alternatives for disposal of this waste.
    Approximately 300 canisters of HLW would be shipped to the Yucca 
Mountain Repository (requiring approximately 300 truck shipments or 60 
rail shipments). These shipments would occur when the repository 
becomes available, which is contingent upon authorization by NRC to 
construct and operate the repository, and the execution of a disposal 
contract between the DOE and the State of New York. The waste storage 
tanks would continue to be managed as described under the No Action 
Alternative.

Alternative B--Off-Site Shipment of LLW and MLLW to Disposal, and 
Shipment of HLW and TRU Waste to Interim Storage

    Under this alternative, LLW and MLLW would be shipped off-site for 
disposal at the same locations as Alternative A. TRU wastes would be 
shipped to the Hanford Site; Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, 
Idaho; the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and/
or the Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, South Carolina, for interim 
storage and then to WIPP for disposal. TRU waste also could be shipped 
to WIPP for interim storage prior to disposal there. HLW would be 
shipped to SRS or Hanford for interim storage, with subsequent shipment 
to the Yucca Mountain Repository for disposal. Implementation of this 
alternative would require 540 truck shipments or 344 rail shipments of 
TRU waste and 600 truck shipments or 120 rail shipments of HLW; this 
represents the number of shipments required from WVDP to the interim 
storage site and then from interim storage to the disposal site.
    It is assumed that the shipment of LLW and MLLW to disposal would 
occur within the next ten years, and that TRU waste and HLW would be 
shipped to interim storage during that same ten years. Ultimate 
disposal of TRU wastes and HLW wastes would be subject to the same 
constraints described under Alternative A. The impacts of transporting 
these wastes to their ultimate disposal sites, as well as to the 
interim storage sites, were included in the impact analyses for this 
alternative. The waste storage tanks would continue to be managed as 
described under the No Action Alternative.

Environmental Impacts

    The waste management actions proposed under all alternatives would 
be conducted in existing facilities (and in the case of waste 
transportation, on existing road and rail lines) by the existing work 
force at the involved facilities and would not involve either new 
construction or building demolition. Because there would be no 
mechanism for new land disturbance under any alternative, there is no 
potential, except for transportation accidents, to directly or 
indirectly impact current land use; biotic communities; cultural, 
historical, or archaeological resources; visual resources; ambient 
noise levels; threatened or endangered species or their critical 
habitats; wetlands; or floodplains. None of the onsite management 
activities under any of the alternatives would result in any new 
criteria air pollutant emissions. Additionally, because the work force 
needed for the waste management activities analyzed in this EIS would 
be the same under all alternatives and there would be no increases or 
decreases from current employment levels as a result of waste 
management activities, there is no potential for socioeconomic impacts.
    Waste management activities under each alternative would result in 
the limited exposure of workers to small amounts of radiation and 
contaminated material, and exposure of the public to very small 
quantities of radioactive materials. The human health impacts to 
involved and noninvolved workers and the public at or near the WVDP 
site are small and are dominated by ongoing WVDP site operations that 
would continue under all alternatives. Any differences in the potential 
impacts among the three alternatives would not be discernible. 
Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in very small 
impacts to human health or the environment.
    The EIS analysis of potential human health impacts shows that 
onsite waste management actions under each alternative would result in 
less than one latent cancer fatality (LCF) among workers (maximum 0.1 
LCF) and the public (maximum 0.0015 LCF) under normal operating 
conditions. Further, neither individual involved workers, the maximally 
exposed individual, nor the public, near the WVDP site would be 
expected to incur a LCF under any atmospheric conditions if an accident 
were to occur during waste management activities.
    Projected impacts from off-site waste transportation are less than 
one LCF among workers and the public for all three alternatives. The 
consequences of the maximum reasonably foreseeable transportation 
accidents under each alternative would vary slightly among the 
alternatives and between truck and

[[Page 35076]]

rail transport. Under the No Action Alternative, the maximum reasonably 
foreseeable transportation accident would involve Class A LLW. For 
truck transport, this accident could result in about one LCF, and for 
rail about two LCF's, among the exposed population (the annual 
probability of such an accident occurring is about five in ten million 
for truck transport, or about two in one million for rail transport). 
For Alternatives A and B, the maximum reasonably foreseeable truck or 
rail transportation accident with the highest consequences would 
involve TRU waste. Because one TRU waste shipping container (a TRUPACT-
II container) was assumed to be involved in either the truck or rail 
accident, the consequences for the truck or rail accident would be the 
same. Among the exposed population, this accident could result in about 
four LCF's (for Alternative A, the annual probability of such an 
accident occurring is about six in ten million for truck transport, or 
about one in ten million for rail transport; for Alternative B, the 
annual probability of such an accident occurring is about eight in ten 
million for truck transport, or about three in ten million for rail 
transport). Potential impacts of waste management activities at off-
site receiving locations have been addressed in earlier NEPA documents, 
as described in the WVDP WM EIS (Section 1.7.1). For all waste types, 
WVDP waste represents less than two percent of the total DOE waste 
inventory. Human health impacts at all sites as a result of the 
management (storage or disposal) of WVDP waste during the ten-year 
period of analysis would be very minor (substantially less than one 
LCF).
    Based on the analysis of the potential impacts documented in the 
WVDP WM EIS, DOE has determined that implementation of any of the 
alternatives would result in very low impacts to human health and the 
environment.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Alternative A (Off-site Shipment of HLW, LLW, MLLW, and TRU Wastes 
to Disposal) is the environmentally preferable alternative. Because 
less radioactive waste would be transported under the No Action 
Alternative, implementation of that alternative is likely to result in 
the smallest impacts over the next ten years as compared to 
Alternatives A or B. Over time, however, the removal of waste from the 
WVDP site to a safer and more secure disposal site will reduce 
radiological risk to workers and the public. Alternative A would have 
the smallest transportation risks among the action alternatives because 
implementation of this alternative would require half the number of TRU 
waste and HLW shipments as under Alternative B, and potential 
transportation risks decrease as the number of miles traveled and 
individual shipments decrease.

Public Comments on the Final WVDP WM EIS and Agency Response

    Following the issuance of the Final WVDP WM EIS, DOE received 
comment letters from the Southwest Research and Information Center 
(SRIC) (dated January 23, 2004), the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear 
Wastes (Coalition) (dated February 14, 2004), and from the State of 
Nevada Department of Administration (dated February 17, 2004). These 
letters are summarized below, followed by DOE's response to the 
comments presented.
    SRIC Comment Summary: SRIC stated that it objects to those portions 
of the Final WVDP WM EIS action alternatives related to disposing of 
TRU waste at WIPP. The commenter stated that the EIS is inadequate with 
regard to TRU waste, and that the DOE should analyze alternatives for 
storage and disposal of WVDP TRU waste that do not include WIPP. The 
commenter further stated that WVDP waste is prohibited from disposal at 
WIPP under the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act because it is not defense waste 
and because the EIS did not describe all of the requirements for 
disposal at WIPP; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
certification for the repository does not include any WVDP TRU waste; 
the State of New Mexico operating permit does not include any WVDP TRU 
waste; inventory estimates in the WVDP WM EIS differ from previous 
estimates such as those in the WIPP Supplemental EIS-II (DOE/EIS-0026-
S-2, 1997) (WIPP SEIS-II), which shows that the DOE has inadequate 
waste characterization and inventory information for decisionmaking; 
DOE should not consider bringing West Valley HLW to be stored or 
disposed of at WIPP; and the public comment process on the EIS was 
inadequate.
    DOE Response: DOE is deferring a decision on the disposal of WVDP 
TRU waste, pending a determination by the DOE that the waste meets all 
statutory and regulatory requirements for disposal at the WIPP. With 
regard to potential WVDP TRU waste disposal at WIPP, DOE will further 
respond to SRIC comments when a decision on WVDP TRU waste disposal is 
made. However, it is appropriate at this time to respond to two more 
general SRIC comments.
    First, with regard to the suggestion that the DOE not send WVDP HLW 
to WIPP, this EIS did not propose to send HLW to WIPP and did not 
analyze an alternative that would support such a decision. The WIPP 
Land Withdrawal Act prohibits disposal of HLW at WIPP, and DOE does not 
intend to dispose of West Valley HLW at WIPP.
    Second, DOE disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the 
public comment process for this EIS was inadequate. Pursuant to the 
NEPA implementing regulations, DOE published notices (66 FR 16447, 
March 26, 2001, and 68 FR 26587, May 16, 2003) for public scoping and 
the public comment period for the Draft EIS in the Federal Register, 
and held two public hearings at the WVDP. The Draft WVDP WM EIS (and 
the Final EIS) were provided to the agencies in all states hosting 
proposed disposal or storage sites. Specifically, in New Mexico, the 
documents were sent to the New Mexico Environment Department (State 
National Environmental Policy Act Clearinghouse). DOE also provided 
copies of the Draft WVDP WM EIS (and the Final WVDP WM EIS) to all 
persons known to be interested. Copies of the Draft and Final EIS were 
provided to governors and Members of Congress in all potentially 
affected states (including Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington). DOE received and considered 
comments from stakeholders in states hosting DOE sites analyzed for 
waste storage and/or disposal; these are identified in the Final WVDP 
WM EIS.
    Coalition Comment Summary: The Coalition stated that the DOE did 
not respond to its comments on the Draft WVDP WM EIS regarding the 
Coalition's position that shipment of Class B/C waste (as determined 
under NRC classification regulations) off site for disposal violates 
the 1987 Stipulation of Compromise (Stipulation) resolving the 
litigation between the Coalition and DOE. In addition, the Coalition 
stated that the DOE did not respond to other specific comments: the 
preparation of the WVDP WM EIS and the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term 
Stewardship at the WVDP and the Western New York Nuclear Service Center 
EIS do not comply with the Coalition's position that only one EIS can 
satisfy the Stipulation; by preparing two EISs, DOE has improperly 
segmented the actions under NEPA by not including the impacts at 
receiving sites and has failed to identify impacts at those sites for 
larger volumes of waste that could be generated under the 
Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the WVDP and the

[[Page 35077]]

Western New York Nuclear Service Center EIS; in accordance with the 
Stipulation, Class B/C waste cannot be shipped off site until the 
entire closure EIS process has been completed; and DOE has acknowledged 
that additional NEPA documentation would be needed before West Valley 
waste could be shipped to Hanford. The Coalition also stated that it 
objects to the ``counterfeit'' version of the Stipulation DOE included 
in Appendix A of the WVDP WM EIS, as that version is not identical to 
the original version.
    DOE Response: DOE has reviewed all comments received on the Draft 
WVDP WM EIS, including those from the Coalition and its members, and 
has addressed the comments in Appendix E of the Final WVDP WM EIS. DOE 
understands that it is the Coalition's position that the Stipulation 
does not allow disposal of Class B or C LLW until the Decommissioning 
and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the WVDP and the Western New York 
Nuclear Service Center EIS is completed. DOE agrees with the Coalition 
that a decision to dispose of WVDP LLW on site would be precluded by 
the Stipulation prior to completion of the Decommissioning EIS; 
however, DOE does not believe that the Stipulation was intended to 
preclude a decision to dispose of WVDP LLW off site prior to completion 
of that EIS. Moreover, DOE's waste management activities described in 
the WVDP WM EIS will not affect the range of reasonable alternatives 
available for decommissioning or LTS. Therefore, DOE concludes that its 
NEPA strategy does not constitute impermissible segmentation, and that 
the shipment of stored wastes off site for disposal has independent 
utility.
    Chapter 5 of the WVDP WM EIS states that impacts at receiving 
sites, including the potential inventory of wastes to be shipped from 
WVDP, were analyzed in the WM Programmatic EIS (Final Waste Management 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing, Treatment, 
Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste, DOE/EIS-0200-
F). In addition, DOE added a statement to Chapter 5 in the Final WVDP 
WM EIS that future wastes generated by decommissioning and LTS are not 
known at this time and would be addressed under the Decommissioning 
and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the WVDP and the Western New York 
Nuclear Service Center EIS. DOE's responses to comments also stated 
that additional site-specific review as called for in the WM 
Programmatic EIS was in progress at Hanford. The Final Hanford Solid 
and Radioactive Waste EIS has since been issued (January 2004) and 
analyzes waste from off-site generators, including WVDP.
    DOE agrees with the Coalition that DOE should have identified the 
version of the Stipulation in Appendix A of the WVDP WM EIS as a 
reprint. However, the differences between that version and the original 
Stipulation are minor (such as spacing and punctuation) and did not 
change or affect the content of the text.
    State of Nevada Comment Summary: The State's Division of Water 
Resources stated that applications for the use of the waters of the 
State pertaining to the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada, have been denied by the State Engineer, a ruling which has been 
appealed to the Federal District Court in Nevada.
    DOE Response: The Final WVDP WM EIS stated, and DOE further states 
in this decision, that the WVDP immobilized HLW planned for disposal at 
Yucca Mountain will be stored onsite until a repository becomes 
available.

Decision

    The WVDP Act (Pub. L. 96-368) mandates that DOE dispose of LLW and 
TRU waste generated by the HLW solidification project. To make progress 
in meeting its obligations under the Act, DOE has decided to implement 
partially Alternative A, the preferred alternative, for the management 
of WVDP LLW and MLLW that is currently in storage at the site or that 
will be generated at the site over the next ten years. Of the two 
action alternatives evaluated, Alternative A is the environmentally 
preferable action alternative, has the fewest transportation impacts, 
and the least radiological risk to workers and the public.
    In accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, 
including WVDP permit requirements, WAC and applicable agreements, and 
DOE Orders, DOE will ship LLW and MLLW off site for disposal at 
commercial sites (such as Envirocare, a commercial radioactive waste 
disposal site in Clive, Utah); at one or both of two DOE sites, the NTS 
in Mercury, Nevada, or the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington; or a 
combination of commercial and DOE sites, consistent with DOE's February 
2000 decision regarding LLW and MLLW disposal.\1\ This decision 
includes wastes DOE may determine in the future to be LLW or MLLW 
pursuant to a waste incidental to reprocessing by evaluation process. 
Disposal at Hanford would be subject to any of the WVDP LLW and MLLW 
(as well as all other off-site DOE waste) limits DOE has imposed upon 
non-Hanford waste receipts in its June 2004 decision regarding waste 
management at the Hanford Site,\2\ and contingent upon the resolution 
of ongoing Hanford litigation in which a preliminary injunction has 
been entered against shipping offsite LLW and MLLW to Hanford. During 
packaging, shipping, and managing WVDP waste at receiving facilities, 
DOE will continue to follow all practicable means to avoid or minimize 
environmental harm.
    DOE will store the canisters of vitrified HLW at the WVDP site 
until they can be shipped to a geologic repository for the disposal of 
HLW. As stated in the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement Record of Decision, DOE plans to transfer the 
canisters to the geologic repository when the repository becomes 
available, which is contingent upon issuance of a license by the NRC to 
construct and operate the repository, and subject to the execution of a 
disposal contract between the DOE and the State of New York. DOE is 
deferring a decision on the disposal of WVDP TRU waste, pending a 
determination by the DOE that the waste meets all statutory and 
regulatory requirements for disposal at the WIPP.

    Issued at Washington, DC, June 9, 2005.
Charles E. Anderson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 05-11882 Filed 6-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P