[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20582-20589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9101]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision: Final Environmental Impact Statement for 
Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley 
Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center

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), based on information and analyses contained in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-
Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western 
New York Nuclear Service Center (Decommissioning and/or Long-Term 
Stewardship EIS) (DOE/EIS-0226) issued on January 29, 2010, comments 
received on the Final EIS, and other factors including cost and 
environmental stewardship considerations. The Decommissioning and/or 
Long-Term Stewardship EIS was prepared by DOE and the New York State 
Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to examine the

[[Page 20583]]

potential environmental impacts of the range of reasonable alternatives 
to meet DOE's responsibilities under the West Valley Demonstration 
Project (WVDP) Act and NYSERDA's responsibilities for management of the 
Western New York Nuclear Services Center (WNYNSC). This ROD addresses 
DOE decisions for actions at WNYNSC necessary to complete WVDP. NYSERDA 
will publish its decisions regarding actions at WNYNSC in a Findings 
Statement in the New York State Environmental Notice Bulletin.
    The Proposed Action is the completion of WVDP and the 
decommissioning and/or long-term management or stewardship of WNYNSC. 
This includes the decontamination and decommissioning of the waste 
storage tanks and facilities used in the solidification of high-level 
radioactive waste, and any material and hardware used in connection 
with the WVDP. DOE needs to determine what, if any, material or 
structures for which it is responsible would remain on site, and what, 
if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or stewardship 
provisions would be needed. NYSERDA needs to determine what, if any, 
material or structures for which it is responsible would remain on site 
and what, if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or 
stewardship provisions would be needed.
    DOE and NYSERDA evaluated four alternatives in the Final EIS: 
Sitewide Removal, Sitewide Close-In-Place, Phased Decisionmaking (the 
Preferred Alternative), and No Action.
    DOE has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative, Phased 
Decisionmaking. Under this alternative, decommissioning will be 
completed in two phases. Phase 1 involves near-term decommissioning and 
removal actions for certain facilities and areas and undertakes 
characterization work and studies that could facilitate future 
decisionmaking for the remaining facilities or areas on the property.
    DOE intends to complete any remaining WVDP decommissioning 
decisionmaking with its Phase 2 decision (to be made within 10 years of 
this ROD) and expects to select either removal or in-place closure, or 
a combination of the two for those portions of the site for which it 
has decommissioning responsibility.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding WVDP or this 
ROD, or to receive a copy of the Decommissioning and/or Long-term 
Stewardship EIS or this ROD, contact: Catherine Bohan, EIS Document 
Manager, West Valley Demonstration Project, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Ashford Office Complex, 9030 Route 219, West Valley, NY 14171. Requests 
for information may also be submitted via e-mail at http://www.westvalleyeis.com or by faxing toll-free to 866-306-9094.
    The West Valley Web site (http://www.wv.doe.gov) may also be 
accessed for the Decommissioning and/or Long-term Stewardship EIS (DOE/
EIS-0226), this ROD, and additional information related to the West 
Valley site.
    For general information on DOE's NEPA process contact: Carol 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585; e-mail [email protected]; telephone 202-586-4600; or leave a 
message at 800-472-2756. Additional information regarding DOE NEPA 
activities and access to many DOE NEPA documents, including the 
Decommissioning and/or Long-term Stewardship EIS, are available through 
the DOE NEPA Web site at: http://www.gc.energy.gov/nepa.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    DOE has prepared this ROD pursuant to the regulations of the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA 
Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021). This ROD is based on 
information and analyses contained in the Final Decommissioning and/or 
Long-Term Stewardship EIS (DOE/EIS-0226) issued on January 29, 2010 (75 
FR 4803); comments received on the Final EIS; and other factors, 
including cost and environmental stewardship considerations.
    WNYNSC is a 1,351-hectare (3,338-acre) site located 48 kilometers 
(30 miles) south of Buffalo, New York, and owned by NYSERDA. WNYNSC was 
established in 1961 as the site of a nuclear center consisting of 
commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and waste disposal 
facilities. Nuclear Fuel Services, Incorporated (NFS), a private 
company, built and operated the fuel reprocessing plant and burial 
grounds, processing 640 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel at WNYNSC 
from 1966 to 1972 under an Atomic Energy Commission license. 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. 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.
    As a result, NFS announced its decision to withdraw from the 
nuclear fuel reprocessing business and to exercise its contractual 
right to yield responsibility for WNYNSC to NYSERDA, the site owner. 
NFS withdrew from WNYNSC in 1976 without removing any of the in-process 
nuclear wastes. NYSERDA now holds title to and manages WNYNSC.
    In 1980, Congress passed the WVDP Act (Pub. L. 96-368, 42 U.S.C. 
2021a). The WVDP Act requires DOE to demonstrate that the liquid high-
level radioactive waste from reprocessing could be safely managed by 
solidifying it at WNYNSC, and transporting it to a repository for 
permanent disposal. Specifically, Section 2(a) of the Act directs DOE 
to take the following actions:
    1. Solidify high-level radioactive waste by vitrification or such 
other technology that the DOE deems effective;
    2. Develop containers suitable for the permanent disposal of the 
solidified high-level radioactive waste;
    3. Transport the solidified high-level radioactive waste to an 
appropriate Federal repository for permanent disposal;
    4. Dispose of the low-level radioactive waste and transuranic waste 
produced by the high-level radioactive waste solidification program; 
and
    5. Decontaminate and decommission the waste storage tanks and 
facilities used to store the high-level radioactive waste, the 
facilities used for solidification of the high-level radioactive waste, 
and any material and hardware used in connection with the project in 
accordance with such requirements as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) may prescribe.
    In 1982, DOE assumed control but not ownership of the 68-hectare 
(167-acre) Project Premises portion of WNYNSC to conduct the WVDP, as 
required under the aforementioned WVDP Act.
    As part of the WVDP Act, NRC was charged with developing 
decommissioning criteria. In the ``Decommissioning Criteria for the 
WVDP at the West Valley Site; Final Policy Statement'' (NRC Policy 
Statement) (67 FR 5003), NRC prescribes the requirements for 
decommissioning WVDP. The decommissioning criteria define the 
conditions that would allow WVDP to be used with specified

[[Page 20584]]

restrictions or without restrictions on future use. If those conditions 
cannot be met, the NRC Policy Statement also defines the circumstances 
under which portions of the site could remain under long-term 
management or stewardship.
    A 1987 Stipulation of Compromise between the Coalition on West 
Valley Nuclear Wastes and DOE specified that a closure EIS be prepared 
that also addresses the disposal of those Class B and C low-level 
radioactive wastes generated as a result of DOE's activities at WVDP. 
In 1990, DOE and NYSERDA entered into a supplemental agreement to 
prepare an EIS to address both the completion of WVDP and closure or 
long-term management of WNYNSC.

EIS Process

    On December 30, 1988, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the 
Federal Register to prepare an EIS for WVDP completion. In 1990, DOE 
and NYSERDA entered into a supplemental agreement to prepare a joint 
EIS to address both the completion of WVDP and closure or long-term 
management of WNYNSC. A Draft EIS was issued for public comment in 
1996: the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Completion of the 
West Valley Demonstration Project and Closure or Long-Term Management 
of Facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, also 
referred to as the 1996 Cleanup and Closure Draft EIS (DOE/EIS-0226D), 
January 1996. The 1996 Draft EIS did not identify a preferred 
alternative.
    On March 26, 2001, DOE and NYSERDA announced (66 FR 15447) their 
intent to revise their strategy for completing the EIS process. On 
November 6, 2001, DOE issued an Advance NOI (66 FR 56090) to provide an 
early opportunity for interested parties to comment on the proposed 
scope of the EIS, and on March 13, 2003, DOE and NYSERDA issued an NOI 
(68 FR 12044) for the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. 
After considering all public scoping comments and based on 
decommissioning criteria for WVDP issued by NRC since the publication 
of the 1996 Cleanup and Closure Draft EIS and public comments on that 
EIS, DOE and NYSERDA (as co-lead preparers) issued the Revised Draft 
EIS known as the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS for 
public comment in December 2008. The public comment period, originally 
scheduled to end June 8, 2009, was extended through September 8, 2009, 
in response to requests from the public. Following consideration of all 
public comments, the Final EIS was issued in January 2010. The NRC, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) participated as 
cooperating agencies in preparing the EIS. The New York State 
Department of Health and NYSDEC are involved agencies under the New 
York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR).
    The Proposed Action is the completion of WVDP and the 
decommissioning and/or long-term management or stewardship of WNYNSC. 
This includes the decontamination and decommissioning of the waste 
storage tanks and facilities used in the solidification of high-level 
radioactive waste, and any material and hardware used in connection 
with the WVDP. DOE needs to determine what, if any, material or 
structures for which it is responsible would remain on site, and what, 
if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or stewardship 
provisions would be needed. NYSERDA needs to determine what, if any, 
material or structures for which it is responsible would remain on site 
and what, if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or 
stewardship provisions would be needed as a result.

Alternatives Considered

    The Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS analyzes the 
potential environmental impacts of the range of reasonable alternatives 
to decommission and/or maintain long-term stewardship at WNYNSC. The 
alternatives analyzed in the EIS include Sitewide Removal, Sitewide 
Close-In-Place, Phased Decisionmaking (the Preferred Alternative), and 
No Action.
    Sitewide Removal. Under this alternative, site facilities would be 
removed; contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater would be removed 
to meet criteria that would allow unrestricted release of WNYNSC; and 
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste would be characterized, 
packaged as necessary, and eventually shipped off site for disposal. 
Immediate implementation of this alternative would generate waste for 
which there is currently no offsite disposal location (e.g., potential 
non-defense transuranic waste, commercial Class B and C low-level 
radioactive waste, and Greater-Than-Class C waste). Any such ``orphan 
waste'' would be stored on site until an appropriate offsite facility 
is available. Completion of these activities would allow unrestricted 
use of the site (i.e., the site could be made available for any public 
or private use).
    Sitewide Close-In-Place. Under this alternative, most facilities 
would be closed in place. Major facilities and sources of contamination 
such as the Waste Tank Farm, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-
Licensed Disposal Area (NDA), and State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA) 
would be managed at their current locations.
    Residual radioactivity in facilities with larger inventories of 
long-lived radionuclides would be isolated by specially designed 
closure structures and engineered barriers. These structures would be 
designed to meet regulatory requirements both to retain hazardous and 
radioactive constituents and to ensure they would be resistant to long-
term degradation. This approach would allow large areas of the site to 
be released for unrestricted use. The NRC license for remaining 
portions of WNYNSC could be terminated under restricted conditions, or 
could be converted to a long-term license. Facilities that are closed 
in place, and any buffer areas around them, would require long-term 
stewardship.
    Phased Decisionmaking (the Preferred Alternative). Under this 
alternative, decommissioning would be completed in two phases. This 
alternative involves substantial removal actions in the first phase and 
also provides for additional site characterization and scientific 
studies to facilitate decisionmaking for the remaining facilities or 
areas.
    Phase 1 decommissioning actions would include removal of the Main 
Plant Process Building, the Vitrification Facility, and the source area 
for the North Plateau Groundwater Plume. In addition, the lagoons and 
all facilities in Waste Management Area (WMA) 2 (except the permeable 
treatment wall) would be removed. The Remote Handled Waste Facility and 
a number of facilities in WMAs 5, 6, 9, and 10 would also be removed. 
Foundations, slabs, or pads from these facilities, as well as those 
from previously demolished facilities would also be removed. During 
Phase 1, several facilities would continue under active management. 
These facilities include the Waste Tank Farm and its support 
facilities, the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, the 
nonsource area of the North Plateau Groundwater Plume, the NDA, and the 
SDA. Phase 1 activities would make use of proven technologies and 
available waste disposal sites to reduce the potential short-term 
health and safety risks from residual radioactivity and hazardous 
contaminants at the site.
    Phase 1 activities are expected to take 8 to 10 years to complete. 
During this time, a number of activities would be conducted to evaluate 
the best technical approach to complete decommissioning

[[Page 20585]]

of the remaining facilities and to facilitate interagency 
decisionmaking. These activities would include further characterization 
of site contamination and additional scientific studies. These 
additional studies may reduce technical uncertainties related to the 
decision on final decommissioning and long-term management of the 
balance of WNYNSC. In particular, these studies may address 
uncertainties associated with the long-term performance models, the 
viability and cost of exhuming buried waste and tanks, the availability 
of waste disposal sites, and technologies for in-place containment. 
While the Phase 1 activities are being conducted, DOE and NYSERDA would 
assess the results of site specific studies as they become available, 
along with other emerging information such as applicable technology 
development.
    In consultation with NYSERDA and cooperating and involved agencies 
on this EIS, DOE would determine whether new information or 
circumstances would warrant preparation of a Supplemental EIS prior to 
proceeding with Phase 2.
    The Phase 2 decision would be made within 10 years of this ROD and 
the initial NYSERDA Findings Statement. The timeframe associated with 
this decision in the Revised Draft EIS was 30 years. This timeframe was 
modified for the Final EIS in response to public comments. For DOE, 
WVDP Phase 2 actions would complete decommissioning or long-term 
management decisionmaking for each remaining facility according to the 
approach determined most appropriate. Phase 2 alternatives that would 
be considered by NYSERDA for the SDA include at least: complete 
exhumation, close-in-place, and continued active management consistent 
with SDA permit and license requirements.
    No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, no actions toward 
decommissioning would be taken. The No Action Alternative would involve 
the continued management and oversight of all facilities located on 
WNYNSC property. The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose 
and need for agency action, but analysis of the No Action Alternative 
is required under NEPA and SEQR as a basis for comparison.

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

    The Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS presents the 
potential impacts on land resources, air quality, noise, water 
resources, soils, biological resources, cultural resources, 
socioeconomics, and human health for the four alternatives, including 
those from potential facility accidents and transportation of 
radioactive materials. DOE considered the impacts of activities for 
each alternative, the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 
resources, and the relationship between short-term uses of the 
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 
productivity. Comparisons of the alternatives were based on both short- 
and long-term impacts. Five resource areas where meaningful impact 
differences could occur were used to compare short term impacts: land 
use (land available for reuse), socioeconomics (employment), human 
health and safety, waste management, and transportation. For 
comparative analyses of long-term impacts, the projected radiation dose 
to future hypothetical individuals and populations is identified as a 
meaningful difference among the alternatives; that is, long-term risks 
are dominated by radiological rather than chemically hazardous 
constituents.
    The Sitewide Removal Alternative would result in the most land 
available for release for unrestricted use (the entire WNYNSC); long-
term stewardship at WNYNSC would not be required, although 
institutional controls would be needed for any temporary management of 
orphan waste. This alternative would result in the highest 
decommissioning impacts at the site, on site workers, and on the public 
in the vicinity of WNYNSC and along the transportation routes over a 
period of about 60 years. This alternative would incur the highest 
short-term collective radiological dose to the public and workers from 
both onsite and transportation activities. These activities could 
result in up to 2 latent cancer fatalities among workers. No latent 
cancer fatalities would be expected for the public. Nonradiological 
consequences of transporting the waste off site for disposal are 
estimated to be as many as 10 to 15 fatalities from truck and rail 
accidents, respectively. Potential long-term radiological dose to the 
general population in the vicinity of WNYNSC would be negligible.
    The Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative would result in fewer 
decommissioning impacts at the site, require the least amount of time 
to accomplish, and generate the least amount of waste (other than the 
No Action Alternative) that would need to be disposed of elsewhere. 
This alternative would result in less land available for release for 
unrestricted use than the Sitewide Removal Alternative. No latent 
cancer fatalities would be expected among the public, onsite workers, 
or transportation workers. Transporting the waste off site for disposal 
is estimated to result in 1 fatality from transportation accidents. 
However, implementing this alternative would require long-term 
stewardship at WNYNSC, including institutional controls. The reasonably 
foreseeable long-term peak annual dose to an average Lake Erie water 
user (assumed to be consuming water from the Sturgeon Point water 
intake with unmitigated erosion at the West Valley site) would be about 
0.4 millirem, which would be indistinguishable from the dose associated 
with background radiation.
    The Phased Decisionmaking Alternative (Phase 1) would not result in 
more land available for release than the No Action Alternative, but 
would have positive long-term impacts because contaminated facilities 
and the source area of the North Plateau Groundwater Plume would be 
removed during decommissioning activities. No latent cancer fatalities 
would be expected among the public, onsite workers, or transportation 
workers as a result of Phase 1 activities. Transporting waste off site 
is estimated to result in 1 to 2 fatalities from nonradiological 
transportation accidents.
    If the Phase 2 decision is removal of remaining waste and 
contamination, total impacts from the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative 
would be similar to those for the Sitewide Removal Alternative.
    If the Phase 2 decision is in-place closure of the remaining waste 
and contamination, total waste generation and transportation impacts 
(including nonradiological fatalities from traffic accidents) for the 
alternative would be only slightly more than those for Phase 1 alone 
because of the limited amount of waste that would be generated by in-
place closure activities. The total worker exposure would be about 50 
percent higher than that for Phase 1 alone because of the additional 
occupational exposure that would occur from in-place closure of the 
facilities not removed during Phase 1. Long-term impacts would be less 
than those for the Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative. Because of 
removal actions during Phase 1, the time-integrated (cumulative) 
population dose over 1,000 years would be about 85 percent of the 4,000 
person-rem dose projected for the Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative. 
However, because of the long-lived radionuclides that would remain in 
the waste disposal areas, the time-integrated population dose over 
10,000 years would be about 97 percent of the 34,000 person-rem dose 
projected for the Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative.

[[Page 20586]]

    If the Phase 2 decision for the SDA is continued active management, 
short-term Phase 2 impacts for some resource areas are expected to be 
bounded by those for the No Action Alternative. There would also be 
less transportation, so the associated impacts, including 
nonradiological fatalities from traffic accidents, would be lower. The 
long-term human health impacts for continued active management of the 
SDA would be the same as those identified for the SDA under the No 
Action Alternative.
    Making the Phase 2 decision at 10 years instead of 30 years, as was 
cited in the Revised Draft EIS, would result in a small reduction in 
the total impact of decommissioning because most of the Phase 1 impacts 
are the result of the removal actions that occur in the first 8 years 
of Phase 1. The most important change in impacts associated with the 
shorter duration of Phase 1 would be the reduced socioeconomic impact. 
A shorter Phase 1 would eliminate the approximately 20-year period of 
reduced site employment following completion of the Phase 1 
decommissioning actions followed by an increase in site employment when 
Phase 2 implementation begins.
    The No Action Alternative would not involve decommissioning. Waste 
and contamination would not be removed, and there would be no change in 
site operations. Long-term impacts would be higher than those for the 
Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative because there would be fewer 
engineered barriers to retard the migration of radionuclides from their 
original locations and to act as intrusion barriers in the event of 
loss of institutional controls, although the associated health risks 
would be small. For example, the long-term peak annual dose to an 
average Lake Erie water user (assumed to be consuming water from the 
Sturgeon Point water intake with unmitigated erosion at the West Valley 
site) would be about 3 millirem, which is unlikely to result in a 
cancer fatality.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    As required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b), DOE has identified the 
environmentally preferable alternative for completion of WVDP and 
decommissioning of WNYNSC. DOE has compared the impacts of implementing 
each of the four alternatives evaluated in the EIS and considers the 
Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative to be the environmentally 
preferable alternative. DOE considered the short-term impacts 
associated with removing waste and contamination from WNYNSC and the 
estimated long-term impacts of leaving those materials on site and 
concluded that the long-term benefits of removing the waste and 
contamination do not outweigh the short-term impacts of the removal 
activities. DOE considers impacts on human health and safety to be 
important aspects of the human environment, and in this case, the 
principal discriminator for both short- and long-term impacts.
    In the EIS, five resource areas for which meaningful short-term 
impact differences could occur were identified: land use (land 
available for reuse), socioeconomics (employment), human health and 
safety, waste management, and transportation. In its identification of 
the environmentally preferable alternative, however, DOE narrowed its 
consideration (based on the differences in impacts between 
alternatives) to the amount of waste generated and the human health 
impacts of its removal and transportation for disposal. From an 
environmental stewardship perspective, DOE qualitatively considered 
overall land disturbance, resources consumed, and the need for long-
term stewardship at any location that would receive the West Valley 
waste for disposal, not just at WNYNSC.
    If only short-term impacts were considered, the No Action 
Alternative, would be the environmentally preferable alternative 
because the short-term adverse impacts would be the least of all the 
alternatives.
    The short-term adverse impacts would be greatest for the Sitewide 
Removal Alternative, although the local long-term benefits would also 
be greatest. After decommissioning actions are completed, the entire 
WNYNSC would be available for release; without waste or contamination 
remaining onsite, there would not be any long-term human health impacts 
nor would there be a need for long-term stewardship. The short-term 
impacts would result primarily from removal of waste and contamination 
which would involve construction; waste and contamination removal, 
packaging, and transportation to offsite locations; followed by site 
restoration with geologic materials (e.g., soil and gravel) from 
offsite locations. These short-term impacts would occur in the vicinity 
of WNYNSC and along the transportation corridors, and affect both the 
natural environment and human health. The Sitewide Removal Alternative 
would involve the disturbance and restoration of approximately 20 
hectares (50 acres) over 60 years, the generation and shipment of about 
1.6 million cubic meters (57 million cubic feet) of waste, result in an 
estimated 10 to 15 nonradiological fatalities from offsite 
transportation of waste, and result in a total radiological exposure to 
the public and workers (including from waste transportation) from about 
1,300 to 3,600 person-rem (the lower end of this range assumes all 
waste is transported by rail; the upper end, all by truck). The lower 
population dose would result in less than 1 latent cancer fatality 
while the higher population dose would result in up to 2 latent cancer 
fatalities.
    The short-term impacts would be less for the Sitewide Close-In-
Place Alternative, as this alternative would involve less material 
movement (materials would be needed primarily for the construction of 
waste isolation barriers), less worker exposure, and less 
transportation of waste. Under this alternative, approximately 12 
hectares (30 acres) at WNYNSC would be disturbed over a 7-year period, 
and 26,000 cubic meters (920,000 cubic feet) of waste (mostly non-
hazardous) would be generated. No latent cancer fatalities are expected 
to result from the estimated 160 to 220 person-rem total radiological 
exposure to workers and the public (the lower end of this range assumes 
all waste is transported by rail; the upper end, all by truck), nor 
would any nonradiological fatalities be expected to result from 
transportation activities under this alternative. However, less land 
would be available for release than under the Sitewide Removal 
Alternative and long-term stewardship would be required.
    For comparison of long-term impacts, the projected radiation dose 
to future hypothetical populations and individuals was identified in 
the EIS and considered in DOE's identification of the environmentally 
preferable alternative as a meaningful difference among the 
alternatives. DOE also considered the long-term stability of the WNYNSC 
site. The long-term erosion analysis performed to support the EIS 
suggests that the site can be managed in a way that prevents erosion of 
waste-containing areas for 10,000 years or longer.
    Long-term impacts were evaluated for offsite water users from the 
release of contaminants (primarily radionuclides) into the environment 
and for intruders who were postulated to enter WNYNSC in the event that 
institutional controls failed. The greatest impacts to offsite water 
users would occur under the No Action Alternative, for which the peak 
annual individual dose is estimated to be less than 1 millirem per year 
if site maintenance activities continue and up to 34 millirem per year 
if site maintenance activities cease. Under the Sitewide Close-In-Place 
Alternative, the peak annual dose to offsite water users is estimated 
to be less than 1 millirem

[[Page 20587]]

per year if site maintenance activities continue and up to 4 millirem 
per year if site maintenance activities cease. For both of these 
alternatives, the time-integrated population dose to offsite water 
users over thousands of years could be many thousands of person-rem. 
These values are composite doses that result from small individual 
doses that would be received by hundreds of thousands of people over 
thousands of years. The average annual individual dose over this time 
frame is about a factor of 10 or more lower than the estimated peak 
annual doses, with no latent cancer fatalities expected.
    Potential long-term impacts to intruders would occur if 
institutional controls failed and there were human intrusion into 
onsite areas where waste or contamination would be present. The 
magnitude of the long-term human health impacts is sensitive to the 
timing of human intrusion, the location of the intrusion, and the 
specific nature of actions taken by the intruder. The range of 
potential peak annual doses to intruders is highest for the No Action 
Alternative (less than 1 millirem, which would be indistinguishable 
from background radiation, to 400 rem, a potentially fatal dose), less 
for the Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative (less than 1 millirem to 
160 millirem, with no cancer fatalities expected), and negligible for 
individuals who might occupy WNYNSC under the Sitewide Removal 
Alternative because essentially all of the contamination would have 
been removed.
    Environmental stewardship considerations include land disturbance 
activities at WNYNSC and other affected sites. In addition to the 
temporary disturbance of the natural environment at WNYNSC during 
removal of the waste and contamination, offsite locations would be 
permanently impacted. These locations would be those from which large 
quantities of fill materials would be removed, and others at which the 
wastes from WNYNSC would be disposed. At these offsite locations, land 
would be permanently altered and possibly removed from future 
beneficial uses in support of remediating and releasing land at WNYNSC. 
In addition, moving waste from WNYNSC to other locations for disposal 
would transfer the long-term risk and the need for long-term 
institutional control (stewardship) to the sites receiving materials 
for disposal.
    On balance, the overall environmental impacts of the Sitewide 
Removal Alternative, which include the short-term impacts in and around 
WNYNSC and along representative transportation routes, and the 
environmental stewardship considerations at other locations are 
considered to be greater than the corresponding overall impacts of the 
Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative. Short-term impacts from 
implementing Phase 1 of the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative, in which 
certain removal actions would occur, are identified in the 
Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. Phase 2 
decommissioning actions have not yet been decided, but the impacts are 
expected to range between those identified for the Sitewide Removal and 
Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternatives. If the Phase 2 decision is 
removal of the remaining waste and contamination, the impacts from 
implementing the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative would be expected to 
be similar to those of the Sitewide Removal Alternative. If the Phase 2 
decision is in-place closure of the remaining waste and contamination, 
the short-term impacts would be expected to be greater than the 
Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative because the Phased Decisionmaking 
Alternative would include both the Phase 1 removal actions and the 
Phase 2 closure actions. The long-term impacts would be only slightly 
less than those for the Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative because 
only the long-lived radionuclides in the Process Building and source 
area for the North Plateau Groundwater Plume would be removed under 
this alternative (during Phase 1).

Public Comments on the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship 
Final EIS

    DOE received seven comment letters on the Final EIS. These letters 
included one cosigned by New York's Senators and 15 Congressional 
Representatives; one each from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(U.S. EPA), Raymond C. Vaughan, The Coalition on West Valley Nuclear 
Wastes, and Citizens' Environmental Coalition; as well as two cosigned 
by multiple organizations including The Coalition on West Valley 
Nuclear Wastes; Sierra Club; Zoar Valley Nature Society; Great Lakes 
Sport Fishing Council; Catholic Care for Creation Committee of Buffalo; 
Center for Health, Environment and Justice; International Institute of 
Concern for Public Health; WNY Council on Occupational Safety & Health; 
Niagara Health-Science Report; Downstream Denizens; Citizens Campaign 
for the Environment; Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes; Don't 
Waste Michigan; Beyond Nuclear; Citizens Awareness Network; and Nuclear 
Information and Resource Service.
    These letters raised a number of issues ranging from questioning 
the adequacy of the Final EIS, including its comment response document, 
to providing opinions on whether certain decisions can or should be 
made. Other comments related to activities that would be expected to 
occur after the ROD if the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative is 
selected including identifying the studies that would be conducted 
during Phase 1, public participation during decommissioning actions and 
for Phase 2 decisionmaking, and the need for future NEPA analysis.
    In addition to addressing the major comments in this ROD, DOE will 
prepare individual responses to all commentors who submitted letters on 
the Final EIS. Where appropriate, these letters will refer commentors 
to the relevant sections of the Final EIS for the requested data.

Adequacy of the EIS

    Several of the comment letters expressed the opinion that the Final 
EIS is unscientific, incomplete and unacceptable for all options that 
leave waste on site and that the EIS was never intended to be a 
realistic look at various cleanup options. These concerns identify what 
the commentors consider to be inadequate information, inadequate 
analysis, and inadequate response to public comments on the Revised 
Draft EIS. DOE has considered these comments, and finds the Final EIS 
to be fully compliant with the requirements of NEPA. DOE further 
believes that the document is adequate to support DOE decommissioning 
decisionmaking for WNYNSC. The Final EIS uses all reasonably available 
data to support its analyses comparing the potential environmental 
consequences of all of the alternatives. DOE acknowledges in the Final 
EIS that for the long-term performance assessment there is some 
incomplete or unavailable information, but the analysis has been 
conducted consistent with the requirements of NEPA as identified in 40 
CFR 1502.22. In addition, wherever practical, DOE accommodated 
recommendations of the co-lead and cooperating agencies and the public.
    Several comments expressed the opinion that responses to specific 
comments on the Revised Draft EIS provided in the Comment Response 
Document (Volume 3 of the Final EIS) are inadequate. DOE has reviewed 
the original comments and the responses in the Comment Response 
Document, and finds that it has adequately considered and responded to 
all comments received on the Revised Draft EIS.
    One comment cited what were thought to be five new references dated 
December 2009, questioned how

[[Page 20588]]

information received at such a late date could have been incorporated 
into the Final EIS, and expressed dismay at not having had an 
opportunity to review the referenced documents. These references are 
final versions of Technical Reports prepared by the WNYNSC site 
contractor and used throughout the EIS process. The Final Technical 
Reports referenced in the Final EIS contain minor revisions to the 
information presented in the 2008 versions of these reports that were 
referenced in the 2008 Revised Draft EIS. There were no fundamental 
changes in the engineering approach for the alternatives. The Technical 
Reports are available along with all other Final EIS references in the 
reading rooms identified in the Notice of Availability (75 FR 4803).
    Several comments are requests for additional information about the 
methods or details of specific analyses (e.g., erosion model 
capability, input parameters to erosion analysis, injury and fatality 
estimates for specific activities, time step for specific long-term 
performance assessment).

Support of Sitewide Removal Alternative

    The New York Senators and Representatives expressed concern about 
delays in site cleanup and strong support for the full Sitewide Removal 
alternative. They stated that, regardless of the alternative selected, 
a formal NEPA process with meaningful public participation is essential 
in the continued decisionmaking process. As noted in the decision 
below, DOE acknowledges the importance of public participation in the 
NEPA process and will provide robust opportunities to involve the 
public in the Phase 2 environmental review and decisionmaking process.
    Several comment letters stated that the Sitewide Removal 
Alternative is the only acceptable decommissioning alternative for 
WNYNSC, or is the only decision that could be scientifically supported 
by the EIS. These letters identify what the commentors consider to be a 
flawed long-term performance analysis and minimal cost differences 
between removal and in-place closure alternatives, and cite these 
issues and a potential higher level of public protection as the bases 
for their conclusions. DOE acknowledges that these commentors prefer 
the Sitewide Removal Alternative. DOE's decisionmaking is based on its 
consideration of all the potential environmental impact information 
presented in the EIS: short-term and long-term, at the site and along 
potential transportation routes, as well as environmental stewardship 
considerations. DOE also notes that Phase 1 of the Phased 
Decisionmaking Alternative involves substantial removal actions, and 
does not preclude the ability to select removal of the remaining waste 
and contamination as the Phase 2 decision.

Phase 1 Studies

    Regarding commentors' concerns about activities that would be 
expected to occur after the ROD is issued, the Final EIS identifies 
possible types of studies that could be conducted during Phase 1 of the 
Phased Decisionmaking Alternative. These include studies that may 
address uncertainties associated with the long-term performance models, 
the viability and cost of exhuming buried waste and tanks, the 
availability of waste disposal sites, and technologies for in-place 
containment.
    The U.S. EPA expressed its concern with shortening the maximum 
duration of Phase 1 of the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative from 30 
years to 10 years because of a lack of disposal capacity for high-level 
radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and Greater-Than-Class C waste. 
As a result, the U.S. EPA requested that Phase 1 studies be designed to 
assure that storage of these wastes is in compliance with EPA's 
Standards for the Storage and Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste 
at 40 CFR part 191. The 40 CFR part 191, subpart A, dose standard 
applies to the storage of the WVDP high-level waste form and 
transuranic waste or spent nuclear fuel that may require continued 
storage at the WVDP. Specifically, section 191.03 defines the annual 
dose equivalent to any member of the public from the storage to not 
exceed 25 mrem whole body and 75 mrem to any critical organ. DOE Order 
5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, chapter 
II.1c, imposes the dose standard from 40 CFR part 191 with no changes. 
Compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 would be required in applicable 
contracts at the WVDP. Therefore, full compliance with 40 CFR part 191, 
subpart A, would be met through full compliance with DOE Order 5400.5. 
The EPA also requested clarification relative to the impact of the 
Sitewide Removal Alternative on the available disposal capacity at the 
Energy Solutions disposal facility in Utah under the Commercial 
Disposal Option. DOE notes that, if Sitewide Removal were selected, the 
potential volume of low-level and low specific activity waste generated 
could require approximately 35% of the remaining available capacity, or 
10% of the total licensable capacity of the Energy Solutions facility.

Public Involvement

    The Final EIS explicitly states DOE's commitment to continue public 
involvement as site decommissioning progresses. As indicated earlier in 
this ROD, DOE has committed to having robust and meaningful 
opportunities for public participation during decommissioning. DOE is 
committed to working with NYSERDA to identify and initiate appropriate 
studies as soon as practicable and to continued public involvement as 
Phase 1 studies are defined and as results become available. DOE is 
further committed to meeting with the public on at least a quarterly 
basis to discuss the status of decommissioning actions and studies and 
will schedule additional meetings as necessary to assure timely 
communication with the public. One commentor suggested DOE conduct 
workshops as a potential mechanism for transmitting technical 
information. DOE will consider this request as it develops its public 
participation effort.

Future NEPA Analyses

    DOE's commitment to the NEPA process is also described in the Final 
EIS. During Phase 1, DOE and NYSERDA will assess the results of site-
specific studies and other emerging information such as applicable 
technology development. In consultation with NYSERDA and cooperating 
and involved agencies, DOE will determine whether new information or 
circumstances would warrant preparation of a Supplemental EIS. If it is 
unclear whether a Supplemental EIS is required, DOE will prepare a 
Supplement Analysis in accordance with 10 CFR 1021.314(c) and make this 
analysis available to the public prior to making a determination.

Decision

    To continue to meet its obligations under the WVDP Act to complete 
WVDP, DOE has decided to implement the Phased Decisionmaking 
Alternative as identified in the Final EIS. In implementing this 
alternative, DOE will provide robust and meaningful opportunities for 
public participation prior to making its Phase 2 decision.

Basis for Decision

    DOE has determined that the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative 
provides the best path forward for completing its obligations under the 
WVDP Act.
    Phase 1 of the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative would remove major 
facilities (such as the Main Plant

[[Page 20589]]

Process Building and lagoons), thereby reducing or eliminating 
potential human health impacts associated with these facilities while 
introducing minimal potential for generation of new orphan waste.
    Phase 1 would remove the source area for the North Plateau 
Groundwater Plume, thereby reducing a source of radionuclides that is a 
potential contributor to human health impacts.
    Phase 1 would allow up to 10 years for collection and analysis of 
data and information on major facilities or areas (such as the Waste 
Tank Farm, NDA, and SDA), with the goal of reducing technical risks 
associated with implementation of the Sitewide Removal and Sitewide 
Close-In-Place Alternatives, because one of these alternatives, or a 
combination that could include continued active management of the SDA 
by NYSERDA, could be selected for Phase 2.
    The anticipated result of Phase 1 information gathering and 
analysis is to provide additional information that may inform 
decisionmaking for both the removal and in-place closure options for 
remaining facilities. It is also anticipated that, during Phase 1, 
progress would be made in identifying and developing disposal 
facilities for any orphan wastes, thereby facilitating removal actions 
if they are selected as part of Phase 2 decisionmaking. Establishment 
of improved close-in-place designs or improved analytical methods for 
long-term performance assessment would facilitate close-in-place 
actions if they are selected as part of Phase 2 decisionmaking.

Mitigation Measures

    DOE will use all practicable means to avoid or minimize 
environmental harm when implementing the actions described in this ROD. 
These measures include employing engineering design features to meet 
regulatory requirements, maintaining a rigorous health and safety 
program to protect workers from radiological and chemical contaminants, 
monitoring worker exposure and environmental releases, and continuing 
efforts to reduce the generation of wastes. More detailed examples of 
such practicable measures, including those applicable to implementation 
of the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative, are documented in the text 
and table of Chapter 6 (Potential Mitigation Measures) of the EIS. The 
measures applicable to Phase I are integral elements of the alternative 
and, therefore, a separate Mitigation Action Plan is not required to 
ensure that the measures are implemented effectively. The need for a 
Mitigation Action Plan for Phase 2 will be dependent on the nature of 
the Phase 2 decommissioning decision. DOE will implement Phase 1 of the 
Phased Decisionmaking Alternative in compliance with DOE orders as well 
as the comprehensive lists of standards and requirements to protect 
workers, the public, and the environment specified in Chapter 5 of the 
Final EIS, as appropriate.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 14th day of April 2010.
In[eacute]s R. Triay,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-9101 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P