[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46785-46788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15308]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Finding of No Significant Impact for the Commercial Disposal of 
Contaminated Process Equipment From the Savannah River Site

AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has completed the Final 
Environmental Assessment for the Commercial Disposal of Savannah River 
Site Contaminated Process Equipment (Final EA). Consistent with the 
Final EA, the Proposed Action is the disposal

[[Page 46786]]

of contaminated process equipment from the Savannah River Site (SRS) at 
a commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility 
located outside of South Carolina and licensed by a U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) Agreement State. Based on the information 
and analysis in the Final EA, DOE intends to implement the Proposed 
Action and send the contaminated process equipment to the Waste Control 
Specialists LLC (WCS) Federal Waste Facility (FWF), a licensed 
commercial disposal facility located in Andrews County, Texas, for 
disposal.

ADDRESSES: This Finding of No Significant Impact and the Final EA are 
available on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) website 
at: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/doeea-2154-commercial-disposal-savannah-river-site-contaminated-process-equipment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edgard Espinosa, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Waste and 
Materials Management (EM-4.2), 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 
DC 20585. Email: [email protected]. Telephone: (202) 586-5382.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    DOE prepared the Final EA in accordance with Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at Title 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-1508 and DOE NEPA implementing procedures 
at 10 CFR part 1021. Consistent with the Final EA, the Proposed Action 
is the disposal of contaminated process equipment from SRS at a 
commercial LLW disposal facility located outside of South Carolina and 
licensed by an NRC Agreement State; disposal under the Proposed Action 
would be in accordance with the Agreement State's regulations, which 
are equivalent to the NRC regulations at 10 CFR part 61 for land 
disposal of radioactive waste, and other requirements. Disposal 
alternatives for this waste are discussed under the ``Proposed Action 
and Alternatives'' section.
    Certain SRS process equipment (i.e., Tank 28F salt sampling drill 
string, glass bubblers, and glass pumps) is contaminated with 
reprocessing waste and is currently conservatively managed as if it 
were high-level radioactive waste (HLW), which is required to be 
disposed of in a geologic repository. Because the NRC has not licensed 
a geologic repository in the United States, there is no current 
disposal pathway for the SRS contaminated process equipment. Portions 
of the Tank 28F salt sampling drill string, glass bubblers, and glass 
pumps contain hazardous components (e.g., lead) or are contaminated 
with hazardous constituents. Because there are no permitted facilities 
at SRS for the disposal of mixed low-level radioactive waste, this 
contaminated process equipment cannot be disposed of on site. 
Therefore, the purpose and need for DOE's action is to identify a 
disposal pathway for the SRS contaminated process equipment to mitigate 
on-site storage constraints, improve worker safety, and support 
accelerated completion of the environmental cleanup mission at SRS.
    As described in the June 10, 2019, Supplemental Notice Concerning 
U.S. Department of Energy Interpretation of High-Level Radioactive 
Waste (84 FR 26835) (Supplemental Notice) and affirmed in the December 
21, 2021, Assessment of the Department of Energy's Interpretation of 
the Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (86 FR 72220), DOE 
interprets the statutory term, ``high-level radioactive waste,'' as set 
forth in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et 
seq.) and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) 
such that some reprocessing wastes may be classified as not HLW (non-
HLW) and may be disposed of in accordance with their radiological 
characteristics and not solely the origin of the waste (HLW 
interpretation). This interpretation may be used to facilitate the safe 
disposal of defense reprocessing waste if the waste meets either of the 
following two criteria:
    1. Does not exceed concentration limits for Class C low-level 
radioactive waste as set out in 10 CFR 61.55, and meets the performance 
objectives of a disposal facility; or
    2. Does not require disposal in a deep geologic repository and 
meets the performance objectives of a disposal facility as demonstrated 
through a performance assessment conducted in accordance with 
applicable requirements.
    NRC's performance objectives for commercial LLW disposal facilities 
are specified in 10 CFR part 61, subpart C, ``Performance Objectives.''
    As stated in the Supplemental Notice, DOE will continue its current 
practice of managing all of its defense reprocessing wastes as if they 
were HLW unless and until a specific waste is determined to be another 
category of waste based on a detailed technical assessment of its 
characteristics and an evaluation of potential disposal pathways.
    As discussed in the Final EA, DOE has estimated the expected 
radionuclide concentration levels for each of the disposal containers 
for the Tank 28F drill string, the glass pumps, and the glass bubblers 
(see Final EA, Appendix A) and prepared a technical evaluation 
demonstrating that the contaminated process equipment would meet 
Criterion 1 for non-HLW under DOE's interpretation of the AEA and NWPA 
definition of HLW. Consistent with that technical evaluation, DOE also 
prepared an official determination documenting that the contaminated 
process equipment is non-HLW under Criterion 1 of the HLW 
interpretation. As part of implementing this determination, DOE would 
verify with the licensee of the off-site commercial disposal facility 
that the disposal containers meet the facility's waste acceptance 
criteria and all other requirements of the disposal facility, including 
applicable regulatory requirements prior to disposal and applicable 
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) requirements for packaging 
and transportation from SRS to the commercial disposal facility.
    On January 19, 2021, DOE issued a notice in the Federal Register 
(86 FR 5175) of its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment for 
the Commercial Disposal of Savannah River Site Contaminated Process 
Equipment. On December 21, 2021, DOE announced in the Federal Register 
(86 FR 72217) the availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment 
for the Commercial Disposal of Savannah River Site Contaminated Process 
Equipment (Draft EA) for public comment. DOE also posted the Draft EA 
on DOE websites for public review. DOE held an informational webinar on 
the Draft EA on January 11, 2022, to provide the public and 
stakeholders with an overview of the Draft EA and the Department's HLW 
interpretation.

II. Proposed Action and Alternatives

    Under the Proposed Action, DOE would dispose of the SRS 
contaminated process equipment (Tank 28F salt sampling drill string, 
glass bubblers, and glass pumps) at a commercial LLW disposal facility 
outside of South Carolina licensed by an NRC Agreement State. Disposal 
under the Proposed Action would be in accordance with the Agreement 
State's regulations, which are equivalent to 10 CFR part 61, among 
other requirements. Prior to disposal, DOE would submit a waste profile 
and supporting characterization documentation for the SRS contaminated 
process equipment to the licensee of the off-site commercial LLW 
disposal facility to further verify with

[[Page 46787]]

the licensee that the final grouted waste meets Criterion 1 of the HLW 
interpretation for disposal as non-HLW, in accordance with DOE Manual 
435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual. DOE would demonstrate 
compliance with the waste acceptance criteria and all other 
requirements of the disposal facility, including any applicable 
regulatory requirements for management of the waste prior to disposal 
and applicable USDOT and NRC requirements for packaging and 
transportation from SRS to the commercial disposal facility. DOE has 
identified two reasonable action alternatives for the Proposed Action:
     Alternative 1--If determined to be Class B or Class C LLW, 
DOE would stabilize and package the waste at SRS and ship the waste 
packages to the WCS FWF in Andrews County, Texas, for disposal. 
Implementation would be dependent upon the waste meeting WCS's waste 
acceptance criteria, among other requirements.
     Alternative 2--If determined to be Class A LLW, DOE would 
stabilize and package the waste at SRS and ship the waste packages to 
either EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, or WCS in Andrews County, Texas, 
for disposal. Implementation would be dependent upon the waste meeting 
the facility's waste acceptance criteria, among other requirements.
    The EA also evaluates a No-Action Alternative under which the 
contaminated process equipment would remain in storage at SRS until 
another disposal path was identified.

III. Potential Environmental Impacts

    The analyses in the Final EA demonstrate that the Proposed Action 
and alternatives entail minimal risk to human health or to the quality 
of the environment for both action alternatives analyzed. The proposed 
alternatives would have minor potential environmental impacts. Chapter 
3 of the Final EA analyzed the following resource areas in detail: (1) 
air quality, (2) human health (normal operations), (3) human health 
(accidents and intentional destructive acts), (4) waste management, and 
(5) transportation.
    Air quality impacts would be negligible under both action 
alternatives. DOE would use typical radiological containment measures 
during the waste preparation activities. The combination of these 
measures and a solid waste form would limit the potential to emit 
airborne radiological materials. Because the transportation containers 
and any shielding materials would be returned to SRS as a non-
radiological shipment, DOE analyzed non-radiological air quality 
impacts associated with 62 total vehicle shipments (31 radiological and 
31 non-radiological return shipments). The estimated number of truck 
shipments would produce negligible air emissions, including greenhouse 
gases, and disposal actions at the commercial facilities would not 
cause any additional air emissions beyond those already expected from 
their ongoing, permitted, and/or licensed operations.
    Potential impacts to workers at SRS and the public from normal 
operations would be minimal under both action alternatives. Potential 
doses to workers would be well within the administrative control level 
for SRS workers and would result in zero latent cancer fatalities 
(LCFs). In addition, DOE would implement measures (e.g., use of 
shielding and personal protective equipment) to minimize worker 
exposures and maintain doses as low as reasonably achievable. Because 
there would be no radiological emissions or effluents associated with 
either of the alternatives, and no direct radiation dose off site, 
there would be no dose to the public from normal operations. Potential 
impacts from disposal actions at the commercial disposal facility would 
not result in any notable increase in human health impacts beyond those 
already expected from ongoing LLW disposal operations under the 
disposal facility's environmental permits and license.
    An accident or intentional destructive act involving the 
contaminated process equipment during on-site activities would result 
in minimal impacts to workers and the public. Because the contaminated 
process equipment would be placed in a disposal container and encased 
in grout and foam to fill any void spaces, there would be no dispersion 
of radiological materials that could occur from a drop during any 
lifting operations. The maximum reasonably foreseeable result of this 
drop would include damage to the disposal container that would require 
repackaging. If this were to occur, operations personnel would move 
away from the event and develop a plan to cover the equipment (to 
prevent direct radiation effects) and repackage the equipment in a 
replacement disposal container. These recovery actions would be planned 
in accordance with the site procedures under principles to maintain 
radiological exposure as low as reasonably achievable. Any potential 
worker doses would be significantly below DOE's administrative control 
level of 2,000 millirem (mrem) per year for a worker, and below the SRS 
contractor's administrative control level of 500 mrem per year. This 
exposure would be expected to result in zero LCFs. There would be no 
dispersion or release of radiological materials from an accident 
involving contaminated process equipment on site; therefore, DOE would 
not expect any off-site consequences from this accident scenario.
    Waste management impacts at SRS and the potential disposal sites 
would be minimal. Based on sample data (see Appendix A of the Final 
EA), DOE has a sound basis to conclude that the waste stream meets 
Criterion 1 of the HLW interpretation. At the time of implementing any 
of the alternatives, DOE would follow the waste acceptance process for 
the commercial disposal facility. The wastes would only be accepted for 
disposal if the volume and radiological constituents fall within the 
bounds of the applicable facility's license and waste acceptance 
criteria. As a result, the LLW would result in negligible waste 
management impacts for either licensed disposal facility.
    The transportation of contaminated process equipment would involve 
approximately 31 radiological truck shipments and 31 non-radiological 
return truck shipments under both Alternatives 1 and 2. The primary 
difference between the two alternatives is the distance traveled from 
SRS. Under Alternative 1, disposal containers would be shipped from SRS 
to WCS (approximately 1,400 miles) and under Alternative 2, disposal 
containers would be shipped from SRS to WCS or EnergySolutions 
(approximately 2,200 miles). The waste would be packaged and shipped in 
accordance with USDOT requirements. The potential radiological and 
nonradiological risks to the truck crew and the public along the 
transportation route would be negligible. In the event an accident did 
occur, impacts to water and ecological resources would be extremely 
unlikely because the solid form would not be dispersible.
    Consistent with both CEQ and DOE NEPA regulations, the analysis in 
the Final EA focused on the subjects relevant to the Proposed Action 
and potential impacts. Based on a screening analysis described in the 
Final EA, the following resource areas did not require additional 
detailed analysis: land use; noise; geology and soils; visual, water 
(surface, groundwater, and wetlands), and ecological resources (biota, 
threatened and endangered species); cultural and paleontological 
resources; socioeconomics and environmental justice; infrastructure and 
utilities; and industrial safety.

[[Page 46788]]

IV. External Review and Comments

    Three comment documents were received during the public comment 
period on the Draft EA. Commenters included one Federal agency, one 
state agency, and one local community organization. Appendix B of the 
Final EA includes the comments delineated within each comment document 
and DOE's responses to the comments. DOE considered all public comments 
received in preparing the Final EA.

V. Determination

    In the Final EA, DOE evaluated the potential environmental impacts 
associated with packaging, transportation, and disposal of contaminated 
process equipment from SRS at a licensed commercial LLW disposal 
facility outside of the state of South Carolina. Implementation of 
either action alternative analyzed in the Final EA would entail minor 
impacts and low risks and would not constitute a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment in 
accordance with DOE's NEPA implementing procedures, 10 CFR part 1021, 
and the regulations promulgated by the CEQ for implementing NEPA, 40 
CFR 1501.6. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact 
statement is not required.
    Based on the analysis in the Final EA, DOE intends to ship the 
contaminated process equipment to the WCS FWF, a licensed off-site 
commercial disposal facility located in Andrews County, Texas, for 
disposal (Alternative 1). DOE has characterized the contaminated 
process equipment, which included sampling analyses (see Final EA, 
Appendix A), and prepared a technical evaluation and an official 
determination that demonstrate and document, that the SRS contaminated 
process equipment meets Criterion 1 for non-HLW under DOE's 
interpretation of the AEA and NWPA definition of HLW. The technical 
reports are available at: https://www.energy.gov/em/high-level-radioactive-waste-hlw-interpretation. Current characterization analysis 
shows that the disposal containers of contaminated process equipment 
are either Class B LLW (Tank 28F salt sampling drill string) or Class C 
LLW (glass bubblers and glass pumps). Of the licensed commercial 
facilities analyzed in the Final EA, the WCS FWF is the only facility 
that can accept Class B and Class C LLW for disposal. DOE intends to 
initiate shipments of the SRS contaminated process equipment in 2023.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 14, 
2023, by Kristen G. Ellis, Acting Assistant Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Regulatory and Policy Affairs, pursuant to delegated 
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original 
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes 
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal 
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been 
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for 
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 14, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-15308 Filed 7-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P