Finding of No Significant Impact for Operation of the Glass Melter Thermal Treatment Unit at the U.S. Department of Energy's Mound Plant, Miamisburg, Ohio

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Finding of No Significant Impact for Operation of the Glass

Melter Thermal Treatment Unit at the U.S. Department of Energy's Mound

Plant, Miamisburg, Ohio

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an

environmental assessment (DOE/EA-0821) for the proposed operation of

the Glass Melter thermal treatment unit (``Glass Melter'') at DOE's

Mound Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio. The Glass Melter would thermally treat

mixed waste (hazardous waste contaminated with radioactive

constituents, largely tritium, plutonium-238, and/or thorium-230), that

was generated at the Mound Plant and is now in storage, by stabilizing

the waste in glass blocks. Depending upon the radiation level of the

waste, the Glass Melter may operate for as short a time as one year,

but not longer than six years. DOE considered two onsite alternatives

to the proposed action and seven offsite alternatives.

Based on the analysis presented in the environmental assessment,

DOE believes that the proposed action does not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Therefore, the preparation of an

environmental impact statement is not required and the DOE is issuing

this finding of no significant impact.

DATES: Proposed operation of the Mound Plant Glass Melter thermal

treatment unit was the subject of a public meeting in Miamisburg, Ohio,

on March 10, 1994. No unfavorable written comments from stakeholders

were received by the DOE as a result of this meeting. The environmental

assessment for the proposed operation of the Glass Melter was approved

by DOE on October 27, 1994. A proposed finding of no significant impact

(FONSI) was published in the Federal Register (FR) on November 3, 1994

(FR 59 55085) for public review and comment. No comments on the

proposed FONSI were received, although a small number of individuals

requested, and were provided, copies of the environmental assessment

(EA).

ADDRESSES: Mail any requests for further information on the Glass

Melter project, or the associated EA and FONSI, to: Ms. Sue Smiley,

NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Ohio Field Office,

P.O. Box 3020, Miamisburg, Ohio 45343-3020, Phone: (513) 865-3987,

Facsimile: (513) 865-4402.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information on the DOE National

Environmental Policy Act process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom,

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone:

(202) 586-4600 or 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action would bring the Mound

Plant Glass Melter out of cold shutdown mode and use it for treating

mixed waste that was generated at the Mound Plant and is now in

storage. The Glass Melter, housed in an annex of the Liquid Waste

Disposal Building, consists of a burn chamber of stainless steel (lined

with refractory material) with an exhaust (offgas) system connected to

a system of pipes and scrubbers ending in a stack (scrubbers are

devices that remove small particles, gasses, and airborne radionuclides

generated during thermal treatment). Waste in sealed drums would be

transported by truck from the Mound Hazardous Waste Storage Building or

Radioactive Mixed-Waste Storage

[[Page 39951]]

Building to the annex, staged on a concrete loading dock adjacent to

the annex, and then moved individually to a fume hood in the annex

where the contents would be transferred into a feed system for

processing in the melter. The waste would be added to molten soda-lime

silica glass in the burn chamber of the Glass Melter. Ash from the

combustion process would fall to the glass surface, where it would be

incorporated into the melt. When the molten glass would reach a

prescribed chemical mix (or a prescribed level of radioactivity), it

would be discharged from the melter into 19 liter (five gallon)

containers. The containers would then be transferred to a storage area

in the building using mechanical aids (e.g., hoists and a roller

conveyor system) to cool and to await transport by truck to existing

onsite storage facilities.

The Glass Melter would have an estimated annual capacity of

approximately 48,000 kg (106,000 lb) of wastes, based on an average

throughput of 23 kg/hour (51 lb/hr) and a 2,080-hour work year. As

originally proposed by the DOE, and as analyzed in the environmental

assessment, operating at this capacity would have enabled DOE to

eliminate the existing backlog of approximately 43,000 kg (95,000 lb)

of mixed waste in approximately six years, while processing hazardous

and mixed wastes [approximately 39,000 kg (86,000 lb) annually of

nonradioactive solvents and mixed wastes] as generated.

Since the environmental assessment was written, DOE has decided to

close the Mound Plant. DOE proposes, therefore, to use the Glass Melter

only for the mixed waste backlog. DOE has not yet fully characterized

this waste for radioactive contamination levels. The radiation level of

the waste feed would be limited by the need to comply with the

Environmental Protection Agency's National Emissions Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants and by internal Mound limitations. If, after

characterization, the radiation level of the waste is determined to be

low enough that the capacity of the Glass Melter would be the factor

controlling the processing rate, then the schedule for treatment of the

backlog waste could be as short as one year.

The environmental impacts of the proposed treatment of only the

mixed waste backlog are adequately covered, and are bounded by, the

analysis in the environmental assessment, because calculations of

radiological exposures and impacts were based on assumptions of waste

radioactivity content that would exceed the actual content under the

current proposed action (according to the environmental assessment, the

mixed waste backlog is estimated to have a total activity of 211 curies

of tritium and 0.42 curies of plutonium-238; the calculations for Glass

Melter operations, however, are based on a total waste activity content

of 240 curies/yr of tritium and 0.48 curies/yr of plutonium-238). The

discussion below, which is based on the environmental assessment,

therefore, would apply equally to the new proposed action. If the DOE

later proposes to use the Glass Melter to treat other than mixed waste

backlog, it will undertake appropriate further review under the

National Environmental Policy Act.

Routine operation of the Glass Melter would generate treated

offgas, scrubber sludge, scrubber liquid effluent, and several solid

waste streams. The sludge generated by the scrubbing operations

[approximately 770 kg (170 lb) per year] would be transferred by

pipeline: (1) back to a Glass Melter feed port for reprocessing, (2) to

an existing cementation process for immobilization in concrete, or (3)

to container storage for any subsequent additional treatment required

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal

restrictions. Filtered liquid scrubber effluent [approximately 36,000

kg (79,000 lb) per year], depending on its composition, would be: (1)

pumped to an existing wastewater treatment facility, (2) pumped to the

cementation process for immobilization as concrete (if the waste

processed involved significant tritium concentrations), or (3) packaged

for any subsequent additional treatment required under RCRA land

disposal restrictions. Most liquid effluent would be treated at Mound's

existing radioactive wastewater treatment facility and released via an

existing outfall permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES).

The Glass Melter would generate, per year, approximately 3,200 kg

(7,000 lb) of glass block (mixed waste); 8,900 kg (20,000 lb) of

cementized scrubber effluent and sludge (also mixed waste); and 1,900

kg (4,200 lb) of maintenance wastes (filters, replacement parts, etc.).

The maintenance wastes would generally be considered mixed waste,

although certain of the replacement parts may have only surface

radioactive contamination or may not be hazardous waste. The mixed

wastes would be stored onsite until a mixed waste disposal facility is

available.

The immediate result of Glass Melter treatment would be the

conversion of waste that is primarily liquid and combustible, to a

stable, inorganic form that would present very little environmental

concern in storage. Most of the waste would eventually require

transport to a radioactive mixed waste land disposal facility. Any

waste that is not mixed waste would be disposed of with other, similar

Mound wastes (e.g., hazardous waste is shipped offsite for disposal).

Environmental Impacts: In a series of test burns conducted in

January 1985, the Glass Melter demonstrated the capability to thermally

treat hazardous wastes in compliance with regulatory requirements. In

June 1987, the Glass Melter was further tested and demonstrated

effective treatment of low-level radioactive waste while meeting

applicable regulatory requirements. Proposed future treatment of wastes

using the Glass Melter would also meet all applicable environmental

requirements. The Glass Melter is considered a ``thermal treatment

unit,'' not an ``incinerator,'' under the Environmental Protection

Agency regulations (40 CFR 260.10). Under the regulations for

miscellaneous treatment, storage, and disposal units (40 CFR Part 264,

Subpart X), any permit for the glass melter may include appropriate

conditions from the incinerator regulations (Subpart O). Thermal

treatment is one of the limited options DOE currently has to meet the

requirement for site treatment plans under the Federal Facility

Compliance Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a Draft Strategy for

Combustion of Hazardous Waste in Incinerators and Boilers on May 18,

1993, initiating a reexamination of its existing regulations and

policies on waste combustion. In the draft strategy, the Environmental

Protection Agency indicates that, ``if conducted in compliance with

regulatory standards and guidance, combustion can be a safe and

effective means of disposing [of] hazardous wastes.'' To the extent

that the Glass Melter would destroy hazardous wastes it would

effectively ``dispose'' of that portion of the mixed waste backlog.

Nevertheless, the thermal treatment of mixed wastes would necessitate

the disposal of treatment residues as a mixed waste. These residues

would be stored, pending final disposal in an approved location.

Emissions of nonradiological pollutants to the air during routine

operation of the Glass Melter would include arsenic, cadmium, chromium,

lead, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, and

particulates. Predicted concentrations of nonradiological pollutants

would meet applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the

maximum

[[Page 39952]]

acceptable ground-level concentrations established by the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency. During routine operation of the Glass

Melter, the effective dose equivalent of radiation to the maximally

exposed individual at the Mound Plant boundary [approximately 470

meters (510 yd) north-northeast from the Glass Melter stack] would be

0.07 mrem/year (tritium, plutonium-238, and thorium-230) from

inhalation and ingestion pathways. These emissions would not cause the

Mound Plant to exceed the individual effective dose equivalent limit of

10 mrem/year in the Environmental Protection Agency's National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Based on the 1990 population

distribution surrounding the Mound Plant, the collective effective dose

equivalent to the total population residing within 80 km (50 mi) of the

facility would be 2.6 person-rem/year. The environmental assessment

shows that the health risk from such exposures would be very small.

Onsite personnel would not be exposed to unique hazards and would

be adequately protected from potential exposure to radionuclides or

other hazards by the existing health and safety programs. Existing

facility design features would reduce direct worker contact with

radioactive materials.

The formation of dioxins from Glass Melter operation would be

virtually precluded due to specific technological design features of

the equipment. For instance, the elevated operating temperatures of the

Glass Melter would result in a high destruction and removal efficiency

(99.9999% in test burns). In addition, the rapid cooling of the

offgases below dioxin-forming temperatures, as recommended by the

Environmental Protection Agency for municipal waste incinerators, would

also be used to preclude dioxin formation.

The worst reasonably foreseeable accident involving the Glass

Melter would be a fire on the loading dock that would result in the

complete vaporization of the contents of ten mixed waste storage drums.

The estimated frequency of such an accident is once every 100,000

years. The effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed

individual [approximately 200 m (220 yd) downwind] would be 0.2 mrem,

well below Environmental Protection Agency standards. The environmental

assessment shows that the health risk from such exposures would be very

small. Predicted concentrations of nonradiological pollutants would

meet the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's maximum acceptable

ground-level concentrations. Taking into account the low probability of

such an event, and the small magnitude of the consequences, the health

risk posed by the accident would be very small.

No endangered species, critical habitats, floodplains, wetlands, or

historical or archaeological resources would be affected by the

proposed action.

Alternatives Considered: In the environmental assessment, DOE

considered two onsite alternatives to the proposed action and seven

offsite alternatives in the context of the original proposed action

(i.e., assuming the continuing operation of the Mound Plant). The

discussion below, however, while being based on the environmental

assessment, reflects the current proposed use of the Glass Melter

(based on DOE's decision to close the Mound Plant), which is to treat

only mixed waste backlog.

No Action: The present practice of waste storage and

disposal would continue and the Glass Melter would not be used. Most of

the mixed waste backlog is liquid, and much of it is combustible.

Storage of the untreated waste, therefore, could adversely impact human

health and the environment, especially in the case of a fire in the

storage facility.

Administrative Action: Another alternative would be to

rely upon the established Mound Waste Minimization and Pollution

Prevention Program to identify, screen, and analyze options to reduce

the generation of waste. Waste that is in storage would not be affected

by this program. The need for treatment options would persist.

Offsite Treatment and Disposal: These alternatives would

involve the transportation of mixed wastes to designated sites. DOE

considered seven options for offsite treatment. All of the offsite

treatment alternatives, with the exception of the Nevada Test Site,

would involve thermal treatment.

--Quadrex HPS, Inc. (Gainesville, FL): This commercial facility cannot

accept certain of the Mound mixed wastes, so this alternative would

not, by itself, address the need to treat such wastes.

--Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. (Kingston, TN): This commercial

facility could accept most of the mixed waste from Mound. Treatment,

however, may be restricted by air permit conditions limiting the type

of waste used for fuel and by Environmental Protection Agency

regulations for boilers and industrial furnaces (40 CFR 266.100-112 and

Appendices I-IX).

--Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL): INEL has a permitted

incinerator facility, the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF),

capable of burning radioactive material and hazardous waste. WERF is

currently shut down, and its operation is contingent upon completion of

National Environmental Policy Act review and DOE approval of a Safety

Analysis Report. The current waste acceptance criteria for WERF limit

the radioactive and chloride content of wastes and prohibit receipt of

any free liquids. These criteria would prohibit the acceptance at WERF

of almost all of the Mound waste proposed for treatment in the Glass

Melter. The criteria could not be changed without substantial upgrades

to WERF.

--Los Alamos National Laboratory: The proposed Controlled Air

Incinerator is currently being permitted and undergoing National

Environmental Policy Act review for operation at production capacity.

Current operational plans do not include acceptance of offsite wastes,

and the draft RCRA permit proposes to prohibit treatment of offsite

waste.

--Savannah River Site: DOE is currently constructing the Consolidated

Incinerator Facility under a construction permit from the State of

South Carolina. This facility will not allow out-of-state waste to be

treated. DOE is preparing an environmental impact statement on waste

management at the Savannah River Site, which will include further

analysis of operation of the Consolidated Incinerator Facility and

other volume reduction alternatives. Trial burns and operation of the

facility are being deferred until the completion of the environmental

impact statement process.

--Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant: The incinerator at the Oak Ridge

Gaseous Diffusion Plant currently treats mixed waste. The primary

sources of waste treated at this incinerator are the Paducah Gaseous

Diffusion Plant, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and the Oak

Ridge Reservation. A substantial backlog of waste exists that will take

several years to treat. Thus, this alternative would not be available

to Mound for several years and would not meet Mound's immediate needs.

--Nevada Test Site: Disposal of mixed waste at the Nevada Test site is

considered a possible alternative to treatment in the Glass Melter.

Land disposal restrictions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act would require, however, that any

[[Page 39953]]

mixed waste be treated before disposal. The Nevada Test Site would

only, therefore, be a reasonable alternative for Mound waste already

treated at another facility. DOE has not yet decided to what extent the

Nevada Test Site would be used for future disposal of offsite waste;

such decisions will be made after completion of the Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement and the Nevada Test Site Sitewide Environmental Impact

Statement.

Proposed Determination: Based on the information and the analysis

in the environmental assessment, DOE believes the proposed action

(i.e., operation of the Glass Melter for treatment of backlog mixed

waste only) does not constitute a major Federal action that would

significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the

meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, the

preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required and

the DOE is issuing this finding of no significant impact.

Issued in Miamisburg, Ohio, on July 26, 1995.

Robert D. Folker,

Acting Manager, Ohio Field Office.

[FR Doc. 95-19235 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P