Record of Decision; Savannah River Site Waste Management, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, SC

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision; Savannah River Site Waste Management,

Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, SC

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: DOE announces its intention to implement the moderate

treatment configuration alternative identified in the Savannah River

Site (SRS) Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement

(WMEIS). DOE has evaluated the potential environmental impacts and

costs of storing, treating, and/or disposing of liquid high-level

radioactive, low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed (radioactive and

[[Page 55250]]

hazardous), and transuranic wastes at SRS in the WMEIS.

DOE plans to use a phased approach to making decisions on

treatment, storage and disposal facilities identified in the moderate

treatment configuration alternative. This Record of Decision (ROD)

identifies decisions regarding continuation of existing activities and

current operation of existing facilities, new waste recycling

initiatives, operation of the Consolidated Incineration Facility (CIF),

low-level waste volume reduction activities, and the operation of a

mobile soil sort facility. After DOE and the State of South Carolina

complete negotiations under the Federal Facility Compliance Act

(FFCAct), DOE will issue additional RODs on the treatment of mixed low-

level radioactive and mixed transuranic waste.

The final SRS WMEIS provides a baseline for the analysis of future

SRS waste management needs. DOE will continue to review its SRS waste

management activities at the SRS to ensure that those activities are

adequately addressed by this EIS, or in the event they are not, that

the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews are

initiated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on Savannah

River Site Waste Management, write or call: A. R. Grainger,

Environmental Compliance Division, SR NEPA Compliance Officer, Savannah

River Operations Office, P.O. Box 5031, Aiken, South Carolina 29804,

Phone/FAX: (800) 242-8269, e-mail: [email protected].

For general information on the U.S. Department of Energy NEPA

process, write or call: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of

NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20580, Telephone: (202) 586-

4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the regulations of

the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR

Parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part

1021). This Record of Decision is based on DOE's Final WMEIS, Savannah

River Site, Aiken, South Carolina (DOE/EIS-0217). DOE's SRS occupies

approximately 800 square kilometers (300 square miles) adjacent to the

Savannah River, principally in Aiken and Barnwell counties of South

Carolina, about 40 kilometers (25 miles) southeast of Augusta, Georgia,

and about 32 kilometers (20 miles) south of Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE's primary mission at SRS from the 1950s until the recent end of

the Cold War was the production and processing of nuclear materials to

support defense programs. The end of the Cold War has led to a

reduction in the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Many of the

facilities used to manufacture, assemble, and maintain the arsenal are

no longer needed. Some of these facilities can be converted to new uses

through decontamination processes; others must be decommissioned.

Wastes generated during the Cold War also must be cleaned up in a safe

and cost-effective manner. In addition, DOE must manage wastes that may

be generated in the future in compliance with the applicable

environmental requirements.

DOE estimates that it will manage the following approximate amounts

of wastes (expected waste forecast) at SRS over the next 30 years (1995

to 2024): 153,000 cubic meters of liquid high-level radioactive waste;

476,000 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste; 435,000 cubic

meters of hazardous waste; 230,000 cubic meters of mixed waste; and

23,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste.

DOE analyzed three alternatives, in addition to the no action

alternative, for minimizing, treating, storing, and/or disposing of

wastes (low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic) in a

manner that would protect human health and the environment, achieve

regulatory compliance, and be cost effective. (Alternatives for

managing high-level radioactive waste were considered in the Defense

Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) EIS and Supplemental EIS (DOE/EIS-0082

and DOE/EIS-0082-S) and decisions were announced in the DWPF Records of

Decision on June 1, 1982 (47 FR 23801) and April 12, 1995 (60 FR

18589)). Mixed wastes are regulated under both the Atomic Energy Act

and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the

FFCAct. The FFCAct requires DOE to prepare a Site Treatment Plan (STP)

that addressses options for treating mixed wastes currently in storage

or that will be generated within the next 5 years at the SRS. The

Department expects that negotiations with the State of South Carolina

under the FFCAct will not be completed until later this year. Because

these negotiations are an essential part of DOE's decision making

process regarding mixed waste and mixed transuranic waste, no decision

concerning mixed waste management options analyzed in the SRS WMEIS

will be made until those negotiations are concluded. The sole exception

to this is the Department's decision concerning the CIF.

DOE prepared an environmental assessment (DOE/EA-0400) and issued a

Finding of No Significant Impact (Federal Register, December 24, 1992,

57 FR 61402) for the construction and operation of the CIF to

incinerate mixed, hazardous, and low-level radioactive wastes. In 1993

DOE decided to reexamine whether incineration was the most appropriate

method to treat low-level radioactive waste. DOE is now deciding to

complete construction and operate the CIF for hazardous, mixed, and

low-level radioactive waste. This decision concerning mixed waste was

made after consultation with the State of South Carolina.

DOE published a Notice of Intent to prepare the SRS WMEIS in the

Federal Register on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16494). The notice announced a

public scoping period that ended on May 31, 1994, and solicited

comments and suggestions on the scope of the EIS. DOE held scoping

meetings in Savannah, Georgia, and North Augusta and Columbia, South

Carolina on May 12, 17, and 19, 1994, respectively. Comments received

from individuals, organizations, and government agencies during the

scoping period were considered in the preparation of the EIS.

On January 27, 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

published a Notice of Availability of DOE's Draft SRS WMEIS in the

Federal Register (60 FR 5388). This notice officially started the

public comment period on the Draft SRS WMEIS, which DOE extended

through March 31, 1995, in response to a request from the Savannah

River Site's Citizens Advisory Board. Comments were received by letter,

electronic mail, and formal statements made at 12 public hearings. The

hearings (2 sessions each) provided opportunity for informal

discussions with DOE personnel involved with waste management. They

were held in Barnwell, South Carolina on February 21, 1995; Columbia,

South Carolina on February 22, 1995; North Augusta, South Carolina on

February 23, 1995; Savannah, Georgia on February 28, 1995; Beaufort,

South Carolina on March 1, 1995; and Hilton Head, South Carolina on

March 2, 1995.

DOE considered comments it received on the Draft WMEIS from

agencies, organizations, and individuals in preparing the Final WMEIS.

EPA published a Notice of Availability of the

[[Page 55251]]

Final WMEIS in the Federal Register on July 28, 1995 (60 FR 38817).

DOE received three letters after issuance of the Final WMEIS. The

South Carolina Department of Transportation stated that it had no

comments on the project. The Centers for Disease Control, on behalf of

the U. S. Public Health Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, stated that the Final EIS adequately addressed their

comments on the Draft EIS. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

however, stated that it would have preferred that the Final EIS not

characterize the Agency's comments as endorsing Department of Energy

actions. The Agency noted that it does commend DOE for its efforts to

develop a strategy for long-term waste management at SRS using the NEPA

process, and will continue to work with DOE to ensure that waste

management activities protect human health and the environment, comply

with applicable environmental requirements, and minimize waste

generation.

Alternatives Considered

The three treatment configuration alternatives considered in this

EIS (limited, moderate and extensive) addressed treatment, storage and

disposal facilities using three potential waste volume forecasts. The

minimum waste volume forecast included current inventories and current

waste receipts from offsite, and projections of the waste that would be

generated as a result of reasonable lower-bound estimates of ongoing

site operations and environmental restoration and decontamination and

decommissioning activities. The maximum waste volume forecast included

current inventories and current waste receipts from offsite, additional

wastes that might be received from offsite based on decisions resulting

from the FFCAct process and ongoing DOE NEPA reviews; and projections

of the waste that would be generated as a result of reasonable upper-

bound estimates of ongoing site operations and environmental

restoration and decontamination and decommissioning activities. The

expected waste volume forecast included current inventories and current

waste receipts from offsite, additional wastes that might be received

from offsite based on decisions resulting from the FFCAct process and

ongoing DOE NEPA reviews, and DOE's current estimates of the waste

volumes anticipated to result from continuing site operations,

environmental restoration of existing waste sites, and decontamination

and decommissioning of surplus facilities.

Limited Treatment Configuration Alternative

This alternative consists of the siting, construction, and

operation of facilities and the implementation of management techniques

that would reduce impacts from treatment processes while complying

fully with existing waste management requirements. For each waste type,

however, the treatment under this alternative would be the minimum

needed to meet applicable standards and allow prompt storage and/or

disposal. The limited treatment processes under this alternative would

produce a waste form suitable for disposal, but not one that had

undergone the most vigorous volume reduction or stabilization treatment

available. The volume of low-level radioactive wastes to be disposed of

would be greater than under the moderate and extensive treatment

configuration alternatives, the volume of mixed waste to be disposed of

would be greater than under the moderate treatment configuration

alternative but less than under the extensive treatment configuration

alternative, and the potential for impacts in the future from storage

and disposal would be greater than under the other action alternatives.

Short-term impacts associated with treating waste generally would be

less than under the more extensive treatment alternatives.

Moderate Treatment Configuration Alternative

This alternative consists of the siting, construction, and

operation of facilities and the implementation of management techniques

that would provide a balanced mix of technologies that includes

extensive treatment of those waste types that have the greatest

potential to adversely affect the public or the environment because of

their mobility or toxicity if left untreated (such as wastes containing

plutonium-238), or that would remain highly radioactive far into the

future (such as waste containing transuranic elements). This

alternative would provide less rigorous treatment than the extensive

treatment configuration alternative of wastes that do not pose high

potential for harm to humans or the environment, or that will not

remain highly radioactive far into the future (such as non-alpha low-

level radioactive waste). Under this alternative, the volume of low-

level radioactive waste would be reduced by onsite compactors and some

of the low-level radioactive waste would then be sent offsite for

supercompaction, size reduction (e.g., sorting, shredding, melting),

and incineration as part of a low-level radioactive waste offsite

volume reduction initiative.

Under this alternative, the volume of low-level radioactive and

mixed wastes to be disposed of would be less than under both the

limited and extensive treatment alternatives. The moderate treatment

configuration would provide the highest degree of compatibility with

the preferred treatments for mixed wastes described in the STP that was

prepared and submitted to the State of South Carolina under the FFCAct

process, and would use to the maximum extent practicable existing

facilities or facilities that are proposed for operation in the near

future (i.e., the CIF).

Extensive Treatment Configuration Alternative

This alternative consists of the siting, construction, and

operation of facilities and the implementation of management techniques

that would minimize environmental impacts from storage and disposal by

extensive treatment of waste to reduce its toxicity and to create

stable, migration-resistant waste forms. Under this alternative, the

volume of low-level radioactive waste to be disposed of would be less

than under the limited treatment alternative, but more than under the

moderate treatment alternative. The volume of mixed waste to be

disposed of would be greater than under either of the other action

alternatives. The extensive treatment alternative would, however, be

more likely than other alternatives to increase the short-term impacts

due to the construction of additional treatment facilities and

increased exposure to emissions that would result from more extensive

treatment and increased handling.

No-Action Alternative

As required by NEPA, DOE also considered potential impacts if the

Department were to take ``no action'' other than to continue its

current waste management practices (including building additional

facilities to store newly generated waste, as has been done in the

past) and vitrify high-level waste in the DWPF as discussed above.

Under this alternative the Department would continue current practices

for storage and treatment of liquid high-level radioactive, for storage

of mixed and transuranic waste; for treatment, storage, and disposal of

low-level radioactive waste; and for offsite treatment and disposal of

hazardous waste. Under this alternative, transuranic and mixed wastes

would remain untreated and in storage, in a state not suitable for

disposal. Were

[[Page 55252]]

DOE to take no action, it would not be in a position to comply with

some regulatory requirements and compliance agreements.

Environmentally Preferrable Alternative

In DOE's judgment the extensive treatment alternative is

environmentally preferrable because it would minimize potential long-

term environmental impacts as a result of achieving more stable,

migration-resistant waste forms. DOE recognizes, however, that this

treatment alternative would result in greater short-term impacts to

workers.

Decision

Determination

DOE announces its intention to configure its waste management

system according to the moderate treatment alternative. Pursuant to 10

CFR 1021.315, DOE may revise this ROD at any time, so long as the

revised decision is adequately supported by existing reviews prepared

in accordance with NEPA. Upon issuance of a ROD for the DOE Waste

Management Programmatic EIS (DOE/EIS-0200, draft issued for public

review September 22, 1995), this ROD will be reviewed to evaluate

whether there is consistency with decisions reached on broader

programmatic issues or whether a revised ROD or supplemental EIS for

SRS waste management is needed to maintain consistency. Accordingly,

DOE has decided to initiate the following actions and activities

included in the moderate treatment configuration alternative.

* Continue activities to manage waste at SRS, including

construction of additional storage capacity for mixed transuranic, and

low-level radioactive alpha wastes.

High-Level Waste

* Continue to store liquid high-level waste in storage tanks.

* Operate the newly constructed New Waste Transfer Facility,

continue to construct and operate the Replacement High-Level Waste

Evaporator, and operate waste removal equipment. These facilities will

transfer waste from the high-level waste storage tanks to the Defense

Waste Processing Facility for treatment (vitrification) when the

facility becomes operational.

Hazardous Waste

* Continue to treat and dispose of hazardous waste offsite until

the CIF is operational, then treat wastes, including filters, paint

waste, organic and aqueous liquids, organics and inorganic sludges, and

up to 50% of organic and inorganic heterogeneous debris, in the CIF.

* Continue offsite treatment and disposal for wastes such as

polychlorinated biphenyls, organic debris, inorganic debris,

heterogeneous debris, metal debris, bulk equipment, glass debris,

soils, and lead.

* Continue to treat some aqueous liquids in the M-Area air

stripper.

* Continue to recycle some hazardous wastes, including solvents,

fluorocarbons, lead, silver (from spent photographic fixatives), and

sell excess chemicals and lead/acid batteries.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

* Operate the CIF for volume reduction of some low-activity job-

control waste and some tritiated job-control waste.

* Treat some low-activity job-control wastes and some low-activity

equipment offsite (about 40% of the low-level radioactive waste in the

expected waste forecast). About 60% of the waste sent offsite would be

supercompacted, and the remainder reduced in size by sorting,

shredding, or melting, and repackaged. The treated waste would be

returned to SRS for further treatment in the CIF or for disposal in the

low-activity waste vaults or in shallow land disposal trenches. About

10% of the waste treated offsite would be incinerated when CIF is not

operating, and the treatment residuals would be returned to SRS.

(Paragraph 2.6.3.1, Low-Level Waste--Expected Waste Forecast, of the

WMEIS)

* Send uncompacted low-level waste (currently stored in the low-

activity waste vaults) to an offsite incinerator until CIF is operable.

* Dispose of stabilized ash and blowdown from incineration in the

low activity waste disposal vaults or shallow land disposal trenches.

* Operate a mobile low-level waste soil sort facility for treatment

of low-activity soils and suspect soils. (Paragraph 2.6.1.1, Pollution

Prevention/Waste Minimization--Expected Waste Forecast, of the WMEIS)

* Decontaminate and recycle some low-activity equipment waste

(metal) in an offsite smelter. Treatment residuals would be returned to

SRS for shallow land disposal. (Paragraph 2.2.1.4, Waste Minimization

Practices and Initiatives, and 2.6.1.1, Pollution Prevention/Waste

Minimization--Expected Waste Forecast, of the WMEIS)

* Continue vault disposal of offsite job-control waste, tritiated

soils, some tritiated job-control waste, tritiated equipment, and

intermediate-activity job-control waste.

* Continue disposal of naval hardware in shallow land disposal

trenches.

Mixed Wastes

* Treat small quantities of mixed polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)

wastes offsite. Return treatment residuals to SRS for disposal.

* Operate the CIF for mixed heterogeneous debris, inorganic debris,

organic debris, DWPF benzene, organic liquid, radioactive oil, PUREX

solvent, paint waste, and aqueous liquids.

* Store tritiated oil to allow time for radioactive decay.

* Recycle mixed waste, including radioactively contaminated lead

and cadmium-coated HEPA filter frames, in an offsite facility. Return

treatment residuals to SRS for shallow land disposal.

Transuranic and Alpha Low-Level Radioactive Waste

* Return Rocky Flats Incinerator ash to the Rocky Flats Site for

consolidation and treatment with similar wastes at that facility.

* Dispose of alpha low-level waste in low-activity waste vaults.

Reasons for Determination

DOE selected the moderate treatment configuration for SRS because

the Department believes that alternative will provide more than

adequate protection of human health and the environment, and will be

consistent with expected budgetary limitations. Specifically, DOE bases

its choice of the moderate treatment configuration alternative for SRS

on factors listed below, including potential environmental impacts and

regulatory commitments.

* In the moderate treatment configuration alternative, the CIF

would treat hazardous, mixed, and low-level waste for its entire

project life (approximately 30 years), which is the most cost-effective

use of the facility. CIF also provides the ``regulatory specified

treatment'' for certain waste streams and is the Best Demonstrated

Available Technolgy (BDAT) for other waste streams. In contrast, under

the limited treatment configuration alternative, the CIF would treat

hazardous and mixed waste only, which would not be cost-effective.

Similarly, under the extensive treatment configuration alternative,

operation of the CIF would be discontinued after approximately 10 years

when the non-alpha vitrification facility became operational. The

potential environmental impacts from operating the CIF under the

moderate treatment configuration alternative would be very small.

[[Page 55253]]

* Mixed waste treatment technology under the moderate treatment

configuration alternative is consistent with the Site Treatment Plan,

which is currently being negotiated with the State of South Carolina,

and existing commitments under the Federal Facility Compliance

Agreement regarding land disposal restrictions, which are being

discussed with the EPA. The moderate treatment configuration

alternative includes the same technologies as identified as the

preferred treatment in the proposed STP. In contrast, the limited and

extensive treatment configuration alternatives are not consistent with

the STP submitted to the State of South Carolina because both

alternatives include vitrification for some wastes for which

incineration is the BDAT. The limited and extensive treatment

configuration alternatives are also inconsistent with costs and

technologies specified in the STP, and schedules that are currently

under negotiation with the State of South Carolina.

* In the moderate treatment configuration alternative, transuranic

waste technology is consistent with the ``planning-basis'' Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) waste acceptance criteria. Treatment

(vitrification) is provided only for those transuranic wastes that do

not conform to the applicable shipping requirements (i.e., plutonium-

238). All other SRS transuranic wastes are expected to meet the WIPP

waste acceptance criteria after repackaging and characterization/

certification. DOE believes this to be the most realistic situation

with respect to the operation of WIPP and the National TRU Program,

which is currently being developed. The extensive treatment

configuration alternative would use vitrification for both transuranic

and alpha waste and would require a larger and more expensive

vitrification facility. The limited treatment configuration alternative

does not include a vitrification facility. It assumes that WIPP will

receive a no-migration variance from the EPA, and that the transuranic

waste transportation containers will be developed to allow Pu-238 waste

to be safely transported to WIPP. Thus, all SRS transuranic waste would

be disposed of at WIPP without additional treatment under the limited

treatment configuration alternative. Both of these assumptions rely on

developments that have not yet occuurred. Therefore, this alternative

is more speculative that the moderate treatment configuration

alternative.

* In the moderate treatment alternative, hazardous wastes are

treated onsite subject to availability of onsite treatment capacity and

compatibility with onsite technologies used to manage mixed waste. This

alternative provides the most extensive utilization of existing onsite

facilities, supplemented by use of offsite treatment and disposal

options. The extensive treatment configuration alternative would call

for new facilities (i.e., non-alpha vitrification) for treatment of

hazardous waste while the limited treatment configuration alternative

would rely on offsite treatment and disposal of hazardous waste.

* The moderate treatment configuration alternative provides the

best volume reduction for low-activity waste (75 percent reduction in

the moderate treatment alternative compared to 22 percent for the

limted treatment configuration alternative and 70 percent for extensive

treatment configuration), and thus conserves space in low-activity

waste vaults, requires the lowest number of low-activity waste vaults,

and thus avoids expenditures of land and money.

* The moderate treatment configuration alternative results in the

smallest number of additional transuranic and alpha waste storage pads

(10 compared to 12 and 11 for limited and extensive treatment

alternatives, respectively). It also results in the smallest number of

disposal facilities (low activity waste vaults, shallow land disposal

trenches, and RCRA-permitted vaults). The total number of these

disposal facilities are 85 for the moderate treatment configuration

alternative, compared to 151 under the limited treatment alternative,

and 167 under the extensive treatment configuration alternative.

* The moderate treatment configuration alternative results in the

least construction-related air emissions. The largest percentage

increase over current emissions would be from carbon monoxide (existing

sources at 171 micrograms per cubic meter, compared to the 1-hr

standard of 40,000 micrograms per cubic meter) at 673 micrograms per

cubic meter for the moderate treatment configuration alternative. This

compares to 769 and 737 micrograms per cubic meter for the limited and

extensive treatment configuration alternatives, respectively. The

diffferences between these increases would be insignificant.

* The moderate treatment configuration alternative employs less

thermal treatment than the extensive treatment configuration

alternative, under which a greater volume of waste would undergo

thermal treatment through vitrification. The moderate treatment

configuration alternative would result in lower emissions and smaller

radiological air impacts to workers and the public than would occur

under the extensive treatment configuration alternative. Under both

alternatives, however, the impacts would be very small and the

difference would be insignificant. (For example, the maximally exposed

offsite individual's probability of a fatal cancer probability is

estimated to be 1.7 x 10-8 for the moderate treatment

configuration alternative and 9.0 x 10-8 for the extensive

treatment configuration alternatives.)

* The moderate treatment configuration alternative life cycle cost

($6.9 billion) is higher than the extensive treatment configuration

alternative ($5.6 billion). However, the extensive treatment

configuration alternative would require greater expenditures in the

near term, and would be difficult for DOE to fund.

Environmental Impacts

In eight resource categories (socioeconomic, groundwater, surface

water, air, traffic, transportation, occupational health and public

health) the difference among the total impacts from any one alternative

as compared to any other would be indistinguishable. Nevertheless, the

no action alternative would not allow DOE to comply with all applicable

requirements, and is therefore unacceptable.

For the expected waste forecast, the greatest differences among

alternatives are in potential land use and potential impacts on

ecological resources. The moderate and extensive treatment

configuration alternatives would require the most additional land.

These configurations would also require the most acres to be cleared.

All of the additional land that would be needed is included within the

current boundary of the area at the SRS that has been designated for

waste management activities in future land use plans. In proposing

sites for the waste management facilities, every effort was made to

efficiently use the available land in E-Area, the current SRS waste

management area. Land development plans have considered the change in

demand for waste management facilities over the 30 year period

considered in the EIS. For example, mixed waste storage buildings and

transuranic and alpha waste storage pads required during the period

while treatment capacity is being developed would be converted to long

term use as long-lived waste storage buildings. In other instances, the

buildings or pads would be removed and the land used as the location

for new facilities.

[[Page 55254]]

DOE has conducted a survey of the forested lands within the SRS

waste management area and determined that there are no threatened or

endangered species or critical habitats on this land. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have

concurred in DOE's determination.

Mitigation

Based upon the above discussion, DOE believes that all practicable

means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the moderate

treatment alternative have already been adopted. DOE believes that all

appropriate mitigation measures are included in the moderate treatment

alternative.

There are 12 archaeological sites within the SRS waste management

facility boundary that may be eligible for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places. Potential impacts to these sites will be

achieved by avoiding them, if possible. If avoidance is not possible,

there will be an archaeological excavation of the sites before any land

clearing begins. Mitigation will be conducted in consultation with the

South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office.

Conclusion

DOE has determined that the most appropriate method of managing

low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic wastes at SRS,

considering all relevant factors, is to implement the moderate

treatment configuration alternative. These factors include beneficial

and adverse environmental impacts, monetary costs, and regulatory

commitments.

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 22, 1995.

Richard J. Guimond,

Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,

for Environmental Management.

[FR Doc. 95-26845 Filed 10-27-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P