Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is issuing this

record of its decision to dispose of transuranic (TRU) waste at the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a mined repository located 2,100

feet below the surface in an ancient salt deposit near Carlsbad, New

Mexico. Under this decision, DOE will dispose of up to 175,600 cubic

meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of TRU waste generated by defense

activities at WIPP after preparation (i.e., treatment, as necessary,

including packaging) to meet WIPP's waste acceptance criteria. This

waste includes TRU waste accumulated in aboveground storage since 1970

and TRU waste to be generated over approximately the next 35 years.

This waste does not include TRU waste commingled with polychlorinated

biphenyls in concentrations greater than or equal to 50 parts per

million. Transportation of waste to WIPP will initially be by truck,

although the Department reserves the option to use commercial rail

transportation in the future. DOE will comply with the requirements and

waste limits in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as amended, and the

Consultation and Cooperation Agreement between New Mexico and the

Department of Energy. DOE has applied for a permit from the New Mexico

Environment Department under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

concerning mixed TRU waste (TRU waste containing radioactive and

hazardous constituents); such a permit is not needed for disposal of

other TRU waste at WIPP.

Implementation of this decision is contingent upon obtaining a

Compliance Certification from the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). EPA recently proposed to certify that WIPP

complies with applicable EPA requirements for TRU waste disposal (62 FR

58792, October 30, 1997).

This Record of Decision documents the Department's decision to

implement the Preferred Alternative, as analyzed in the ``Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0026-FS2, September 1997) (SEIS-II). This

Record of Decision is being issued in coordination with the preparation

of the Record of Decision on the treatment and storage of TRU waste,

which is based on the ``Waste Management Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0200, May 1997) (WM PEIS). The WM PEIS

Record of Decision will specify the DOE sites at which TRU waste will

be prepared and stored before disposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information regarding WIPP SEIS-II and transuranic

waste contact: Harold Johnson, SEIS-II Document Manager, Mail Stop 535,

U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office, Post Office Box 3090,

Carlsbad, NM 88221, Telephone (505) 234-7349, E-Mail:

[email protected]

For further information on the DOE National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of

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

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: 202-586-

4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Since the mid-1940s, DOE's research and development, nuclear

weapons production, and nuclear fuel reprocessing activities have

produced transuranic (TRU) waste. TRU waste is waste that contains

alpha particle-emitting radionuclides with atomic numbers greater than

that of uranium (92) and half-lives greater than 20 years in

concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste.

TRU waste is classified according to the radiation dose rate at a

package surface. Contact-handled (CH) TRU waste has a radiation dose

rate at a package surface of 200 millirem per hour or less; this waste

can safely be handled directly by personnel. Remote-handled (RH) TRU

waste has a radiation dose rate at a package surface greater than 200

millirem per hour, and must be handled remotely (e.g., with machinery

designed to shield workers from radiation).

TRU waste that has both radioactive and hazardous constituents is

known as mixed TRU waste. The hazardous component of mixed TRU waste is

regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). DOE

estimates that approximately 60 percent of TRU waste is mixed TRU

waste. In addition, some TRU waste is commingled with polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) in concentrations greater than or equal to 50 parts

per million and is known as PCB commingled TRU waste. Disposal of PCBs

is regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Before 1970, TRU waste was disposed of in shallow land burial

sites. Since 1970, TRU waste has been retrievably stored in aboveground

facilities at DOE sites. Plutonium stabilization and management

activities, environmental restoration (which could include remediation

of sites where TRU waste was buried before 1970), decontamination and

decommissioning, waste management, and defense testing and research are

expected to generate additional TRU waste.

The Department began examining the environmental impacts of TRU

waste disposal under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in

the late 1970s. After issuing the ``Final Environmental Impact

Statement for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant'' (DOE/EIS-0026, October

1980), the Department decided in a 1981 Record of Decision to begin

phased development of WIPP to demonstrate the safe disposal of TRU

waste in bedded salt. Consequently, the Department has, since 1981,

been preparing to dispose of and isolate TRU waste by emplacing it in

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a mined repository located

2,100 feet below the surface in an ancient salt deposit near Carlsbad,

New Mexico. The major construction activities at WIPP have been

completed. WIPP consists of the Waste Handling Building where waste

would be received and inspected, an underground disposal area, and a

waste handling shaft for transfer of waste from the surface to the

disposal area. WIPP was designed for a total capacity of 175,600 cubic

meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of TRU waste.

In 1990, after issuing the ``Final Supplement Environmental Impact

Statement for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant'' (DOE/EIS-0026-FS,

January 1990), DOE issued a Record of Decision that continued the

phased development of WIPP by instituting an experimental program to

further examine WIPP's suitability as a TRU waste repository. In

September 1997, DOE issued the ``Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal

Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-

0026-FS2) (SEIS-II), which analyzes the environmental impacts of

proposed disposal operations at WIPP. The Department has prepared this

Record of Decision pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations for implementing the provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-

1508) and the Department of Energy regulations implementing NEPA (10

CFR part 1021).

[[Page 3625]]

While SEIS-II was prepared to inform DOE's decision on whether to

open WIPP for the disposal of TRU waste, the ``Waste Management

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0200, May 1997)

(WM PEIS) was prepared to inform DOE's decision on where to treat

(which includes packaging) and store TRU waste prior to disposal. In

the WM PEIS, DOE examined several TRU waste treatment and storage site

consolidation strategies (i.e., whether to treat and store TRU waste at

the DOE sites where it is generated, at a few regional DOE sites, or at

a centralized DOE site). In coordination with this WIPP Record of

Decision, DOE is separately preparing a Record of Decision, supported

by the WM PEIS, that specifies whether, and if so, where, to

consolidate TRU waste for preparation and storage pending disposal.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

The Department needs to safely dispose of the TRU waste that has

accumulated at DOE sites and to provide for the disposal of additional

TRU waste to be generated over approximately the next 35 years (through

approximately 2033) in a manner that protects public health and the

environment. DOE prepared SEIS-II in order to help DOE make the

following decisions:

Whether to open and operate WIPP for the disposal of TRU

waste, and, if so,

Which portions of the TRU waste inventory would be

disposed of,

To what minimum level TRU waste must be treated for

disposal, and

What mode of transportation would be used to transport TRU

waste to WIPP.

WIPP Operation

With respect to the decision on whether to open WIPP, SEIS-II

examines the environmental impacts of four alternatives that involve

operating the facility (the Proposed Action and other Action

Alternatives) and the impacts of two alternatives that involve

dismantling and closing WIPP and continuing storage of TRU waste at the

generating sites (the No Action Alternatives).

Waste Inventories

SEIS-II uses the most recent inventory data available for its

analysis, including data from ``The National Transuranic Waste

Management Plan,'' (DOE/NTP-96-1204, Revision 0, September 1996)(TRU

Waste Management Plan). Using these data, SEIS-II examines the

environmental impacts of disposing of different inventories of TRU

waste. For purposes of analysis in SEIS-II, the DOE TRU waste inventory

is divided into a Basic Inventory and an Additional Inventory. The

Basic Inventory consists of (1) TRU waste generated by defense

activities (defense waste) that has been placed in retrievable storage

since 1970 and (2) defense TRU waste that would continue to be

generated over approximately the next 35 years as a result of plutonium

stabilization and management activities, environmental restoration

(including remediation of some sites where defense TRU waste was buried

before 1970), decontamination and decommissioning, waste management,

and defense testing and research. The Basic Inventory volume (per

recent estimates analyzed in SEIS-II) is approximately 170,000 cubic

meters (6 million cubic feet). The Additional Inventory consists of

commercial and non-defense waste (waste for which DOE has

responsibility and which was generated by activities other than defense

activities), PCB commingled TRU waste, and waste that was buried before

1970 that is not included in the Basic Inventory (because, for example,

DOE does not expect remediation activities to occur within

approximately the next 35 years, or because the extent of remediation

has not been determined). The Additional Inventory also includes non-

defense and commercial waste that DOE believes could be generated over

approximately the next 35 years. The Additional Inventory volume (per

recent estimates analyzed in SEIS-II) is approximately 142,500 cubic

meters (5 million cubic feet).

The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as amended in 1996, limits the

capacity of WIPP to 175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic feet). The

Act also specifies that only defense TRU waste may be disposed of at

WIPP. In addition, the Consultation and Cooperation (C&C) Agreement

between DOE and the State of New Mexico limits the volume of RH-TRU

waste to 7,080 cubic meters (250,000 cubic feet). Using the volume

estimates analyzed in SEIS-II, disposal of the Basic Inventory would be

within these limits, and disposal of the Basic Inventory and all of the

Additional Inventory would exceed these limits.

Waste Treatment Levels

SEIS-II examines treatment of TRU waste to three different levels

before disposal: treatment to meet the planning basis WIPP waste

acceptance criteria (WIPP WAC), thermal treatment to meet RCRA land

disposal restriction (LDR) levels, and treatment by shred and grout.

The planning basis WIPP WAC is that level of treatment and packaging in

WIPP WAC Revision 5, with anticipated revisions as analyzed in SEIS-II.

Treatment to planning basis WIPP WAC would require repackaging of TRU

waste to meet transportation and disposal regulations and DOE policies.

Treatment to LDR levels would use a thermal process that would

substantially condense the waste and yield a vitrified or metal ingot

waste form. Such treatment would also remove any organic hazardous

constituents and immobilize any hazardous metals in mixed TRU waste and

PCB commingled TRU waste. Treatment by shredding the waste and sealing

it in grout would reduce gas generation, but would create a much larger

waste volume. As set forth in this WIPP Record of Decision, DOE has

concluded that waste destined for WIPP should at a minimum be prepared

(i.e., treated as needed, and packaged) according to the planning basis

WIPP WAC. As noted previously, in coordination with this WIPP Record of

Decision, DOE is preparing a Record of Decision, based on the WM PEIS,

that will specify whether, where, and to what extent to consolidate TRU

waste for preparation and storage pending disposal.

Transportation Modes

SEIS-II analyzes the transport of TRU waste by truck, by regular

rail and truck (truck transportation from those sites that do not have

rail access), and by dedicated rail and truck. Regular rail refers to

use of commercial rail lines, with TRU waste being included on trains

that are also carrying other types of freight. Dedicated rail would

also use commercial rail lines, with trains composed exclusively of

rail cars carrying TRU waste.

The Department has investigated and continues to investigate the

possibility of using rail transportation, but considers it less

reasonable than truck transportation at this time. The primary factors

that make rail transportation less reasonable are (1) limited interest

of rail carriers in handling shipments of TRU waste, (2) the higher

cost of dedicated rail transportation as compared to truck

transportation, (3) the initial cost of acquiring additional transport

containers needed for rail transportation (because three times as many

containers are needed for each shipment), and (4) DOE's inability to

obtain rail carrier assurance that TRU waste container transit will

enable DOE to unseal the containers within 60 days of loading, as

required by Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. Regular rail

transportation, because of its lower public health impacts and cost, is

still

[[Page 3626]]

considered a desirable option for some waste transportation in the

future, provided that the factors that make it currently less

reasonable can be mitigated.

Alternatives Considered

SEIS-II examines the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action,

three other reasonable Action Alternatives, and two No Action

Alternatives that involve the waste inventories and treatment levels

described above.

1. Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

Under the Proposed Action, DOE would open WIPP and dispose of

175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of post-1970 defense TRU

waste (except PCB commingled TRU waste), which is the Basic Inventory

of TRU waste adjusted up to the capacity limits specified in the WIPP

Land Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. The waste would be treated

as necessary to meet the planning basis WIPP WAC. Based on the

inventory volume and the anticipated emplacement rate, TRU waste would

be disposed of at WIPP over a 35-year period. Transportation would be

by truck.

The Department identified the Proposed Action as its Preferred

Alternative in the final SEIS-II. Under the Preferred Alternative, TRU

waste transportation would initially be by truck; however, the

Department reserves the option to use commercial rail transportation of

TRU waste in the future.

The Proposed Action (and Preferred Alternative) would isolate TRU

waste for more than 10,000 years and would comply with the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. However, this alternative would

not dispose of the Additional Inventory.

2. Action Alternative 1

Under Action Alternative 1, the Department would dispose of the

Basic and Additional Inventories of TRU waste (except PCB commingled

TRU waste) at WIPP, after treating the waste to meet the planning basis

WIPP WAC. SEIS-II analyzes the disposal of TRU waste over the 160-year

period needed for emplacement of this amount of waste at the

anticipated emplacement rate. SEIS-II also analyzes the environmental

impacts associated with the modifications to WIPP facilities and

operations that would be needed to increase the emplacement rate and

reduce the disposal time (for this alternative, to 60 years). SEIS-II

analyzes transportation by truck and transportation by rail (regular

commercial and dedicated trains).

Action Alternative 1 would isolate TRU waste for more than 10,000

years, and would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU

waste and TRU waste that was buried before 1970. DOE could not

implement Action Alternative 1 unless the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and

the C&C Agreement were modified accordingly. In addition, under Action

Alternative 1, DOE would not dispose of PCB commingled TRU waste at

WIPP.

3. Action Alternative 2

Under Action Alternative 2, the Department would dispose of the

Basic and Additional Inventories of TRU waste (including PCB commingled

TRU waste) at WIPP after treating the waste thermally to LDR levels.

SEIS-II analyzes the disposal of waste over the 150-year period needed

for emplacement of this volume given thermal loading constraints and

anticipated emplacement rate. SEIS-II also analyzes the environmental

impacts associated with the modifications to WIPP facilities and

operations that would be needed to increase the emplacement rate and

reduce the disposal time (for this alternative, to 70 years). SEIS-II

analyzes three subalternatives (Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C) that

examine consolidated thermal treatment at DOE sites.

Action Alternative 2 would isolate TRU waste for more than 10,000

years, and would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU

waste, PCB commingled TRU waste, and TRU waste that was buried before

1970. DOE could not implement this alternative unless the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement were modified accordingly.

4. Action Alternative 3

Under Action Alternative 3, DOE would dispose of the Basic and

Additional Inventories of TRU waste (except PCB commingled TRU waste)

at WIPP after treatment by a shred and grout process. SEIS-II analyzes

the disposal of waste over the 190-year period needed for emplacement

of this volume at the anticipated emplacement rate. SEIS-II also

analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the modifications to

WIPP facilities and operations that would be needed to increase the

emplacement rate and reduce the disposal time (for this alternative, to

75 years). The impacts of both truck and rail transportation are

analyzed.

Action Alternative 3 would isolate TRU waste for more than 10,000

years, and would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU

wastes and TRU waste that was buried before 1970. DOE could not

implement Action Alternative 3 unless the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and

the C&C Agreement were modified accordingly. The treatment method under

this alternative would increase the volume of the waste to be disposed

of, thus increasing transportation. In addition, under Action

Alternative 3, DOE would not dispose of PCB commingled TRU waste at

WIPP.

5. No Action Alternative 1

Under No Action Alternative 1, the Department would thermally treat

the Basic and Additional Inventories of TRU waste and store the waste

indefinitely in newly constructed monitored retrievable storage

facilities. SEIS-II analyzes two subalternatives that examine the

impacts of thermal treatment. The impacts of transporting TRU waste to

treatment sites by both truck and rail transportation are analyzed.

WIPP would be dismantled and closed under this alternative.

No Action Alternative 1 would treat TRU waste to RCRA LDR levels

and indefinitely store the treated waste. Treatment to LDR levels would

reduce human health impacts in the event of a release of the stored

waste. This alternative would not offer the isolation afforded by deep

geologic disposal, would require periodic maintenance of storage

facilities and waste repackaging, and could not be implemented without

modification of agreements that DOE has reached with several states

regarding the offsite disposition of TRU waste. No Action Alternative 1

would require the use of effective institutional controls for the

indefinite future.

6. No Action Alternative 2

Under No Action Alternative 2, DOE would continue to store newly

generated TRU waste at generator sites in existing or planned storage

facilities. The newly generated waste would be treated to meet the

planning basis WIPP WAC to facilitate safe storage; however, the waste

form would not protect human health if the waste were released. No

transportation is analyzed for this alternative, because the waste is

assumed to remain indefinitely where it was generated. WIPP would be

dismantled and closed under this alternative.

This alternative would not involve impacts to workers and the

public associated with thermal or shred and grout treatment or with

transportation. However, this alternative would not offer the isolation

afforded by deep

[[Page 3627]]

geologic disposal, would require periodic maintenance of storage

facilities and waste repackaging for the indefinite future, and could

not be implemented without modification of agreements that DOE has

reached with several states regarding the offsite disposition of TRU

waste.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

In identifying its environmental preference among alternatives for

the long-term management of TRU waste, DOE considered both near-term

and long-term (through and beyond 10,000 years) human health and

environmental impacts. There are alternatives that would result in low

near-term impacts but relatively high long-term impacts, and

identifying the environmentally preferable alternative(s) requires

judgment concerning these impacts and sensitivity concerning the

uncertainties of some of the near-term and long-term impacts.

SEIS-II estimates that some potential near-term fatalities, mainly

among workers as a result of industrial accidents from waste treatment

operations, would occur under all alternatives. The largest number of

potential fatalities would occur as a result of thermal treatment under

Action Alternative 2 (up to approximately 14 fatalities) and No Action

Alternative 1 (up to approximately 13 fatalities), and the smallest

under No Action Alternative 2 (approximately 1 fatality), under which

only newly generated waste would be treated. Thermal treatment may

result in air quality exceedances for radionuclides, offsite treatment

impacts (including fatalities), and, for thermal treatment at WIPP

(Action Alternative 2C), potentially disproportionately high and

adverse impacts to minority and low income populations near WIPP.

Some potential near-term fatalities also could occur from storage

operations under all of the alternatives; a larger number of fatalities

could occur as a result of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake

with a small annual probability of occurring damaging an aboveground

TRU waste storage facility. For the No Action Alternatives, however,

the associated risks would continue for the indefinite future. Long-

term storage risks would also occur for the Additional Inventory that

would not be disposed of under the Proposed Action and for PCB

commingled TRU waste that would not be disposed of under Action

Alternatives 1 and 3.

Transportation for treatment and for disposal are estimated to

cause more fatalities (mainly involving the general public) than other

near-term waste management operations. The largest number of fatalities

are estimated to occur under the three Action Alternatives, in which

the most waste would be sent to WIPP. The analysis shows, however, that

regular commercial rail service would have lower potential fatalities

than transportation by either dedicated rail service or by truck. The

consequences of low probability accidents would be similar for all

transportation options. In contrast, the No Action Alternatives would

pose little to no transportation risk, depending on the alternative,

but would not dispose of the waste.

Thus, SEIS-II analyses show that, in the near term, No Action

Alternative 2 would be environmentally preferable. For the long term,

however, disposal of as much of DOE's TRU waste as possible at WIPP is

environmentally preferable to indefinite storage, because disposal

isolates the waste and avoids the long-term need to protect the public

and workers from exposure to stored waste, a protection than cannot be

assured over the long periods of time that TRU waste poses a health

hazard to the public. The long-term impacts of indefinite storage of

TRU waste under No Action Alternative 2 and, to a lesser extent, No

Action Alternative 1, would result primarily from future exposures to

stored waste should DOE lose institutional control of the storage

facilities in the future. Over the long term, there would also be an

increasing probability of adverse impacts from a natural disaster. Such

impacts could be exacerbated by future population growth near DOE

sites. SEIS-II analyses show that there is virtually no benefit to

long-term repository performance from thermal or shred and grout

treatment of waste as compared to treatment to meet the planning basis

WIPP WAC.

Considering both near-term and long-term impacts, therefore, Action

Alternative 1 is the environmentally preferable alternative, with

transportation of waste by regular commercial rail service to the

maximum extent possible to lessen near-term impacts. Action Alternative

1 would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU waste (with

the exception of PCB commingled TRU waste) and TRU waste that was

buried prior to 1970, after treatment as necessary to meet the planning

basis WIPP WAC. This alternative would dispose of a greater amount of

TRU waste than the Proposed Action.

Comments on SEIS-II and Agency Responses

SEIS-II was initiated by a notice of intent published in the

Federal Register on August 18, 1995. A draft SEIS-II was issued in

November 1996, and public hearings were held in January 1997.

Approximately 4,000 comments were received from individuals,

organizations, states, tribes, and Federal agencies during the 90-day

comment period. Many of the comments received on the draft SEIS-II

expressed strong opinions in favor of or against disposal at WIPP, or

suggested revisions to SEIS-II. The final SEIS-II, issued in September

1997, incorporated many changes in response to public comments and

internal review, including updating of waste volumes, TRU waste

locations, and the long-term performance assessment.

The Department received four letters on the final SEIS-II. The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 letter stated that the

agency had completed its review and had no further comments on the

final SEIS-II. The State of Tennessee's Department of Environment and

Conservation, the State of Idaho Oversight Program, and the Southwest

Research and Information Center submitted comments which the Department

has considered.

In its comments, the DOE Oversight Division of the Tennessee

Department of Environment and Conservation requested clarification of

responses provided in SEIS-II regarding: (1) Consolidation of TRU waste

at sites prior to being shipped to WIPP, (2) management of ``special

case'' waste, (3) management of the excess inventory of RH-TRU waste if

WIPP's capacity is reached, and (4) plans and schedules for

transporting TRU waste to WIPP. In addition, the State asked DOE to

provide assurance in the Record of Decision that RH-TRU waste will be

removed from DOE's Oak Ridge site in accordance with the Oak Ridge

Reservation Site Treatment Plan.

Decisions regarding consolidation of TRU waste for preparation and

storage pending disposal will be made in the Record of Decision for the

WM PEIS. With regard to what the commenter referred to as ``special

case'' waste, such waste that is classified as post-1970 defense TRU

waste is included in the SEIS-II analysis as CH-TRU waste as part of

the Basic Inventory, and under this Record of Decision upon preparation

to meet the planning basis WIPP WAC would be disposed of at WIPP.

Materials cited by the commenter that are not classified as TRU waste

could not be disposed of at WIPP and are beyond the scope of SEIS-II

and this Record of Decision. Regarding the comment about the excess

inventory of RH-TRU waste, DOE expects that there will be sufficient

capacity at WIPP to

[[Page 3628]]

dispose of all RH-TRU waste currently in storage and to be generated

over approximately the next 35 years, based on the most recent

estimates contained in the TRU Waste Management Plan. DOE's proposed

plans and schedule for transporting waste from particular sites to WIPP

are contained in the TRU Waste Management Plan. Finally, as stated in

SEIS-II, DOE intends to meet its obligations with regard to the

disposition of TRU waste as set forth in the agreements (including Site

Treatment Plans) that it has reached with states and in related court

orders.

The State of Idaho Oversight Program requested that the ROD be

consistent with the agreements made with the State with regard to

transuranic waste that will be disposed of at WIPP. As noted above, the

Department intends to fulfill its obligations with regard to the

disposition of TRU waste as set forth in its agreements with states and

in related court orders.

In its comments on the final SEIS-II, the Southwest Research and

Information Center stated that disposal of TRU waste in a high-level

waste repository is a reasonable alternative that was not examined in

SEIS-II or the WM PEIS. This commenter also stated that, because all of

the estimated TRU waste inventory would not be disposed of at WIPP, DOE

will be required to consider additional disposal sites, and that such

other sites were not considered in SEIS-II or the WM PEIS. Further, the

commenter stated that DOE should prepare a comprehensive NEPA analysis

of storage and disposal options for all of DOE's nuclear waste,

including all TRU waste, before issuing a Record of Decision on TRU

waste disposal at WIPP. Finally, the commenter asked for clarification

of DOE's position regarding the opening of WIPP without a RCRA permit

from the New Mexico Environment Department.

The Department has examined all reasonable TRU waste disposal

alternatives in SEIS-II and the preceding environmental impact

statements, including disposal in a high-level waste repository and

disposal at sites other than WIPP. DOE decided in 1981 to develop WIPP

for the disposal of TRU waste, and SEIS-II confirms that WIPP is an

effective disposal facility for TRU waste. The most recent waste volume

estimates contained in the TRU Waste Management Plan indicate that DOE

would be able to dispose of all of the TRU waste currently in storage,

and waste to be generated by DOE over approximately the next 35 years.

In SEIS-II, DOE analyzes the disposal at WIPP of all defense, non-

defense, and commercial TRU waste and TRU waste that was buried prior

to 1970. The WM PEIS comprehensively analyzes the management of all of

DOE's radioactive and hazardous waste types. With regard to the RCRA

permit issue, DOE has applied for a RCRA permit from the New Mexico

Environment Department for mixed TRU waste. Such a permit is not needed

for disposal of other TRU waste at WIPP.

Decision

The Department will dispose of up to 175,600 cubic meters (6.2

million cubic feet) of defense TRU waste (except PCB commingled TRU

waste) at WIPP. Transportation of waste to WIPP will initially be by

truck, although the Department reserves the option to use commercial

rail transportation in the future. DOE will prepare (including

treatment, as necessary, and packaging) the wastes to be disposed of to

meet the WIPP WAC (WIPP WAC Revision 5, including any future revisions

as analyzed in SEIS-II, such as pipe overpacks used in waste

packaging). This decision establishes only the minimum waste acceptance

requirements that must be met for disposal of waste at WIPP. DOE has

treated in the past (and based on site-specific circumstances, may

decide to treat in the future) TRU waste at some sites more extensively

than is required under the WIPP WAC. WIPP may accept for disposal

grouted TRU waste, thermally treated TRU waste, or TRU waste treated by

any other process that meets the WIPP WAC.

Under this decision, the wastes to be disposed of include both CH

and RH defense TRU waste (except PCB commingled TRU waste) placed in

retrievable storage after 1970, and TRU waste generated for

approximately the next 35 years by plutonium stabilization and

management activities, environmental restoration (including defense TRU

waste from future remediation of sites where TRU waste was buried

before 1970), decontamination and decommissioning, waste management,

and defense testing and research. The amount of TRU waste that will be

disposed of at WIPP will not exceed limits established by the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. Impacts of disposal at WIPP of

this volume of defense TRU waste are analyzed in the SEIS-II under the

Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative).

TRU waste will be transported to WIPP in containers certified by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as required by the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act. DOE will initially use trucks to transport waste.

However, DOE reserves the option to use commercial rail service for TRU

waste transportation in the future, because SEIS-II analyses show that,

under normal operations, regular rail transportation would cause fewer

fatalities and would cost less than truck transportation (although

consequences of a low probability accident would be similar for all

transportation options). In contrast, SEIS-II analyses show that

dedicated rail shipments would cause the largest number of fatalities

and would be the most costly transportation mode.

Basis for Decision

The decision described above minimizes, to the extent possible

under current statutory restrictions contained in the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act, the impacts and costs of continued TRU waste management

activities at DOE sites. Disposal of TRU waste at WIPP would

effectively isolate the waste from human contact for more than 10,000

years if the repository remains undisturbed, and, under the Preferred

Alternative, is not expected to adversely impact human health even if

the repository were to be breached by drilling. For example, based on

analyses in the WIPP SEIS-II, the probability that a member of a

drilling crew that breached the repository would die of cancer from

exposure to the waste is 4 in 10,000. If an intrusion occurred,

radionuclides and heavy metals could reach the Culebra Dolomite (the

principal water-bearing unit overlying WIPP). However, impacts would be

negligible.

The Department has taken into consideration irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of resources, impacts from retrieval of waste

from the repository, and cumulative impacts in making this decision.

There would be irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources

associated with the use of the WIPP site resulting from residual salt

that remains after remediation of the salt storage pile. Although DOE

has no plans to retrieve waste from WIPP, if the waste were retrieved

prior to repository closure, the impacts would be the same as from

emplacing the waste. If the waste were required to be recovered after

repository closure, there could be several worker fatalities from

recovering waste and any contaminated salt. The impacts from

transporting waste back to the treatment sites would be higher than

from transporting it to WIPP because of the additional volume of

contaminated salt. In considering cumulative impacts, DOE recognizes

that for all alternatives involving transportation of TRU waste, there

would be cumulative impacts from past, present and reasonable

foreseeable

[[Page 3629]]

future activities involving transportation of other waste types

(hazardous, low-level, low-level mixed, and high level waste). There

would also be cumulative impacts at some of the treatment sites as a

result of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities.

DOE did not select the No Action Alternatives because they would

not isolate TRU waste from humans and the environment, and could cause

public harm if long-term institutional control were to be lost.

(Although no deaths would be expected based on current population

densities and distributions under No Action Alternative 1, intruders

could receive doses that greatly exceed current regulatory limits; up

to 800 deaths could occur over 10,000 years under No Action Alternative

2). Maintaining such controls indefinitely would require future

generations to incur risks and costs that can be avoided by disposing

of the waste in WIPP now. In addition, the No Action Alternatives could

not be implemented without modification of agreements that DOE has

reached with several states regarding the offsite disposition of TRU

waste.

DOE did not select the Action Alternatives because disposal of the

volumes and waste types involved in these alternatives would require

modification of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. DOE

did not select either thermal or shred and grout treatment because the

SEIS-II analyses show that these treatments do not materially improve

the repository's performance, and also have greater costs and near-term

impacts across the DOE complex.

This decision is consistent with the intent of Congress, as

expressed in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, that DOE commence disposal

operations at WIPP once all applicable health and safety standards and

laws have been met. The decision will enable the Department to comply

with the agreements that DOE has entered into with several states,

particularly those agreements that set a schedule for removal of TRU

waste from DOE sites.

Implementation of the decision to dispose of TRU waste at WIPP is

contingent on obtaining a Compliance Certification from EPA. EPA

recently proposed to certify compliance, subject to certain conditions

(62 FR 58792, October 30, 1997). DOE has applied for a RCRA permit from

the New Mexico Environment Department for disposal of mixed TRU waste;

such a permit is not needed for disposal of other TRU waste at WIPP.

Mitigation Measures

DOE has a Mitigation Action Plan in effect for WIPP to reduce

possible adverse environmental effects. DOE will continue to implement

those actions and provide information on their status in its annual

mitigation action reports.

DOE will comply with applicable Department of Transportation and

Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations governing the shipment of TRU

waste. As described in SEIS-II, DOE will transport TRU waste to WIPP in

such a manner as to alleviate, to the maximum extent possible,

potential impacts from transportation of TRU waste over the highways.

These measures include tracking shipments with the TRANSCOM satellite

tracking system and maintaining constant communication with the driver

to provide notice of adverse weather or road conditions along the

route. Equipment will be inspected at the beginning of each shipment

and periodically every 100 miles or every two hours while on route. If

shipments are delayed on route, drivers will park at designated DOE or

Department of Defense sites, or State designated parking areas if

possible. If no such sites are available, drivers will park in areas

away from population concentrations and notify the State Police of the

shipment's location.

In addition to maintaining its own emergency response capabilities,

DOE offers emergency response training to police, fire, and medical

personnel located along the WIPP transportation routes. In the event of

an accident involving a WIPP shipment, the driver would notify

emergency responders by cellular phone and also the WIPP Central

Monitoring Room using the TRANSCOM system. A DOE official would be

dispatched to assist at the accident site. DOE resources would be

available to support mitigation of the accident, including but not

limited to package recovery and site cleanup.

The United States Department of the Interior suggested in comments

on the draft SEIS-II that DOE should develop a spill contingency plan

to address the potential impacts of a diesel fuel spill on fish and

wildlife and their habitats. DOE already has plans in place to address

the potential impacts of a truck accident; these plans address

potential releases of TRU waste and other materials. Remediation

efforts may include excavation and disposal of contaminated

environmental media as appropriate.

A copy of SEIS-II and this Record of Decision are available from

the Center for Environmental Management Information, telephone: 1-800-

7EM-DATA (1-800-736-3282) (in Washington, D.C., call 202-863-5084).

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 16th day of January, 1998.

Elizabeth A. Moler,

Deputy Secretary of Energy.

[FR Doc. 98-1653 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P