Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste

Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

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

Decision on where, i.e., at which DOE sites, the Department will

prepare and store its transuranic (TRU) waste prior to disposal. Each

of the Department's sites that currently has or will generate TRU waste

will prepare and store its TRU waste on site, except that the Sandia

National Laboratory in New Mexico (SNL-NM) will transfer its TRU waste

to the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico. LANL will

have facilities, not available or anticipated at SNL-NM, to prepare and

store this waste prior to disposal.

DOE made this decision based on analyses in the Department of

Energy Final Programmatic Waste Management Environmental Impact

Statement (WM PEIS) (May 1997) and other information. This decision

differs slightly from the Preferred Alternative in the WM PEIS. The

Appendix to this Record of Decision lists the sites for which DOE

analyzed the potential impacts of treating (which includes packaging)

and storing TRU waste in the WM PEIS. The potential health and

environmental impacts of this decision were identified and evaluated in

the Decentralized Alternative of the WM PEIS.

In the future, the Department may decide to ship TRU wastes from

sites where it may be impractical to prepare them for disposal to sites

where DOE has or will have the necessary capability. The sites that

could receive such shipments of TRU waste are the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the Oak Ridge

Reservation (ORR), the Savannah River Site (SRS) and the Hanford Site.

However, any future decisions regarding transfers of TRU wastes would

be subject to appropriate review under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA), and

[[Page 3630]]

to agreements DOE has entered into, such as those with States, relating

to the treatment and storage of TRU waste. Future NEPA review could

include, but would not necessarily be limited to, analysis of the need

to supplement existing environmental reviews. DOE would conduct all

such TRU waste shipments between sites in accordance with applicable

transportation requirements and would coordinate these shipments with

appropriate State, Tribal and local authorities.

This Record of Decision was prepared in coordination with the

Record of Decision issued on January 16, 1998, on disposal of DOE's TRU

waste, which is based on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WIPP SEIS-II),

issued in September 1997. On the basis of the analyses in the WIPP

SEIS-II, DOE decided to dispose of TRU waste generated by defense

activities at the WIPP near Carlsbad, New Mexico, after preparation

(i.e., treatment, as necessary, and packaging) to meet WIPP's waste

acceptance criteria.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the WM PEIS and this Record

of Decision are available in DOE public reading rooms and selected

libraries located across the United States. A list of the public

reading rooms at which the WM PEIS and this Record of Decision are

available can also be accessed on the DOE Office of Environmental

Management's World Wide Web site at http://www.em.doe.gov/em30/. To

request copies of the WM PEIS, this Record of Decision, or a list of

the reading rooms and public libraries, please write or call: The

Center for Environmental Management Information, P.O. Box 23769,

Washington, DC 20026-3769, Telephone: 1-800-736-3282 (in Washington,

DC: 202-863-5084).

For further information on DOE's national Waste Management Program,

the WM PEIS, or this Record of Decision, please write or call: Ms.

Patrice Bubar, Director, Office of Planning and Analysis (EM-35),

United States Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management,

19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874, Telephone: (301) 903-7204.

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

Environmental Policy Act process, please write or call: Ms. Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42),

United States Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety, and

Health, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119,

Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the Council on

Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts

1500-1580) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021).

This Record of Decision is based on analyses contained in the

Department of Energy's Final Waste Management Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0200-F). DOE published a notice

of its intent to prepare the WM PEIS in the Federal Register on October

25, 1990. DOE issued a Draft WM PEIS on September 22, 1995, and

hearings were held during the public comment period, which closed on

February 19, 1996. All public comments were addressed in the Final WM

PEIS, which DOE issued on May 30, 1997.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

DOE needs facilities to manage its radioactive and hazardous wastes

in order to maintain safe, efficient, and cost-effective control of

these wastes; to comply with applicable Federal and state laws; and to

protect public health, safety and the environment. The WM PEIS is a

Department-wide study of the environmental impacts of managing five

types of waste generated by defense and research activities at a

variety of DOE sites around the United States. The five waste types

are: low-level mixed waste, low-level waste, TRU waste, high-level

waste, and hazardous waste. The WM PEIS examines, in an integrated

fashion, the potential impacts of managing these waste types and the

cumulative impacts of waste management, transportation and other

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities.

The WM PEIS provides information on the potential impacts of

alternatives for nationwide waste management that DOE will use to

decide, on a programmatic basis, where, i.e., at which DOE sites, to

locate particular waste management facilities. However, DOE will not

decide the specific location of new facilities at sites selected to

manage a particular type of waste, or a facility's capacity and design,

until DOE completes appropriate site-wide or project-specific NEPA

reviews, such as an environmental assessment or environmental impact

statement. These subsequent analyses would rely, to the extent

appropriate, on the analyses in the WM PEIS.

This Record of Decision applies only to the treatment (including

packaging) and storage of TRU waste as analyzed in the WM PEIS. Records

of Decision for the four other waste types analyzed in the WM PEIS will

be issued in due course. An Appendix to this Record of Decision

identifies the major sites evaluated in the WM PEIS as potential

locations for waste management operations, and the sites analyzed that

have TRU waste.

TRU Waste Treatment and Storage

TRU waste is waste containing more than 100 nanocuries of alpha-

emitting transuranic isotopes per gram of waste, with half-lives

greater than 20 years (a few exceptions to this definition are

identified in the WM PEIS). Over 99% of the total volume of existing

and anticipated TRU waste is located at the DOE sites listed in the

Appendix. TRU waste is categorized as either contact-handled (CH) or

remote-handled (RH), based on the radiation level at the surface of the

waste container. CH-TRU waste constitutes more than 85% of the total

existing and anticipated volume of TRU waste considered in the WM PEIS.

CH containers can be safely handled by direct contact, with appropriate

health and safety measures. RH-TRU waste contains a greater proportion

of radionuclides that produce highly penetrating radiation, and thus RH

containers require special handling and shielding during waste

management operations.

Alternatives Considered

In the WM PEIS, the term ``alternative'' refers to a nationwide

configuration of sites for treating, storing, or disposing of a waste

type. The alternatives analyzed for each waste type fall within the

four broad categories described below.

No Action Alternatives

These alternatives involve the use of currently existing or planned

waste management facilities at DOE sites. In the NEPA process, a no

action alternative or ``status quo'' alternative may not comply with

applicable laws and regulations; however, analysis of such an

alternative is required and provides an environmental baseline against

which the impacts of other alternatives can be compared.

Decentralized Alternatives

These alternatives involve managing waste where it is or will be

generated. Unlike the no action alternatives, the decentralized

alternatives may require the siting, construction, and operation of new

facilities or the modification of

[[Page 3631]]

existing facilities. Under the decentralized alternatives, waste

management facilities would be located at a larger number of sites than

under regionalized or centralized alternatives.

Regionalized Alternatives

These alternatives involve consolidating waste management

activities by transporting wastes to a limited number of sites (fewer

than the number of sites considered for the decentralized alternatives

but greater than the number of sites considered for the centralized

alternatives). In general, sites with the largest volumes of a

particular waste type were evaluated as potential regional sites for

consolidating waste management activities.

Centralized Alternatives

These alternatives involve consolidating management of wastes at

fewer locations than the regionalized alternatives (typically one to

three locations). As was the case for the regionalized alternatives,

generally those sites with the largest volumes of a particular waste

type were evaluated as potential sites for centralized waste

management.

There are many possible combinations of the number and locations of

DOE sites for waste management facilities. To limit these combinations

to a reasonable number for meaningful analysis, DOE selected

alternatives that cover the full spectrum of reasonable alternatives

under each category for each waste type. Table 1 summarizes the

alternatives for TRU waste treatment storage that are analyzed in the

WM PEIS, and the preferred alternative that DOE developed based on the

analysis and other relevant criteria identified in the WM PEIS.

Table 1.--Summary of TRU Waste Alternatives Analyzed in the WM PEIS

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

Alternative Category Description

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

No Action.............................. Eleven sites * that anticipate generating TRU waste in the future would

prepare TRU waste to meet planning-basis WIPP waste acceptance

criteria **; existing TRU waste at 16 sites would be stored

indefinitely; assumes TRU waste would not be transported among sites.

Decentralized.......................... Either fixed or mobile characterization facilities would be operated at

sites that would need to retrieve existing TRU waste, treat,

repackage, and ship the waste. TRU waste would be shipped from the 6

sites with the smallest amounts to the nearest site of the 10 sites

(ANL-E, NTS, Hanford, INEEL, LANL, LLNL, Mound, ORR, RFETS, SRS) with

the largest amounts of TRU waste for storage prior to disposal;

assumes for purposes of analysis that the waste would be prepared to

meet waste acceptance criteria for WIPP and that disposal would occur

at WIPP.

Regionalized (3 Subalternatives)....... Three subalternatives differ in the level of treatment assumed for the

purpose of impact analysis and the number of sites at which treatment

would occur; RH-TRU waste would be treated and stored at Hanford and

ORR; CH-TRU waste would be treated and stored at all sites considered

in each alternative except ORR; all three subalternatives assume for

purposes of analysis that disposal would occur at WIPP.

Subalternatives:

1. TRU waste would be shipped from the 10 sites with the smallest

amounts to the 6 sites with the largest amounts (together having 95%

of current and anticipated TRU inventories) for treatment to reduce

gas generation and storage prior to disposal.

2. TRU waste would be shipped as described for Regionalized Alternative

1; the waste would be treated to meet Land Disposal Restrictions

(LDRs).

3. TRU waste would be consolidated at the 4 sites with approximately

80% of the current and anticipated inventories; treatment to meet LDRs

would occur at these 4 sites.

Centralized............................ All CH-TRU waste would be treated at WIPP to meet LDRs; all RH-TRU

waste would be treated at Hanford or ORR to meet LDRs and stored there

until disposal; assumes for purposes of analysis that disposal would

occur at WIPP.

Preferred.............................. Combination of the Decentralized Alternative, under which most TRU

waste would be treated and stored where it is located, and parts of

the Regionalized Alternative, under which some TRU waste could be

shipped to INEEL, LANL, ORR, and SRS for treatment and storage,

pending disposal, with the level of treatment and whether to dispose

of TRU wastes at WIPP to be decided on the basis of analyses in the

WIPP SEIS-II.

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

* The Appendix to this Record of Decision lists the sites' names and their abbreviations.

** WIPP waste acceptance criteria Revision 5 as defined in the WIPP SEIS-II.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The WM PEIS analyzed a number of potential impacts, including those

on human health, air and water resources, ecological resources, land

use, and site infrastructures for each of the major sites at which

waste management facilities might be located. Differences in impacts

among all of the action alternatives were small. Nonetheless, all

potential impacts identified in the WM PEIS were considered in DOE's

selection of the preferred alternative, its identification of the

environmentally preferable alternative, and its decision regarding

treatment and storage of TRU waste.

For the 20-year period of waste management operations analyzed in

the WM PEIS, the potential impacts under the No Action alternative for

TRU waste management are smaller than those identified under the action

alternatives, and on this basis, the No Action alternative could be

considered to be the environmentally preferable alternative. However,

the No Action alternative assumes indefinite storage, and therefore

does not include preparing and shipping the waste for disposal, i.e.,

permanent isolation from the human environment. Although the No Action

alternative could pose less risk to workers and communities surrounding

DOE's sites for the first 20 years, the longer-term risks are likely to

exceed those for the first 20 years, not only as a result of continuing

routine storage operations, but also as a result of degradation of

storage facilities and containers.

Taking these circumstances into account, the Department considers

the environmentally preferable alternative to be the Decentralized

Alternative under which DOE will prepare the TRU waste for disposal

with minimal transportation. Transportation of TRU waste would occur

only in situations where the sites at which the waste is

[[Page 3632]]

located lack the capability to prepare it for disposal.

Decision: DOE National Programmatic Configuration for Treatment and

Storage of TRU Waste Prior to Disposal

The Department will develop and operate mobile and fixed facilities

to characterize and prepare TRU waste for disposal at WIPP. Each of the

DOE's sites that has, or will generate, TRU waste will, as needed,

prepare and store its TRU waste on site, except that the SNL-NM will

transfer its TRU waste to LANL in New Mexico. LANL will have

facilities, not available or anticipated at SNL-NM, to prepare and

store this waste prior to disposal.

Basis for the Decision

Although the No Action Alternative resulted in the lowest impacts

among the alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS over the next 20 years,

DOE did not select this alternative because it does not meet the

Department's needs for the continued, safe management of TRU waste.

Under the No Action Alternative, health and environmental impacts would

continue to occur beyond the 20-year period of analysis in the WM PEIS.

In the WIPP SEIS-II Record of Decision (discussed further below), DOE

decided to dispose of TRU waste at WIPP, after treatment to meet the

planning basis waste acceptance criteria. The No Action alternative

evaluates treatment to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria only for

TRU waste to be generated in the future; i.e., existing retrievably

stored TRU waste would not be prepared to meet WIPP waste acceptance

criteria. Eventually, the stored waste as well as the newly generated

and treated waste would have to be repackaged to maintain safe storage

conditions.

Among the action alternatives, health and environmental impacts are

generally similar over the 20-year period of analysis. DOE's decision

seeks to limit environmental impacts and costs, while providing for the

safe management of DOE's TRU waste. Among the action alternatives, the

life cycle costs estimated in the WM PEIS are lowest for the

Decentralized Alternative.

The level of treatment analyzed under the Decentralized Alternative

in the WM PEIS corresponds to the level of treatment selected in the

Record of Decision for the WIPP SEIS-II for preparing the TRU waste for

disposal. Thus the potential health and environmental impacts of

treating TRU waste in accordance with the WIPP waste acceptance

criteria are identified and evaluated in the analysis of the

Decentralized Alternative, which also identifies the potential impacts

of treating and storing waste from SNL-NM at LANL.

Future Decisions

The Department may, in the future, decide to transfer TRU wastes

from sites where it may be impractical to prepare them for disposal to

sites where DOE has or will have the necessary capability. The sites

that could receive such shipments of TRU waste are INEEL, ORR, SRS and

Hanford. However, any future decisions regarding transfers of TRU waste

would be subject to appropriate NEPA review, and to agreements, such as

those between DOE and States, relating to the treatment and storage of

TRU waste. Future NEPA review could include, but would not necessarily

be limited to, analysis of the need to supplement existing

environmental reviews.

DOE would conduct all such TRU waste shipments between sites in

accordance with applicable transportation requirements and would

coordinate these shipments with appropriate State, Tribal and local

authorities.

As provided by 10 CFR Sec. 1021.315, the DOE may revise this Record

of Decision in the future as long as the revised decision is adequately

supported by existing environmental impact statements. Revision of this

Record of Decision could occur, for example, as new technology or

information from ongoing studies becomes available, or as DOE

identifies situations in which it would be appropriate to transfer TRU

waste to INEEL, ORR, SRS or Hanford. Implementation of the Record of

Decision is subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State,

and local requirements.

Differences From the Preferred Alternative in the WM PEIS

This decision differs from the preferred alternative identified in

the WM PEIS in three respects. First, the preferred alternative in the

WM PEIS included treatment and storage of ORR's RH-TRU waste on site,

and treatment and storage of ORR's CH-TRU waste at SRS. Since

publication of the WM PEIS, the Department has been considering

treatment, as needed, of both ORR's CH-TRU and RH-TRU waste at ORR,

because the radiation levels of ORR's CH-TRU waste are close to the

levels of ORR's RH-TRU waste, and because the two waste forms share

other physical characteristics. By including treatment of ORR's CH-TRU

waste with its RH-TRU waste, DOE would reduce the need to transport CH-

TRU waste and achieve economies of scale. The proposed action for a TRU

waste facility at ORR that could treat, as needed, both its CH-TRU and

RH-TRU wastes is subject to appropriate site-specific review under

NEPA.

The second difference between this decision and the preferred

alternative in the WM PEIS concerns RH-TRU waste at SRS. The preferred

alternative called for transferring this waste to ORR for treatment and

storage. The Department has now decided that it should defer any

determination whether to transfer RH-TRU waste from SRS to ORR until

DOE has the results of the NEPA review for the proposed ORR facility

and additional information regarding its capability to meet

transportation requirements for shipping the RH-TRU waste to ORR.

The third difference between this decision and the preferred

alternative in the WM PEIS concerns the transfer of a portion of the

TRU waste at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) to

INEEL. Since publication of the WM PEIS, additional information about

the characteristics of the TRU waste at RFETS has become available

indicating that existing or anticipated facilities at RFETS may be able

to prepare this waste for disposal. If, in the future, RFETS needs to

use another site's capability to prepare some of its TRU waste for

disposal, DOE will complete any further review under NEPA that may be

necessary, and will notify the appropriate State, Tribal and local

authorities prior to making a final decision.

Coordinated Decision on Level of Treatment and Disposal of TRU

Waste

This Record of Decision has been prepared in coordination with the

WIPP SEIS-II Record of Decision (January 16, 1998), which specifies the

level of treatment for, and the disposal location of, TRU waste

generated by defense activities. The decisions on the level of

treatment of TRU waste and where to dispose of it are based on analyses

in the WIPP SEIS-II. In the WIPP SEIS-II Record of Decision, DOE has

decided that TRU waste destined for disposal at WIPP will be treated to

meet the planning basis waste acceptance criteria (Revision 5 of the

waste acceptance criteria as defined in the WIPP SEIS-II), which

establish the minimum requirements for preparing TRU waste for disposal

at WIPP. DOE has treated in the past and based on site-specific

circumstances, may decide in the future to treat TRU waste at some

sites more extensively than is required under the WIPP waste acceptance

criteria.

[[Page 3633]]

Mitigation

Chapter 12 of the WM PEIS describes measures that DOE takes in

order to minimize the impacts of its waste management activities.

Mitigation measures are an integral part of the Department's

operations, so as to avoid, reduce, or eliminate potentially adverse

environmental impacts. Some of the more important mitigation measures

that DOE will continue during the treatment and storage of TRU waste

are:

Use of pollution prevention plans;

Assistance to States, Tribes, local governments, and other

public entities concerning human health, environmental, and economic

impacts, including transportation planning and emergency response

assistance;

Use of ``cleaner'' waste treatment and storage

technologies as they become available;

Rigorous quality assurance programs for the

characterization of TRU waste;

Reuse of existing facilities wherever feasible rather than

construction of new facilities;

Occupational safety and health training to ensure that

workers understand operational safety procedures.

Site-specific, non-routine mitigation measures may also be

identified and implemented in the course of further decision making

under site-specific NEPA reviews based on the WM PEIS.

Issued in Washington, D.C. this 20th day of January, 1998.

James M. Owendoff,

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental

Management.

Appendix--Sites Evaluated in the WM PEIS and Sites With TRU Waste

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

Abbreviation Full name State Major site \1\ TRU waste

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

ANL-E.................. Argonne National IL Yes......................... Yes.

Laboratory--East.

BNL.................... Brookhaven National NY Yes......................... No.

Laboratory.

ETEC................... Energy Technology CA No.......................... Yes.

Engineering Center.

FEMP................... Fernald Environmental OH Yes......................... No.

Management Project.

Hanford................ Hanford Site........... WA Yes......................... Yes.

INEEL.................. Idaho National ID Yes......................... Yes.

Engineering and

Environmental

Laboratory.

LBL.................... Lawrence Berkeley CA No.......................... Yes.

Laboratory.

LLNL................... Lawrence Livermore CA Yes......................... Yes.

National Laboratory.

LANL................... Los Alamos National NM Yes......................... Yes.

Laboratory.

Mound.................. Mound Plant............ OH No.......................... Yes.

NTS.................... Nevada Test Site....... NV Yes......................... Yes.

ORR.................... Oak Ridge Reservation.. TN Yes......................... Yes.

PGDP................... Paducah Gaseous KY Yes......................... Yes.

Diffusion Plant.

Pantex................. Pantex Plant........... TX Yes......................... No.

PORTS.................. Portsmouth Gaseous OH Yes......................... No.

Diffusion Plant.

RFETS.................. Rocky Flats CO Yes......................... Yes.

Environmental

Technology Site.

SNL/NM................. Sandia National NM Yes......................... Yes.

Laboratories-New

Mexico.

SRS.................... Savannah River Site.... SC Yes......................... Yes.

UofMO.................. University of Missouri. MO No.......................... Yes.

WIPP................... Waste Isolation Pilot NM Yes......................... No.

Plant.

WVDP................... West Valley NY Yes......................... Yes.

Demonstration Project.

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

(1) Sites analyzed in the WM PEIS as potential locations for waste management facilities for one or more types

of waste.

[FR Doc. 98-1654 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P