Second Record of Decision on Management of Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Second Record of Decision on Management of Certain Plutonium

Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental

Technology Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

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

Decision for processing certain categories of plutonium residues for

disposal or other disposition as specified in the Preferred Alternative

contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Management of

Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats

Environmental Technology Site (the Final EIS, DOE/EIS-0277F, August

1998). The material categories covered by this Record of Decision are:

(1) Incinerator ash residues, (2) Graphite fines residues, (3)

Inorganic ash residues, (4) Molten salt extraction/electrorefining salt

residues, (5) Direct oxide reduction salt residues (high plutonium

concentration), (6) High-efficiency particulate air filter media

residues, and (7) Sludge residues.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS, the first Record of Decision, and

this Second Record of Decision are available in the public reading

rooms and libraries identified in the Federal Register Notice that

announced the availability of the Final EIS (63 FR 46006, August 28,

1998), or by calling the Center for Environmental Management

Information at 1-800-736-3282 (toll free) or 202-863-5084 (in

Washington, DC).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the management of

plutonium residues and scrub alloy currently stored at the Rocky Flats

Environmental Technology Site, contact: Ms. Patty Bubar, Acting

Director, Rocky Flats Office (EM-64), Office of Nuclear Material and

Facility Stabilization, Environmental Management, U.S. Department of

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone:

301-903-7130.

For information concerning the Final EIS or either Record of

Decision, contact: Mr. Charles R. Head, Senior Technical Advisor,

Office of Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization (EM-60),

Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: 202-586-5151.

[[Page 8069]]

For information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy

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

Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: 202-586-4600, or leave a

message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Synopsis of the Decision

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced issuance of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Certain Plutonium

Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental

Technology Site (Final EIS, DOE/EIS-0277F) on August 28, 1998 (63 FR

46006, August 28, 1998). In the Final EIS, DOE considered the potential

environmental impacts of a proposed action to process certain plutonium

residues and scrub alloy currently stored at the Rocky Flats

Environmental Technology Site (Rocky Flats) near Golden, Colorado in

preparation for disposal or other disposition. After consideration of

the Final EIS, including public comments submitted on the Draft EIS,

and public comments submitted following issuance of the Final EIS, DOE

issued a First Record of Decision on November 25, 1998 (63 FR 66136,

December 1, 1998), on nine of the categories of material addressed in

the Final EIS.

After further consideration of the Final EIS, including public

comments submitted on the Draft EIS, and public comments submitted

following issuance of the Final EIS, DOE has decided to implement the

Preferred Alternative specified in the Final EIS for the remaining

categories of material covered in the Final EIS, namely: (1)

Incinerator ash residues, (2) Graphite fines residues, (3) Inorganic

ash residues, (4) Molten salt extraction/electrorefining salt residues,

(5) Direct oxide reduction salt residues (high plutonium

concentration), (6) High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter media

residues, and (7) Sludge residues.

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative for these materials

will involve the following:

1. Up to approximately 32,160 kg of plutonium residues (containing

up to approximately 1,970 kg of plutonium) will be processed at Rocky

Flats and packaged in preparation for disposal in the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. This includes all of the residues

covered by this Record of Decision, except for the residues discussed

in the following paragraph.

2. Approximately 727 kg of direct oxide reduction (DOR) salt

residues (containing up to about 139 kg of plutonium) will either be

(1) pyro-oxidized (if necessary), followed by repackaging (with

blending, if necessary, to no more than 10 percent plutonium), at Rocky

Flats, or (2) pyro-oxidized at Rocky Flats (if necessary), followed by

acid dissolution/plutonium oxide recovery at the Los Alamos National

Laboratory (LANL). DOE expects that no more than approximately 306 kg

of the DOR salts will have to be shipped to LANL for processing, with

the remainder, and possibly all, of the DOR salts being processed at

Rocky Flats. Any plutonium that is separated at LANL will be converted

to an oxide and will be placed into safe and secure storage, along with

a larger quantity of plutonium already in storage at LANL, until DOE

has completed the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact

Statement (DOE/EIS-0283, under preparation, draft issued in July 1998;

see Section VI. E. 2, below, for additional discussion of the plutonium

disposition topic) and made final decisions on the disposition of the

separated plutonium. Transuranic wastes generated during the acid

dissolution operations at LANL will be sent to WIPP for disposal. Other

wastes generated during the chemical separations operations will be

disposed of in accordance with LANL's normal procedures for disposing

of such wastes.

The only shipments of plutonium residues for offsite processing

that might occur under this Record of Decision are shipments of no more

than about 306 kg of high assay DOR salt residues to LANL. Shipment of

transuranic wastes from processed Rocky Flats plutonium residues was

analyzed in National Environmental Policy Act documentation previously

completed for WIPP.

The actions summarized above are scheduled to take place at Rocky

Flats and LANL between 1999 and 2004.

II. Background

During the Cold War, DOE and its predecessor agencies conducted

various activities associated with the production of nuclear weapons.

Several intermediate products and wastes were generated as a result of

those operations, some of which are still in storage at various DOE

sites, including Rocky Flats. Now that the Cold War is over and the

United States has ceased production of fissile nuclear weapons

materials, DOE is conducting activities to safely manage, clean up, and

dispose of (where appropriate) the intermediate products and wastes

from prior nuclear weapons production activities. Among the

intermediate products and wastes requiring proper management and

preparation for disposal or other disposition are approximately 106,600

kg of plutonium residues and 700 kg of scrub alloy currently stored at

Rocky Flats.

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), in its

Recommendation 94-1, addressed health and safety concerns regarding

various materials at Rocky Flats, including the plutonium residues and

scrub alloy. The Board concluded that hazards could arise from

continued storage of these materials in their current forms and

recommended that they be stabilized as expeditiously as possible.

Approximately 64,400 kg of the plutonium residues in storage at Rocky

Flats contain very low concentrations of plutonium and are currently

being stabilized under the Solid Residue Treatment, Repackaging, and

Storage Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact

(Solid Residue EA, DOE/EA-1120, April 1996), thus preparing them for

disposal. However, the remaining 42,200 kg of plutonium residues, which

contain higher concentrations of plutonium, and all 700 kg of scrub

alloy (not analyzed in the Solid Residue EA) require processing for

stabilization and to prepare them for disposal or other disposition.

These materials are addressed in the Final EIS.

The approximately 42,200 kg of plutonium residues consist of

several heterogeneous categories of materials (e.g., ashes, salts,

combustible materials, sludges, pieces of glass, pieces of graphite).

On average, the plutonium residues contain about 6% plutonium by

weight, although a small amount of the plutonium residues contains well

above the average percentage of plutonium by weight. For example, the

315 kg of plutonium fluoride residues (less than 1 percent of the

material addressed in the Final EIS) contains approximately 45%

plutonium by weight. The approximately 700 kg of scrub alloy (less than

2 percent of the material addressed in the Final EIS) consists

primarily of a metallic alloy of magnesium, aluminum, americium, and

plutonium, containing approximately 29% plutonium by weight.

Although the average concentration of plutonium in the 42,200 kg of

residues is small, there is still enough plutonium present (about 2,600

kg) to subject the residues to a special set of requirements (referred

to as ``safeguards and security'' requirements) to maintain control of

the materials and ensure that the plutonium in them is not stolen or

diverted for illicit use, perhaps in a nuclear weapon. The 700 kg of

scrub alloy, with its

[[Page 8070]]

greater plutonium concentration, is also subject to safeguards and

security requirements. Prior to disposal or other disposition of the

residues and scrub alloy, action must be taken to reduce the plutonium

concentration in the materials, make the plutonium more difficult to

remove from the materials, or otherwise implement steps to ensure that

the plutonium would not be stolen or diverted for illicit purposes.

This process is referred to as ``termination of safeguards'' or

``meeting safeguards termination limits''.

Accordingly, the Purpose and Need for Agency Action addressed in

the Final EIS was to evaluate action alternatives for processing the

approximately 42,200 kg of plutonium residues and 700 kg of scrub alloy

currently in storage at Rocky Flats to address the health and safety

concerns regarding storage of the materials, as raised by the Board in

its Recommendation 94-1, and to prepare the materials for offsite

disposal or other disposition (including termination of safeguards,

when appropriate). The action alternatives evaluated would be

implemented in a manner that supports closure of Rocky Flats by 2006

and limits worker exposure and waste production. Disposal or other

disposition would eliminate the health and safety concerns associated

with indefinite storage of these materials.

Subsequent to completion of the Final EIS, DOE completed

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the

Endangered Species Act. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

provides Federal agencies with the authority to determine whether a

proposed Federal action may affect protected species or habitats and,

if the agency determines that it will not (i.e., makes a ``no effect''

determination), then no consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service

is required. Rather than specifying a ``no effect'' determination, the

Final EIS concludes that the proposed processing of plutonium residues

and scrub alloy is not likely to adversely affect threatened or

endangered species or critical habitats in areas involved in this

proposal. (Although indicating some effect on threatened or endangered

species, a ``not likely to adversely affect'' determination falls short

of a determination that a species or critical habitat is likely to be

adversely affected overall by the proposed action.)

Upon further review of the likely impacts of the proposed

processing, DOE concludes that a ``no effect'' determination would have

been more appropriate in this case because DOE does not believe that

the proposed processing will affect protected species or critical

habitats overall. Therefore, no consultation with the Fish and Wildlife

Service is required.

The decision process reflected in this Record of Decision complies

with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42

U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations at 10

CFR Part 1021. Further, section 308 of the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and

Water Development Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-245) specifies

that: ``None of the funds in this Act may be used to dispose of

transuranic waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant which contains

concentrations of plutonium in excess of 20 percent by weight for the

aggregate of any material category on the date of enactment of this

Act, or is generated after such date.'' The decisions specified in this

Record of Decision comply with the requirements of P.L. 105-245.

As noted above and in accordance with a plan described in Section

1.4.2 of the Final EIS, DOE has already issued a first Record of

Decision on the other categories of materials (plutonium residues and

scrub alloy) within the scope of the Final EIS. The material categories

covered by the First Record of Decision are: (1) Sand, slag and

crucible residues, (2) Direct oxide reduction salt residues (low

plutonium concentration), (3) Combustible residues, (4) Plutonium

fluoride residues, (5) Ful Flo filter media residues, (6) Glass

residues, (7) Graphite residues, (8) Inorganic (metal and other)

residues, and (9) Scrub alloy. All of these materials will also be

processed in accordance with the Preferred Alternative specified in the

Final EIS.

III. Alternatives Evaluated in the Final EIS

DOE evaluated the following alternatives for management of the

Rocky Flats plutonium residues covered by this Record of Decision.

These alternatives are the same as the alternatives described in the

first Record of Decision, although the processing technologies listed

here are those that apply to the material categories covered by this

Second Record of Decision:

III. A. Alternative 1 (No Action--Stabilize and Store)

This alternative consists of stabilization or repackaging to

prepare the material for interim storage as described in the Rocky

Flats Solid Residue Environmental Assessment. Under this alternative,

further processing to prepare the materials for disposal or other

disposition would not occur. Under this alternative, approximately 40

percent of the Rocky Flats plutonium residues would be left in a form

that would not meet the requirements for termination of safeguards,

thus making these materials ineligible for disposal. Thus, while

implementation of this alternative would address the immediate health

and safety concerns associated with near-term storage of the materials,

the health and safety risks associated with potential long-term storage

of these materials would remain.

III. B. Alternative 2 (Processing Without Plutonium Separation)

Under this alternative, the materials would be processed to convert

them into forms that would meet the requirements for termination of

safeguards. The materials would be ready for shipment to WIPP in New

Mexico for disposal.

The technologies evaluated for use under this alternative for the

material categories covered by this Record of Decision are listed in

Table 1.

Table 1.--Alternative 2 Processing Technologies

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

Material category Processing technology

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

Incinerator ash residues and Calcination followed by

Inorganic ash residues. vitrification.

................................. Cold Ceramification (incinerator

ash residues only).

Calcination followed by blend down.

Graphite fines residues............ Vitrification.

Blend down.

Molten salt extraction/ Blend down.

electrorefining salt residues.

DOR salt residues (high plutonium Blend down.

concentration).

HEPA filter media residues......... Calcination followed by

vitrification.

Blend down.

[[Page 8071]]

Sonic wash.

Sludge residues.................... Calcination followed by

vitrification.

Blend down.

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

All of the technologies specified in Table 1 would be implemented

onsite at Rocky Flats. The blend down operation referred to in Table 1

would consist of mixing the plutonium residues within the scope of the

Final EIS with other, lower plutonium content residues that are also

planned for disposal in WIPP, or with inert material, so that the

resulting mixture would be below the safeguards termination limits.

III. C. Alternative 3 (Processing With Plutonium Separation)

Under this alternative, the plutonium residues and scrub alloy

would be processed to separate plutonium from the material and

concentrate it so that the secondary waste would meet the requirements

for termination of safeguards and be ready for disposal, while the

separated and concentrated plutonium would be placed in safe and secure

storage pending disposition in accordance with decisions to be made

under the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement.

DOE would not use this plutonium for nuclear explosive purposes.

The technologies evaluated for use under this alternative for the

material categories covered by this Record of Decision are listed in

Table 2. These technologies would be implemented at the sites specified

in Table 2.

Table 2.--Alternative 3 Processing Technologies

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

Processing

Material category technology Processing site

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

Incinerator ash residues.... Purex processing.... Savannah River Site.

Mediated

Electrochemical

Oxidation.

Graphite fines residues..... Mediated Savannah River Site.

Electrochemical

Oxidation.

Inorganic ash residues...... None................

Molten salt--extraction/ Salt distillation... Rocky Flats or LANL.

electrorefining salt

residues.

Salt scrub followed Rocky Flats/Savannah

by Purex processing. River Site.

Water leach......... Rocky Flats.

DOR salt residues (high Salt scrub followed Rocky Flats/Savannah

plutonium concentration). by Purex processing. River Site.

Water leach......... Rocky Flats or LANL.

Acid dissolution.... LANL.

HEPA filter media residues.. Mediated Rocky Flats.

Electrochemical

Oxidation.

Sludge residues (not incl. Acid dissolution.... Rocky Flats.

Item Description Codes

[IDCs] 089, 099 and 332).

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

III. D. Alternative 4 (Combination of Processing Technologies)

Under this alternative, the residues would be stabilized and

blended down, if necessary, and repackaged in preparation for shipment

of the material to WIPP. Blend down would be conducted so that none of

the residues processed under this alternative would contain more than

10% plutonium by weight. Termination of safeguards would be

accomplished through use of a variance to the safeguards requirements.

A variance is the record of a review process whereby DOE's Office of

Safeguards and Security approves a proposal by another part of DOE to

terminate safeguards on specific quantities of safeguarded materials

because of special circumstances that make the safeguards controls

unnecessary. The variance to safeguards termination limits that is

required to allow implementation of this alternative was approved by

the DOE Office of Safeguards and Security after conducting a detailed

review and extensive vulnerability assessment regarding the alternative

mechanisms that would be used to protect and control access to the

material. The Office of Safeguards and Security concluded that the

nature of the residues, the relatively low concentration of plutonium

in the residues after blend down (if necessary), and the waste

management controls that would be in effect during the transportation

to and staging at WIPP prior to disposal would be sufficient to provide

a level of protection for the materials comparable to that required by

safeguards.

III. E. Strategic Management Approaches

Theoretically, it would be possible to process all of the residues

using only one of the alternatives listed above (e.g., all the

materials would be processed under a single alternative, except for

certain material categories for which there is no processing technology

under that alternative). Nevertheless, in practice, DOE recognized in

preparing the EIS that the most appropriate technologies were likely to

be chosen separately for each material category by selecting from among

the technologies in all the alternatives. However, there are too many

combinations of material categories, processing technologies and

processing sites to address each individual combination in the EIS in a

manner that would be easily understandable. As a result, in addition to

individually evaluating technologies that could be used to implement

the alternatives for each material category, DOE also evaluated several

``Strategic Management Approaches.'' These approaches involve

compilations of sets of processing technologies which would allow a

specific management criterion to be met. The management criteria

addressed in the Strategic Management Approaches are as follows:

1. No Action (i.e., Alternative 1 discussed above)

[[Page 8072]]

2. Preferred Alternative (Discussed in more detail in Section III.

F. below).

3. Minimizing Total Processing Duration at Rocky Flats.

4. Minimizing Cost.

5. Conducting all Processing at Rocky Flats.

6. Conducting the Fewest Actions at Rocky Flats.

7. Processing with the Maximum Amount of Plutonium Separation.

8. Processing without Plutonium Separation.

The decisions on which technology to implement have been made

separately for each material category covered by this Record of

Decision; the Strategic Management Alternatives were merely

illustrative. Nevertheless, evaluation of the Strategic Management

Approaches allowed presentation of the environmental impacts of the

proposed action as one set of data, instead of separate sets of data

representing the impacts from management of each of the material

categories individually. Examination of the various Strategic

Management Approaches also allowed DOE and the public to determine

whether there are any significant differences between the impacts that

would result from implementation of one Strategic Management Approach

as compared to any other.

III. F. Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative was constructed by selecting a preferred

technology for each material category from among the action

alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3 and 4) described above.

The technologies that comprise the Preferred Alternative for the

material categories covered by this Record of Decision are listed in

Table 3 (the bases for selection of these technologies are discussed in

Section 2.4 of the Final EIS and in Section VI of this Record of

Decision). These technologies would be implemented at the sites

specified in Table 3.

Table 3.--Preferred Alternative Processing Technologies

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

Processing

Material category technology Processing site

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

Incinerator ash residues.... Repackage Rocky Flats.

(Alternative 4).

Graphite fines residues..... Repackage Rocky Flats.

(Alternative 4).

Inorganic ash residues...... Repackage Rocky Flats.

(Alternative 4).

Molten salt extraction/ Repackage Rocky Flats.

electrorefining salt (Alternative 4).

residues.

DOR salt residues (high Pyro-oxidation (if Rocky Flats and

plutonium concentration). necessary) followed LANL.

by acid dissolution

(Alternative 3).

Pyro-oxidation (if Rocky Flats.

necessary) followed

by blend down and

repackaging

(Alternative 4).

HEPA filter media residues.. Neutralize (if Rocky Flats.

necessary) and

repackage

(Alternative 4).

Sludge residues............. Filter/dry, if Rocky Flats.

necessary, and

repackage

(Alternative 4).

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

IV. Other Factors

In addition to comparing the environmental impacts of implementing

the various alternatives, DOE also considered other factors in reaching

the decisions announced here. These other factors included issues

raised by comments received during scoping, or on the Draft and Final

versions of the EIS. The other factors considered are briefly

summarized in the following paragraphs.

IV. A. Nonproliferation

Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons has been a fundamental

national security and foreign policy goal of the United States since

1945. The current United States policy is summarized in the White House

Fact Sheet on Nonproliferation and Export Control Policy, dated

September 27, 1993. This policy makes it clear that the United States

does not encourage the civil use of plutonium and, accordingly, does

not itself engage in plutonium reprocessing for either nuclear power or

nuclear explosives purposes. In addition, it is United States policy to

seek to eliminate where possible the accumulation of stockpiles of

plutonium.

The alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS, including plutonium

separation alternatives, would result in varying levels of risk

associated with potential use of the plutonium in nuclear weapons,

either by the United States or an adversary. None of the alternatives

would eliminate the plutonium from the current inventory. Nevertheless,

as discussed in Section 4.1.9 of the Final EIS, all of the action

alternatives would result in appropriate management of the plutonium

residues and scrub alloy to ensure that they are not stolen or diverted

for illicit purposes. Furthermore, all of the action alternatives set

the stage for significantly reducing the proliferation risk posed by

the plutonium in the plutonium residues and scrub alloy by preparing

these materials for disposal or other disposition in a form that is

highly proliferation resistant (i.e., a form which contains very little

plutonium per unit weight, from which the plutonium would be especially

difficult to extract, or for which other measures are taken to ensure

sufficient security). In addition, because of the potential concern

regarding any processing and consolidating of plutonium that might be

accomplished by DOE, the Secretary of Energy has committed that any

plutonium-239 separated or stabilized for health and safety purposes

would be prohibited from use for nuclear explosive purposes

(Secretarial Action Memorandum approved on December 20, 1994). This

prohibition would apply to plutonium-239 processed through actions

implemented by this Record of Decision.

IV. B. Technology Availability and Technical Feasibility

DOE considered technology availability and technical feasibility in

identifying processing technologies to be evaluated in the Final EIS

and in making the decisions specified in Section VI of this Record of

Decision. DOE considered the extent to which technology development

would be required and the likelihood of success of such endeavors. All

of the technologies evaluated in the Final EIS are technically

feasible. In general, however, the more that processing technologies

vary from the historical processes and facilities used by DOE, the

greater the technical uncertainty and extent to which new facilities or

modifications to existing facilities would have to be made (as

discussed in Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS).

[[Page 8073]]

IV. C. Timing

DOE considered the degree to which the various technologies that

could potentially be used in management of the plutonium residues and

scrub alloy would support DOE's plans for cleanup of the radioactive,

chemical and other hazardous wastes left after 50 years of nuclear

weapons production by the United States, as outlined in the document

titled Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure (DOE/EM-0362, June 1998),

including the goal of closing Rocky Flats by 2006.

IV. D. Cost

In reaching decisions on processing technologies, an important

consideration for DOE was cost. DOE evaluated the costs of implementing

the various processing technologies for each material category on both

an individual basis and collectively. DOE estimates it would cost from

approximately $428 million to $814 million to implement the Strategic

Management Approaches (other than No Action) analyzed in the Final EIS.

An even larger expenditure (approximately $1.1 billion) would be

required to pay for continued storage of the nuclear materials if DOE

chose to implement the No Action alternative. On the other hand, DOE

expects that the annual costs of operating and maintaining Rocky Flats

facilities will decrease as nuclear materials are removed from the

site. DOE expects further reductions in costs as the Rocky Flats

facilities are deactivated.

V. Comments on the Final EIS

The only comments on the Final EIS were received by DOE prior to

issuance of the first Record of Decision. The responses to those

comments were provided in Section V of the first Record of Decision.

VI. Decision

DOE has decided to implement the proposed action in the manner

described in this section. The alternatives that DOE has decided to

implement are presented separately below for each material category

because the decisions on the selected technology were based on

considerations that are unique to the chemical and physical

characteristics of the individual material categories. Furthermore,

these decisions are independent of one another and are not connected to

the decisions that were made in the first Record of Decision. Although

alternative technologies analyzed in the EIS might use certain common

facilities or personnel, sufficient facility capacity and personnel are

available to allow use of any technology without interfering with any

other.

For clarity and brevity, this section also includes the discussion

of the environmentally preferable alternative (as required by CEQ

regulations [40 CFR 1505.2]) and the basis for selection of the

alternative to be implemented.

The analysis of alternative technologies presented in the Final EIS

indicates that all of the alternative technologies, including those in

the Preferred Alternative and the No Action alternative, would have

only small impacts on the human environment on or around the DOE

management sites and on the populations along transportation routes

(see Sections 4.23 and 4.24 of the Final EIS). Using conservative

assumptions (i.e., assumptions that tend to overestimate risks), the

potential risks from incident-free operations and postulated accidents

that are of most interest would be those associated with radiation

exposure to workers performing processing operations on the plutonium

residues or near loaded transportation containers, and transportation

routes. The Final EIS also estimates (1) the risks from incident-free

operations and postulated accidents associated with chemical releases

and transportation accidents; (2) the amounts of various wastes and

other materials that would result from implementation of the various

alternative technologies; (3) the cost of implementing the various

alternative technologies; (4) the effect on nuclear weapons

nonproliferation; and (5) air quality impacts.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

Although there are differences among the estimated impacts for the

various alternatives, the impacts would be small for any of the

alternative technologies, and the magnitude of the differences in

potential impacts between alternatives is small. In addition, the

nature of the potential impacts is such that comparing them is a very

judgmental process. For example, under the salt distillation at Rocky

Flats alternative (Alternative 3) for electrorefining and molten salt

extraction residues (not including IDC 409), only 519 drums of

transuranic waste would be generated, whereas the blend down at Rocky

Flats alternative for this material (Alternative 2) would generate

10,802 drums of transuranic waste. However, salt distillation would

also result in generation of 569 kg of separated plutonium, whereas

blend down would result in no separated plutonium. Comments received

from members of the public on the Draft EIS demonstrate that different

individuals would make different value judgements as to which of these

product/waste materials is of most concern. In addition to having no

indisputable means of identifying which waste or product stream would

be most important to minimize, there is no indisputable way to trade

off differences between the amounts of various types of waste and

separated plutonium against differences in levels of radiological risk

or chemical hazards, or between risks to workers versus risks to the

public (risks to the public would be lower than those to workers for

all technologies evaluated in the Final EIS).

In general, because of the small risks that would result from any

of the action alternatives (as demonstrated by Tables in Sections 2.10,

4.2, 4.3, 4.6 and 4.7 of the Final EIS) and the absence of any clear

basis for discerning an environmental preference, DOE considers that no

one of the action alternatives is clearly environmentally preferable

over any other action alternative. On the other hand, under the No

Action alternative, the materials would be left in storage at Rocky

Flats with no defined disposal path. There would be additional risk

associated with both the indefinite storage and whatever processing may

ultimately be determined to be necessary to prepare the material for

ultimate disposition. There would also be risks from potential

degradation of storage facilities and containers. Accordingly, in

consideration of the long-term risks that would be associated with

implementation of the No Action alternative, DOE considers that all of

the action alternatives are environmentally preferable over the No

Action alternative.

The processing technologies that DOE has decided to implement are

as follows for each material category addressed in this Record of

Decision:

VI. A. Incinerator Ash Residues

VI. A. 1. Selected Alternative

DOE has decided to repackage the incinerator ash residues to

prepare them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). Material that is

above 10 percent plutonium by weight will be blended with low plutonium

concentration material from the same Item Description Code (IDC), or

with inert material, to reach the 10 percent plutonium limit.

VI. A. 2. Basis for the Decision

Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be

implemented for this material category because it is the simplest and

least costly of all processing technologies considered, and the one

that will allow

[[Page 8074]]

DOE to complete processing and ready the material for disposal most

expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of resources that

would otherwise be required to manage these residues to accelerate

other activities required to close the site.

VI. B. Graphite Fines Residues

VI. B. 1. Selected Alternative

DOE has decided to repackage the graphite fines residues to prepare

them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). Material that is above 10

percent plutonium by weight will be blended with low plutonium

concentration material from the same IDC, or with inert material, to

reach the 10 percent plutonium limit.

VI. B. 2. Basis for the Decision

Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be

implemented for this material category because it is the simplest and

least costly of all processing technologies considered, and the one

that will allow DOE to complete processing and ready the material for

disposal most expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of

resources that would otherwise be required to manage these residues to

accelerate other activities required to close the site.

VI. C. Inorganic Ash Residues

VI. C. 1. Selected Alternative

DOE has decided to repackage the inorganic ash residues to prepare

them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). Material that is above 10

percent plutonium by weight will be blended with low plutonium

concentration material from the same IDC, or with inert material, to

reach the 10 percent plutonium limit.

VI. C. 2. Basis for the Decision

Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be

implemented for this material category because it is the simplest and

least costly of all processing technologies considered, and the one

that will allow DOE to complete processing and ready the material for

disposal most expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of

resources that would otherwise be required to manage these residues to

accelerate other activities required to close the site.

VI. D. Molten Salt Extraction/Electrorefining Salt Residues

VI. D. 1. Selected Alternative

DOE has decided to repackage the molten salt extraction/

electrorefining salt residues to prepare them for disposal in WIPP

(Alternative 4). Material that is above 10 percent plutonium by weight

will be blended with low plutonium concentration material from the same

salt category, or with inert material, to reach the 10 percent

plutonium limit.

VI. D. 2. Basis for the Decision

Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be

implemented for this material category because it is the simplest of

all processing technologies considered and the one that will allow the

site to complete processing and ready the material for disposal most

expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of the resources that

would otherwise be required to manage these residues to accelerate

completion of other activities required to close the site. Finally,

selection of repackaging avoids the technical uncertainty (discussed in

Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS) that would be associated with

implementation of the least expensive alternative, i.e., salt

distillation.

VI. E. Direct Oxide Reduction Salt Residues (High Plutonium

Concentration)

VI. E. 1. Selected Alternative

DOE has decided to take the following action for the high plutonium

concentration direct oxide reduction salt residues:

a. As much of the high plutonium concentration direct oxide

reduction salt residues as possible, and probably all, will be pyro-

oxidized (if necessary), and then repackaged (with blending to no more

than 10 percent plutonium, if necessary) at Rocky Flats to prepare them

for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4).

b. If any of the high plutonium concentration direct oxide

reduction salt residues are found to be unsuitable for processing as

described in the preceding paragraph, they would be transported to LANL

where the plutonium could be separated from the residues by acid

dissolution (Alternative 3). 1. Prior to shipment, these

residues would be pyro-oxidized at Rocky Flats (if necessary). The

recovered plutonium would be converted into an oxide and placed into

safe and secure storage, along with a larger quantity of plutonium

already in storage at LANL, until DOE has completed the Surplus

Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0283,

under preparation, draft issued in July 1998; see Section VI. E. 2,

below, for additional discussion of plutonium disposition) and made

final decisions on the disposition of the separated plutonium.

Transuranic wastes generated during the acid dissolution operations

would be sent to WIPP for disposal. Other wastes generated during the

chemical separations operations would be disposed of in accordance with

LANL's normal procedures for disposing of such wastes. DOE expects

that, at most, approximately 306 kg of the DOR salts might be shipped

to LANL for processing, with the remainder, and probably all, of the

DOR salts being processed at Rocky Flats.

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

\1\ As stated in the Final EIS, Appendix B, end of Section

B.3.3.3, there are no Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

hazardous waste codes associated with any of the DOR salts.

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

VI. E. 2. Basis for the Decision

Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be

implemented for as much of this material category as possible because

it is the simplest and least costly of all processing technologies

considered and the one that will allow the site to complete processing

and ready the material for disposal most expeditiously. This approach

will also allow use of the resources that would otherwise be required

to manage these residues to accelerate completion of other activities

required to close the site.

Acid dissolution/plutonium oxide recovery at LANL was selected as

the technology to be implemented for any material in this category that

cannot be repackaged as discussed above because this process will

result in shorter exposures of the workers to radiation than would be

experienced with the blend down process in Alternative 2, thus

providing health and safety benefits to the workers. Selection of acid

dissolution also avoids the technical uncertainty associated with the

water leach plutonium separation process (see Section 4.17.7 of the

Final EIS).

The Final EIS specified that any plutonium separated under any

alternative analyzed in this EIS would be disposed of using the

immobilization process. (Final EIS, page 2-2.) Upon further review, DOE

has decided for the following reasons not to make a determination at

this time on the disposition of any plutonium separated under the

decisions announced in this ROD. In December 1996, DOE published the

Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0229, the PEIS).

That PEIS analyzed, among other things, the potential environmental

consequences of alternative strategies for the long-term storage and

disposition of weapons-usable plutonium that has

[[Page 8075]]

been or may be declared surplus to national security needs. DOE

announced the Record of Decision for that PEIS in January 1997, which

outlines an approach to plutonium disposition that would allow for both

the immobilization of some of the surplus plutonium, and the use of

some of the surplus plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in existing

domestic, commercial reactors (62 FR 3014, January 21, 1997).

As a follow-on analysis to that PEIS, DOE is in the process of

preparing the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact

Statement, which addresses the extent to which each of the two surplus

plutonium disposition approaches (immobilization and MOX) would be

implemented. Thus, at the present time, DOE has not decided the extent

to which either the immobilization or the MOX approach to surplus

plutonium disposition would be implemented. Moreover, as noted above,

even after completion of the Surplus Plutonium Disposition

Environmental Impact Statement, DOE does not expect to make decisions

about which, if any, of the surplus plutonium would be used in MOX fuel

until shortly before any such material would be transferred to a MOX

fuel fabrication facility. Thus, DOE believes at this time it is

appropriate not to make any commitment as to which approach would be

implemented for the disposition of any plutonium to be separated under

the decisions announced in this Second Record of Decision.

The plutonium declared to be surplus includes any weapons-useable

plutonium resulting from the stabilization (for health and safety

reasons) of the Rocky Flats DOR salt residues discussed under this

Second Record of Decision. As a result, weapons-useable plutonium that

is separated under actions from this Second Record of Decision is a

candidate for both of the surplus weapons-useable plutonium disposition

alternatives that have been identified by DOE (i.e., MOX and

immobilization).

VI. F. HEPA Filter Media Residues

VI. F. 1. Selected Alternative

DOE has decided to neutralize and dry the HEPA filter media in IDC

338, as necessary, and then repackage them in preparation for disposal

in WIPP. DOE has determined that the other HEPA filter media do not

need to be neutralized and dried. They will be repackaged in

preparation for disposal in WIPP.

VI. F. 2. Basis for the Decision

The average concentration of plutonium in the HEPA filter media

residues is less than 10 percent, allowing them to be prepared for

disposal in WIPP with little processing. Selection of the repackaging

alternative (Alternative 4) allows DOE to use resources that would

otherwise be required to process the HEPA filter media to accelerate

completion of other activities required to process other residues and

close the site. It also allows DOE to avoid the technical uncertainty

(discussed in Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS) that would be associated

with selection of the less expensive vitrification technology or the

uncertainty (also discussed in Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS)

associated with whether the less expensive blend down alternative would

be sufficient to eliminate the safety concerns associated with nitric

acid contaminated filters.

VI. G. Sludge Residues

VI. G. 1. Selected Alternative

DOE has decided to repackage all sludge residues in IDCs 089, 099

and 332 to prepare them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). DOE has

decided to filter and dry all of the other sludge residues, as

necessary, and then repackage them to prepare them for disposal in WIPP

(Alternative 4).

VI. G. 2. Basis for the Decision

Repackaging under Alternative 4 was selected for the sludges in

IDCs 089, 099 and 332 because they would be difficult to process by

other means. Furthermore, their small quantity (about 7 kg bulk [0.95

kg plutonium]) makes them particularly easy to process by repackaging.

Use of repackaging under Alternative 4 for the sludges in IDCs 089, 099

and 332 will avoid the technical uncertainties (discussed in Section

4.17.7 of the Final EIS) that would be associated with the

vitrification alternative.

Filtration and drying, followed by repackaging under Alternative 4,

was selected for the remaining sludge residues because it is the

simplest of all processing technologies considered and the one that

will allow the site to complete processing and ready the material for

disposal most expeditiously. This approach will allow use of the

resources that would otherwise be required to manage these residues to

accelerate completion of other activities required to close the site.

It will also avoid the uncertainty regarding whether the less expensive

blend down alternative would be sufficient to address the safety issues

related to the nitric acid and solvent contamination of the sludges.

VII. Use of All Practical Means To Avoid or Minimize Harm

Implementation of this decision will result in low environmental

and health impacts. However, DOE will take the following steps to avoid

or minimize harm wherever possible:

VII. A.

DOE will use current safety and health programs and practices to

reduce impacts by maintaining worker radiation exposure as low as

reasonably achievable and by meeting appropriate waste minimization and

pollution prevention objectives.

VII. B.

DOE will provide a level of health and safety for DOE

transportation operations that is equivalent to or greater than that

provided by compliance with all applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and

local regulations. In addition to meeting applicable shipping

containment and confinement requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission regulations on Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive

Material (10 CFR Part 71) and Department of Transportation regulations

at 49 CFR, all packaging for transportation of the material covered by

this Record of Decision will also be certified by DOE. DOE also

provides Federal, State, Tribal and local authorities with access to

training and technical assistance necessary to allow them to safely,

efficiently, and effectively respond to any incident involving

transportation of the materials covered by this Record of Decision.

Items A and B above will be accomplished under existing business

practices in the normal course of implementing this Record of Decision.

VIII. Conclusion

DOE has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative specified in

the Final EIS to prepare the plutonium residue categories specified in

Sections I and VI of this Record of Decision for disposal or other

disposition. This decision is effective upon being made public, in

accordance with DOE's NEPA implementation regulations (10 CFR

1021.315). The goal of this decision is to prepare the plutonium

residues for disposal or other disposition in a manner that addresses

immediate health and safety concerns associated with storage of the

materials, and that also supports Rocky Flats closure. Disposal or

other disposition of these materials will also eliminate health and

safety concerns and costs that would be

[[Page 8076]]

associated with indefinite storage of these materials.

Issued in Washington, D.C. this 11th day of February, 1999.

James M. Owendoff,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.

[FR Doc. 99-3987 Filed 2-17-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P