Record of Decision For the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision For the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project

at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

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

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department has decided to implement the Preferred

Alternative identified in the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement (AMWTP FEIS) (DOE/EIS-0290), dated

January 1999. The decision to proceed with the construction and

operation of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP)

facility allows the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to treat and

prepare for shipment and disposal of 65,000 cubic meters of DOE

transuranic (TRU) waste, alpha-contaminated low-level mixed waste

(alpha LLMW), and low-level mixed wastes (LLMW) currently stored at

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL).

Further, DOE could treat at the AMWTP up to 120,000 cubic meters of

additional waste from the INEEL or other DOE sites, for a total of

185,000 cubic meters. The AMWTP facility will treat waste to meet the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) and

applicable requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal

Restrictions (LDR).

In making its decision, DOE considered several factors including

the environmental analyses reported in the AMWTP FEIS, estimated costs

of the alternatives reported in Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project

Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Cost Study, regulatory

implications of the alternatives, mission, national policy, and public

comments on the AMWTP Draft EIS. This Record of Decision documents the

Department's decision to implement the Preferred Alternative, which

provides for the greatest long-term protection of the environment with

small short-term environmental impacts and health risks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the AMWTP,

the contract with BNFL Inc., or the EIS, please write or call: John

Medema, AMWTP EIS Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho

Operations Office, 850 Energy Drive, MS-1117, Idaho Falls, ID 83401,

Telephone: (208) 526-1407.

For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) process, please 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 (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Since the mid-1940s, DOE and its predecessor agencies have

generated TRU waste during the course of nuclear weapons production,

nuclear material processing, and research and development activities.

DOE currently defines TRU waste as waste containing alpha-emitting

radionuclides with an atomic number greater than 92 and half-

[[Page 16949]]

lives greater than 20 years, at concentrations greater than 100

nanocuries per gram of waste. Prior to 1982, DOE considered waste

containing alpha-emitting radionuclides at concentrations greater than

10 nanocuries per gram of waste to be TRU waste. Waste at INEEL that

has concentrations greater than 10 nanocuries per gram but less than

100 nanocuries per gram is considered to be alpha-contaminated low-

level waste, which is being managed as TRU waste. DOE has stored TRU

waste and alpha-contaminated low-level waste at the INEEL since the

early 1970s. Most of this waste was generated at DOE's Rocky Flats

Plant near Denver, Colorado. The waste was shipped to the INEEL in

drums and boxes that were retrievably stored on an asphalt pad at

INEEL's Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) and covered with

tarps, plywood, and soil to form an earthen-covered berm.

Approximately 95 percent of this radioactive waste is classified as

mixed waste because it contains chemically hazardous waste and,

therefore, is regulated under RCRA. Some of the wastes also contain

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are regulated under TSCA. These

wastes (radioactive, RCRA, and TSCA wastes) are mixed together within

their storage containers. DOE needs to place these wastes in a

configuration that will allow for their disposal at the WIPP near

Carlsbad, New Mexico, or another appropriate facility, in a manner

consistent with state and federal law and in compliance with the

schedule contained in the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order.

On October 17, 1995, the State of Idaho, the Department of the

Navy, and DOE settled the case of the Public Service Co. of Colorado v.

Batt, CV 91-0035-S-EJL (D. Idaho) (Lead Case). Certain conditions of

the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order obligated DOE to:

--Commence procurement of a treatment facility at the INEEL for the

treatment of TRU waste, alpha LLMW, and LLMW, and

--Execute a procurement contract for a treatment facility by June 1,

1997, complete construction of the facility by December 31, 2002, and

commence operation by March 31, 2003.

A procurement contract for treatment services was awarded to BNFL

Inc. on December 20, 1996. Construction and operation of the treatment

facility is contingent upon DOE's completion of an EIS and issuance of

a record of decision. If DOE decides not to move forward with

construction and operation of the facility, the contract will be

terminated.

Also, DOE negotiated the INEEL Site Treatment Plan (STP) with the

State of Idaho to meet the requirements of the Federal Facility

Compliance Act (FFCA). The STP includes a schedule for constructing a

treatment facility(ies) for TRU waste and alpha LLMW that is consistent

with the milestones in the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order.

Alternatives Considered

DOE analyzed four alternatives in the EIS, including the No Action

Alternative, the Preferred Alternative, the Non-Thermal Treatment

Alternative, and the Treatment and Storage Alternative. Under all four

alternatives, the Department would continue with preparations at

existing INEEL facilities to ship 3,100 cubic meters of TRU waste out

of Idaho under the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order. The alternatives

are summarized below.

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative provides for construction and operation

of the AMWTP facility in accordance with DOE's contract with BNFL Inc.

The AMWTP facility will treat waste to WIPP WAC, TSCA, and RCRA LDR

requirements and standards, as applicable. The waste treatment

processes analyzed in the Preferred Alternative are supercompaction,

macroencapsulation, incineration, and microencapsulation (see Figure

1). The facility will have sufficient operating capacity to treat

approximately 6,500 cubic meters of waste per year. This would

accommodate the treatment of 65,000 cubic meters of INEEL waste by 2015

as required by the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order, and up to

120,000 cubic meters of additional waste from the INEEL or other DOE

sites by 2033. Treatment of 65,000 cubic meters of INEEL waste would

result in approximately 30,000 cubic meters (containerized volume) of

waste for offsite disposal. This alternative will allow DOE to satisfy

negotiated agreements and commitments and meet regulatory requirements

under RCRA and TSCA.

The Preferred Alternative is consistent with DOE's planning

objectives and decisions as documented in the 1995 Record of Decision

for the Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management

and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and

Waste Management Programs (60 Federal Register 28680, June 1, 1995).

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative is also consistent with the

Record of Decision for the Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste

Pursuant to the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (63 Federal Register 3629, January 23, 1998). In that Record

of Decision, the Department decided to ``develop and operate mobile and

fixed facilities to characterize and prepare TRU waste for disposal at

WIPP'' and that ``each of the DOE's sites that has, or will generate,

TRU waste will, as needed, prepare and store its TRU waste on site . .

. prior to disposal.''

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 16950]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AP99.006

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 16951]]

No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, ongoing TRU waste, alpha LLMW, and LLMW

management operations and projects would continue and existing

facilities at the INEEL RWMC would remain in use. Waste would be

retrieved from the earthen-covered berm, and placed in RCRA compliant

storage facilities. These actions have been analyzed and would proceed

as described in the Environmental Assessment for the Retrieval and Re-

storage of Transuranic Storage Area Waste at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory (DOE/EA-0692). Waste would be shipped to WIPP or

another appropriate facility, but only as could be supported by

existing INEEL facilities. Waste that could not meet the appropriate

receiving facility WAC would remain in storage in the RCRA storage

modules at the RWMC indefinitely.

The No Action Alternative was not selected because it would not

provide appropriate long-term environmental protection (i.e., it would

not destroy any of the hazardous organic components of the waste and

would not permanently isolate all the wastes from the environment). The

No Action Alternative would not comply with the Settlement Agreement/

Consent Order, RCRA, TSCA, or with the INEEL STP, and is not consistent

with long-range DOE planning and decisions DOE has made in previous

Records of Decision. Specifically, in the 1995 Record of Decision

Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and

Waste Management Programs DOE decided: ``The INEL will construct

treatment facilities necessary to comply with the Federal Facility

Compliance Act. Treatment of transuranic waste at a minimum will be for

the purpose of meeting waste acceptance criteria for disposal at Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant and will occur on a schedule to be negotiated

with the State of Idaho.'' Additionally, in the 1995 Record of

Decision, the Department decided to make future decisions regarding

planned waste treatment projects (i.e., Private Sector Alpha-

Contaminated Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment and Idaho Waste Processing

Facility) at the INEEL pending further project definition, funding

priorities, or appropriate review under NEPA. The AMWTP EIS tiers from

the Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and

Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/

EIS-0203-F) and provides both site-specific environmental impact

analysis and the required NEPA review.

Non-Thermal Treatment Alternative

Under this alternative, the AMWTP facility would be constructed

without the capability to incinerate waste or microencapsulate

incinerator ash. Only supercompaction and macroencapsulation would be

used to treat wastes. Wastes requiring thermal treatment to meet

disposal criteria (e.g., PCBs) would be repackaged and stored until a

treatment option is developed or identified and evaluated under NEPA.

The AMWTP facility construction schedule would be the same as for the

Preferred Alternative. All waste that could be treated to meet WIPP WAC

without incineration would be prepared for shipment to WIPP. Operation

of the facility would continue until 2015, when DOE expects the need

for it to end. Under this alternative, the 65,000 cubic meters of INEEL

waste would be non-thermally treated. Approximately 23,000 to 29,000

cubic meters of waste would be shipped from the INEEL for disposal and

approximately 8,000 to 14,000 cubic meters of containerized waste would

remain in storage indefinitely at the RWMC.

DOE considers this alternative to be less desirable than the

Preferred Alternative because it would not result in destruction of any

of the hazardous organic components of the waste or the PCBs, and some

waste would be stored indefinitely at INEEL. The Non-Thermal Treatment

Alternative would not allow full compliance with the Settlement

Agreement/Consent Order, RCRA, or with the INEEL STP. This alternative

would not be consistent with DOE long-range plans or with decisions

made in the 1995 Record of Decision regarding the construction at INEEL

of treatment facilities necessary to comply with the FFCA STP.

Treatment and Storage Alternative

Under this alternative, the AMWTP construction and operation,

including the treatment processes implemented, would be the same as for

the Preferred Alternative. The difference is that the treated waste

(approximately 30,000 cubic meters) would be stored at the RWMC rather

than shipped offsite for disposal. This alternative was evaluated as a

contingency to analyze the long-term environmental impacts of storing

the treated waste at the RWMC in the event that WIPP or another

appropriate offsite facility is unable to receive or dispose of INEEL

treated waste. Waste from other DOE sites could still come to the AMWTP

for treatment. In accordance with the INEEL STP, such offsite wastes

would be accepted at the AMWTP facility for treatment and treated waste

would be returned to the generator.

The Treatment and Storage Alternative is less desirable than the

Preferred Alternative because (1) it would not comply with the

Settlement Agreement/Consent Order (i.e., waste would not be shipped

out of Idaho) and (2) it is not consistent with DOE's long-range plans

to dispose of this waste.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

In identifying the Environmentally Preferable Alternative, DOE

considered both near-term and long-term human health and environmental

impacts. Certain alternatives would result in smaller near-term

potential impacts but continued potential for long-term impacts, while

other alternatives would result in larger near-term potential impacts

but smaller long-term potential impacts.

The AMWTP EIS analyzed a number of potential environmental impacts,

including those to human health, air and water, ecological resources,

environmental justice, land use, and site infrastructure under each of

the alternatives. The analysis showed little difference in potential

impacts among the alternatives analyzed. Nonetheless, all potential

impacts identified were considered in DOE's decision, and in the

identification of the Environmentally Preferable Alternative.

For the projected 30-year period of AMWTP facility operations

analyzed in the EIS, the short-term potential environmental impacts of

the action alternatives would be slightly greater than the No Action

Alternative. In the long-term, the potential impacts to health and the

environment would be the greatest under the No Action Alternative. Over

the long-term wastes could be released to the environment if the

storage containers degrade. Additionally, it is reasonable to expect

that some treatment or preparation for disposal will still be needed at

some time in the future, and the risks associated with long-term

storage and the loss of institutional control remain.

The Preferred Alternative and the Treatment and Storage Alternative

would result in the largest (although small) potential near-term

impacts to air quality, public health and worker risk. Both the

Preferred Alternative and the Treatment and Storage Alternative would

render all the waste suitable for disposal at WIPP or another

appropriate facility. The Preferred Alternative

[[Page 16952]]

would result in the least potential long-term impacts to the local

environment because the treated waste would leave the INEEL.

The Non-Thermal Treatment Alternative would result in smaller near-

term potential impacts to air quality than the Preferred Alternative

and the Treatment and Storage Alternative, but more than the No Action

Alternative. Under the Non-Thermal Treatment Alternative, there would

be less potential health risk over the short term, but a portion of the

RCRA waste (i.e., hazardous organic wastes) and all of the PCB waste

would remain in storage at the INEEL indefinitely. The long-term

potential impacts of indefinite storage under the Non-Thermal Treatment

Alternative are smaller than the No Action Alternative but larger than

the Preferred Alternative. If the wastes were not isolated from the

environment in a disposal facility, they could enter the environment

and impact public health and the environment via the air or groundwater

pathways.

In conclusion, the potential short-term environmental impacts from

any of the action alternatives are small. The Preferred Alternative

results in the least long-term potential impacts and is the only

alternative that meets all regulatory and legal commitments. In

addition, the Preferred Alternative is also consistent with DOE's long-

range plans to dispose of this waste. DOE therefore believes that the

Preferred Alternative is the Environmentally Preferable Alternative.

Mitigation

DOE is committed to operating the INEEL in compliance with all

applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, departmental orders,

permits and compliance agreements. Volume 1, Section 5.19 of the AMWTP

EIS presents an overview of the mitigation measures that will be taken

to minimize the risks associated with the construction and operation of

the proposed AMWTP facility (e.g., watering of soil for dust control,

strong ``Stop Work'' stipulations in the event that cultural resources

or human remains are discovered, and runoff control). DOE considers

these to be routine mitigation measures that do not require a

mitigation action plan to be prepared (see 10 CFR 1021.331(a)).

Decision

DOE selects the Preferred Alternative of the AMWTP EIS (construct

and operate an AMWTP facility at the INEEL in accordance with DOE's

contract with BNFL Inc). DOE will treat 65,000 cubic meters of INEEL

waste for offsite disposal and could treat up to 120,000 cubic meters

of additional waste from the INEEL or other DOE sites.

DOE anticipates that construction of the AMWTP facility will begin

during the 1999 construction season. Under the Settlement Agreement/

Consent Order, construction of the AMWTP facility will be completed by

December 31, 2002, and operation of the facility will begin by March

31, 2003.

The AMWTP treatment contract requires 65 percent volume reduction

and compliance with RCRA LDR standards, TSCA requirements, and the WIPP

WAC, as applicable. The facility and equipment will be capable of

processing up to 85,000 cubic meters of waste in the first 13 years of

operation. The Preferred Alternative as analyzed in the EIS includes

the treatment processes of supercompaction, macroencapsulation,

incineration, and microencapsulation. The potential exists that not all

of these treatment processes will be used because future changes in

disposal requirements might necessitate changes in treatment processes,

with resulting modifications to contract specifications. Other changes

or substitutions to the proposed processes may occur, provided the

performance requirements specified in the contract are met. For

example, although vitrification originally was analyzed in the EIS for

the treatment of incinerator ash, it is no longer being considered as a

treatment process. Any proposed substitution or major change in a

treatment process would be evaluated where appropriate under NEPA.

DOE made this decision after considering the following factors

associated with the Preferred Alternative:

public comments on the EIS;

a small potential for short-term environmental impacts;

a waste form that will be ready for disposal at WIPP or

another appropriate disposal facility;

if WIPP or another appropriate disposal facility is unable

to receive and dispose of INEEL waste, the treated waste will be in a

form that would minimize potential impacts to the public and the

environment during storage;

consistency with DOE policy and previous decisions;

compliance with negotiated agreements and commitments

(e.g. Settlement Agreement/Consent Order) and regulatory requirements

under RCRA and TSCA;

smallest long-term potential impacts from continued

management of this waste;

cost effectiveness as shown in the AMWTP EIS Alternatives

Cost Study; and

use of commercially available, proven technologies.

After consideration of all relevant information and data, DOE has

decided to implement the Preferred Alternative.

Issued in Washington, D.C. this 22nd day of March 1999.

James M. Owendoff,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.

[FR Doc. 99-8606 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P