[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3624-3629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1653]
[[Page 3623]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Energy
_______________________________________________________________________
Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant Disposal Phase; Notice
Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management
Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 3624]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant Disposal Phase
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is issuing this
record of its decision to dispose of transuranic (TRU) waste at the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a mined repository located 2,100
feet below the surface in an ancient salt deposit near Carlsbad, New
Mexico. Under this decision, DOE will dispose of up to 175,600 cubic
meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of TRU waste generated by defense
activities at WIPP after preparation (i.e., treatment, as necessary,
including packaging) to meet WIPP's waste acceptance criteria. This
waste includes TRU waste accumulated in aboveground storage since 1970
and TRU waste to be generated over approximately the next 35 years.
This waste does not include TRU waste commingled with polychlorinated
biphenyls in concentrations greater than or equal to 50 parts per
million. Transportation of waste to WIPP will initially be by truck,
although the Department reserves the option to use commercial rail
transportation in the future. DOE will comply with the requirements and
waste limits in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as amended, and the
Consultation and Cooperation Agreement between New Mexico and the
Department of Energy. DOE has applied for a permit from the New Mexico
Environment Department under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
concerning mixed TRU waste (TRU waste containing radioactive and
hazardous constituents); such a permit is not needed for disposal of
other TRU waste at WIPP.
Implementation of this decision is contingent upon obtaining a
Compliance Certification from the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). EPA recently proposed to certify that WIPP
complies with applicable EPA requirements for TRU waste disposal (62 FR
58792, October 30, 1997).
This Record of Decision documents the Department's decision to
implement the Preferred Alternative, as analyzed in the ``Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0026-FS2, September 1997) (SEIS-II). This
Record of Decision is being issued in coordination with the preparation
of the Record of Decision on the treatment and storage of TRU waste,
which is based on the ``Waste Management Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0200, May 1997) (WM PEIS). The WM PEIS
Record of Decision will specify the DOE sites at which TRU waste will
be prepared and stored before disposal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information regarding WIPP SEIS-II and transuranic
waste contact: Harold Johnson, SEIS-II Document Manager, Mail Stop 535,
U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office, Post Office Box 3090,
Carlsbad, NM 88221, Telephone (505) 234-7349, E-Mail:
[email protected]
For further information on the DOE National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of
NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: 202-586-
4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the mid-1940s, DOE's research and development, nuclear
weapons production, and nuclear fuel reprocessing activities have
produced transuranic (TRU) waste. TRU waste is waste that contains
alpha particle-emitting radionuclides with atomic numbers greater than
that of uranium (92) and half-lives greater than 20 years in
concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste.
TRU waste is classified according to the radiation dose rate at a
package surface. Contact-handled (CH) TRU waste has a radiation dose
rate at a package surface of 200 millirem per hour or less; this waste
can safely be handled directly by personnel. Remote-handled (RH) TRU
waste has a radiation dose rate at a package surface greater than 200
millirem per hour, and must be handled remotely (e.g., with machinery
designed to shield workers from radiation).
TRU waste that has both radioactive and hazardous constituents is
known as mixed TRU waste. The hazardous component of mixed TRU waste is
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). DOE
estimates that approximately 60 percent of TRU waste is mixed TRU
waste. In addition, some TRU waste is commingled with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in concentrations greater than or equal to 50 parts
per million and is known as PCB commingled TRU waste. Disposal of PCBs
is regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Before 1970, TRU waste was disposed of in shallow land burial
sites. Since 1970, TRU waste has been retrievably stored in aboveground
facilities at DOE sites. Plutonium stabilization and management
activities, environmental restoration (which could include remediation
of sites where TRU waste was buried before 1970), decontamination and
decommissioning, waste management, and defense testing and research are
expected to generate additional TRU waste.
The Department began examining the environmental impacts of TRU
waste disposal under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in
the late 1970s. After issuing the ``Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant'' (DOE/EIS-0026, October
1980), the Department decided in a 1981 Record of Decision to begin
phased development of WIPP to demonstrate the safe disposal of TRU
waste in bedded salt. Consequently, the Department has, since 1981,
been preparing to dispose of and isolate TRU waste by emplacing it in
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a mined repository located
2,100 feet below the surface in an ancient salt deposit near Carlsbad,
New Mexico. The major construction activities at WIPP have been
completed. WIPP consists of the Waste Handling Building where waste
would be received and inspected, an underground disposal area, and a
waste handling shaft for transfer of waste from the surface to the
disposal area. WIPP was designed for a total capacity of 175,600 cubic
meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of TRU waste.
In 1990, after issuing the ``Final Supplement Environmental Impact
Statement for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant'' (DOE/EIS-0026-FS,
January 1990), DOE issued a Record of Decision that continued the
phased development of WIPP by instituting an experimental program to
further examine WIPP's suitability as a TRU waste repository. In
September 1997, DOE issued the ``Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal
Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-
0026-FS2) (SEIS-II), which analyzes the environmental impacts of
proposed disposal operations at WIPP. The Department has prepared this
Record of Decision pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for implementing the provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-
1508) and the Department of Energy regulations implementing NEPA (10
CFR part 1021).
[[Page 3625]]
While SEIS-II was prepared to inform DOE's decision on whether to
open WIPP for the disposal of TRU waste, the ``Waste Management
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0200, May 1997)
(WM PEIS) was prepared to inform DOE's decision on where to treat
(which includes packaging) and store TRU waste prior to disposal. In
the WM PEIS, DOE examined several TRU waste treatment and storage site
consolidation strategies (i.e., whether to treat and store TRU waste at
the DOE sites where it is generated, at a few regional DOE sites, or at
a centralized DOE site). In coordination with this WIPP Record of
Decision, DOE is separately preparing a Record of Decision, supported
by the WM PEIS, that specifies whether, and if so, where, to
consolidate TRU waste for preparation and storage pending disposal.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
The Department needs to safely dispose of the TRU waste that has
accumulated at DOE sites and to provide for the disposal of additional
TRU waste to be generated over approximately the next 35 years (through
approximately 2033) in a manner that protects public health and the
environment. DOE prepared SEIS-II in order to help DOE make the
following decisions:
Whether to open and operate WIPP for the disposal of TRU
waste, and, if so,
Which portions of the TRU waste inventory would be
disposed of,
To what minimum level TRU waste must be treated for
disposal, and
What mode of transportation would be used to transport TRU
waste to WIPP.
WIPP Operation
With respect to the decision on whether to open WIPP, SEIS-II
examines the environmental impacts of four alternatives that involve
operating the facility (the Proposed Action and other Action
Alternatives) and the impacts of two alternatives that involve
dismantling and closing WIPP and continuing storage of TRU waste at the
generating sites (the No Action Alternatives).
Waste Inventories
SEIS-II uses the most recent inventory data available for its
analysis, including data from ``The National Transuranic Waste
Management Plan,'' (DOE/NTP-96-1204, Revision 0, September 1996)(TRU
Waste Management Plan). Using these data, SEIS-II examines the
environmental impacts of disposing of different inventories of TRU
waste. For purposes of analysis in SEIS-II, the DOE TRU waste inventory
is divided into a Basic Inventory and an Additional Inventory. The
Basic Inventory consists of (1) TRU waste generated by defense
activities (defense waste) that has been placed in retrievable storage
since 1970 and (2) defense TRU waste that would continue to be
generated over approximately the next 35 years as a result of plutonium
stabilization and management activities, environmental restoration
(including remediation of some sites where defense TRU waste was buried
before 1970), decontamination and decommissioning, waste management,
and defense testing and research. The Basic Inventory volume (per
recent estimates analyzed in SEIS-II) is approximately 170,000 cubic
meters (6 million cubic feet). The Additional Inventory consists of
commercial and non-defense waste (waste for which DOE has
responsibility and which was generated by activities other than defense
activities), PCB commingled TRU waste, and waste that was buried before
1970 that is not included in the Basic Inventory (because, for example,
DOE does not expect remediation activities to occur within
approximately the next 35 years, or because the extent of remediation
has not been determined). The Additional Inventory also includes non-
defense and commercial waste that DOE believes could be generated over
approximately the next 35 years. The Additional Inventory volume (per
recent estimates analyzed in SEIS-II) is approximately 142,500 cubic
meters (5 million cubic feet).
The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as amended in 1996, limits the
capacity of WIPP to 175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic feet). The
Act also specifies that only defense TRU waste may be disposed of at
WIPP. In addition, the Consultation and Cooperation (C&C) Agreement
between DOE and the State of New Mexico limits the volume of RH-TRU
waste to 7,080 cubic meters (250,000 cubic feet). Using the volume
estimates analyzed in SEIS-II, disposal of the Basic Inventory would be
within these limits, and disposal of the Basic Inventory and all of the
Additional Inventory would exceed these limits.
Waste Treatment Levels
SEIS-II examines treatment of TRU waste to three different levels
before disposal: treatment to meet the planning basis WIPP waste
acceptance criteria (WIPP WAC), thermal treatment to meet RCRA land
disposal restriction (LDR) levels, and treatment by shred and grout.
The planning basis WIPP WAC is that level of treatment and packaging in
WIPP WAC Revision 5, with anticipated revisions as analyzed in SEIS-II.
Treatment to planning basis WIPP WAC would require repackaging of TRU
waste to meet transportation and disposal regulations and DOE policies.
Treatment to LDR levels would use a thermal process that would
substantially condense the waste and yield a vitrified or metal ingot
waste form. Such treatment would also remove any organic hazardous
constituents and immobilize any hazardous metals in mixed TRU waste and
PCB commingled TRU waste. Treatment by shredding the waste and sealing
it in grout would reduce gas generation, but would create a much larger
waste volume. As set forth in this WIPP Record of Decision, DOE has
concluded that waste destined for WIPP should at a minimum be prepared
(i.e., treated as needed, and packaged) according to the planning basis
WIPP WAC. As noted previously, in coordination with this WIPP Record of
Decision, DOE is preparing a Record of Decision, based on the WM PEIS,
that will specify whether, where, and to what extent to consolidate TRU
waste for preparation and storage pending disposal.
Transportation Modes
SEIS-II analyzes the transport of TRU waste by truck, by regular
rail and truck (truck transportation from those sites that do not have
rail access), and by dedicated rail and truck. Regular rail refers to
use of commercial rail lines, with TRU waste being included on trains
that are also carrying other types of freight. Dedicated rail would
also use commercial rail lines, with trains composed exclusively of
rail cars carrying TRU waste.
The Department has investigated and continues to investigate the
possibility of using rail transportation, but considers it less
reasonable than truck transportation at this time. The primary factors
that make rail transportation less reasonable are (1) limited interest
of rail carriers in handling shipments of TRU waste, (2) the higher
cost of dedicated rail transportation as compared to truck
transportation, (3) the initial cost of acquiring additional transport
containers needed for rail transportation (because three times as many
containers are needed for each shipment), and (4) DOE's inability to
obtain rail carrier assurance that TRU waste container transit will
enable DOE to unseal the containers within 60 days of loading, as
required by Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. Regular rail
transportation, because of its lower public health impacts and cost, is
still
[[Page 3626]]
considered a desirable option for some waste transportation in the
future, provided that the factors that make it currently less
reasonable can be mitigated.
Alternatives Considered
SEIS-II examines the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action,
three other reasonable Action Alternatives, and two No Action
Alternatives that involve the waste inventories and treatment levels
described above.
1. Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)
Under the Proposed Action, DOE would open WIPP and dispose of
175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of post-1970 defense TRU
waste (except PCB commingled TRU waste), which is the Basic Inventory
of TRU waste adjusted up to the capacity limits specified in the WIPP
Land Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. The waste would be treated
as necessary to meet the planning basis WIPP WAC. Based on the
inventory volume and the anticipated emplacement rate, TRU waste would
be disposed of at WIPP over a 35-year period. Transportation would be
by truck.
The Department identified the Proposed Action as its Preferred
Alternative in the final SEIS-II. Under the Preferred Alternative, TRU
waste transportation would initially be by truck; however, the
Department reserves the option to use commercial rail transportation of
TRU waste in the future.
The Proposed Action (and Preferred Alternative) would isolate TRU
waste for more than 10,000 years and would comply with the WIPP Land
Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. However, this alternative would
not dispose of the Additional Inventory.
2. Action Alternative 1
Under Action Alternative 1, the Department would dispose of the
Basic and Additional Inventories of TRU waste (except PCB commingled
TRU waste) at WIPP, after treating the waste to meet the planning basis
WIPP WAC. SEIS-II analyzes the disposal of TRU waste over the 160-year
period needed for emplacement of this amount of waste at the
anticipated emplacement rate. SEIS-II also analyzes the environmental
impacts associated with the modifications to WIPP facilities and
operations that would be needed to increase the emplacement rate and
reduce the disposal time (for this alternative, to 60 years). SEIS-II
analyzes transportation by truck and transportation by rail (regular
commercial and dedicated trains).
Action Alternative 1 would isolate TRU waste for more than 10,000
years, and would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU
waste and TRU waste that was buried before 1970. DOE could not
implement Action Alternative 1 unless the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and
the C&C Agreement were modified accordingly. In addition, under Action
Alternative 1, DOE would not dispose of PCB commingled TRU waste at
WIPP.
3. Action Alternative 2
Under Action Alternative 2, the Department would dispose of the
Basic and Additional Inventories of TRU waste (including PCB commingled
TRU waste) at WIPP after treating the waste thermally to LDR levels.
SEIS-II analyzes the disposal of waste over the 150-year period needed
for emplacement of this volume given thermal loading constraints and
anticipated emplacement rate. SEIS-II also analyzes the environmental
impacts associated with the modifications to WIPP facilities and
operations that would be needed to increase the emplacement rate and
reduce the disposal time (for this alternative, to 70 years). SEIS-II
analyzes three subalternatives (Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C) that
examine consolidated thermal treatment at DOE sites.
Action Alternative 2 would isolate TRU waste for more than 10,000
years, and would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU
waste, PCB commingled TRU waste, and TRU waste that was buried before
1970. DOE could not implement this alternative unless the WIPP Land
Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement were modified accordingly.
4. Action Alternative 3
Under Action Alternative 3, DOE would dispose of the Basic and
Additional Inventories of TRU waste (except PCB commingled TRU waste)
at WIPP after treatment by a shred and grout process. SEIS-II analyzes
the disposal of waste over the 190-year period needed for emplacement
of this volume at the anticipated emplacement rate. SEIS-II also
analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the modifications to
WIPP facilities and operations that would be needed to increase the
emplacement rate and reduce the disposal time (for this alternative, to
75 years). The impacts of both truck and rail transportation are
analyzed.
Action Alternative 3 would isolate TRU waste for more than 10,000
years, and would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU
wastes and TRU waste that was buried before 1970. DOE could not
implement Action Alternative 3 unless the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and
the C&C Agreement were modified accordingly. The treatment method under
this alternative would increase the volume of the waste to be disposed
of, thus increasing transportation. In addition, under Action
Alternative 3, DOE would not dispose of PCB commingled TRU waste at
WIPP.
5. No Action Alternative 1
Under No Action Alternative 1, the Department would thermally treat
the Basic and Additional Inventories of TRU waste and store the waste
indefinitely in newly constructed monitored retrievable storage
facilities. SEIS-II analyzes two subalternatives that examine the
impacts of thermal treatment. The impacts of transporting TRU waste to
treatment sites by both truck and rail transportation are analyzed.
WIPP would be dismantled and closed under this alternative.
No Action Alternative 1 would treat TRU waste to RCRA LDR levels
and indefinitely store the treated waste. Treatment to LDR levels would
reduce human health impacts in the event of a release of the stored
waste. This alternative would not offer the isolation afforded by deep
geologic disposal, would require periodic maintenance of storage
facilities and waste repackaging, and could not be implemented without
modification of agreements that DOE has reached with several states
regarding the offsite disposition of TRU waste. No Action Alternative 1
would require the use of effective institutional controls for the
indefinite future.
6. No Action Alternative 2
Under No Action Alternative 2, DOE would continue to store newly
generated TRU waste at generator sites in existing or planned storage
facilities. The newly generated waste would be treated to meet the
planning basis WIPP WAC to facilitate safe storage; however, the waste
form would not protect human health if the waste were released. No
transportation is analyzed for this alternative, because the waste is
assumed to remain indefinitely where it was generated. WIPP would be
dismantled and closed under this alternative.
This alternative would not involve impacts to workers and the
public associated with thermal or shred and grout treatment or with
transportation. However, this alternative would not offer the isolation
afforded by deep
[[Page 3627]]
geologic disposal, would require periodic maintenance of storage
facilities and waste repackaging for the indefinite future, and could
not be implemented without modification of agreements that DOE has
reached with several states regarding the offsite disposition of TRU
waste.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
In identifying its environmental preference among alternatives for
the long-term management of TRU waste, DOE considered both near-term
and long-term (through and beyond 10,000 years) human health and
environmental impacts. There are alternatives that would result in low
near-term impacts but relatively high long-term impacts, and
identifying the environmentally preferable alternative(s) requires
judgment concerning these impacts and sensitivity concerning the
uncertainties of some of the near-term and long-term impacts.
SEIS-II estimates that some potential near-term fatalities, mainly
among workers as a result of industrial accidents from waste treatment
operations, would occur under all alternatives. The largest number of
potential fatalities would occur as a result of thermal treatment under
Action Alternative 2 (up to approximately 14 fatalities) and No Action
Alternative 1 (up to approximately 13 fatalities), and the smallest
under No Action Alternative 2 (approximately 1 fatality), under which
only newly generated waste would be treated. Thermal treatment may
result in air quality exceedances for radionuclides, offsite treatment
impacts (including fatalities), and, for thermal treatment at WIPP
(Action Alternative 2C), potentially disproportionately high and
adverse impacts to minority and low income populations near WIPP.
Some potential near-term fatalities also could occur from storage
operations under all of the alternatives; a larger number of fatalities
could occur as a result of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake
with a small annual probability of occurring damaging an aboveground
TRU waste storage facility. For the No Action Alternatives, however,
the associated risks would continue for the indefinite future. Long-
term storage risks would also occur for the Additional Inventory that
would not be disposed of under the Proposed Action and for PCB
commingled TRU waste that would not be disposed of under Action
Alternatives 1 and 3.
Transportation for treatment and for disposal are estimated to
cause more fatalities (mainly involving the general public) than other
near-term waste management operations. The largest number of fatalities
are estimated to occur under the three Action Alternatives, in which
the most waste would be sent to WIPP. The analysis shows, however, that
regular commercial rail service would have lower potential fatalities
than transportation by either dedicated rail service or by truck. The
consequences of low probability accidents would be similar for all
transportation options. In contrast, the No Action Alternatives would
pose little to no transportation risk, depending on the alternative,
but would not dispose of the waste.
Thus, SEIS-II analyses show that, in the near term, No Action
Alternative 2 would be environmentally preferable. For the long term,
however, disposal of as much of DOE's TRU waste as possible at WIPP is
environmentally preferable to indefinite storage, because disposal
isolates the waste and avoids the long-term need to protect the public
and workers from exposure to stored waste, a protection than cannot be
assured over the long periods of time that TRU waste poses a health
hazard to the public. The long-term impacts of indefinite storage of
TRU waste under No Action Alternative 2 and, to a lesser extent, No
Action Alternative 1, would result primarily from future exposures to
stored waste should DOE lose institutional control of the storage
facilities in the future. Over the long term, there would also be an
increasing probability of adverse impacts from a natural disaster. Such
impacts could be exacerbated by future population growth near DOE
sites. SEIS-II analyses show that there is virtually no benefit to
long-term repository performance from thermal or shred and grout
treatment of waste as compared to treatment to meet the planning basis
WIPP WAC.
Considering both near-term and long-term impacts, therefore, Action
Alternative 1 is the environmentally preferable alternative, with
transportation of waste by regular commercial rail service to the
maximum extent possible to lessen near-term impacts. Action Alternative
1 would dispose of defense, non-defense, and commercial TRU waste (with
the exception of PCB commingled TRU waste) and TRU waste that was
buried prior to 1970, after treatment as necessary to meet the planning
basis WIPP WAC. This alternative would dispose of a greater amount of
TRU waste than the Proposed Action.
Comments on SEIS-II and Agency Responses
SEIS-II was initiated by a notice of intent published in the
Federal Register on August 18, 1995. A draft SEIS-II was issued in
November 1996, and public hearings were held in January 1997.
Approximately 4,000 comments were received from individuals,
organizations, states, tribes, and Federal agencies during the 90-day
comment period. Many of the comments received on the draft SEIS-II
expressed strong opinions in favor of or against disposal at WIPP, or
suggested revisions to SEIS-II. The final SEIS-II, issued in September
1997, incorporated many changes in response to public comments and
internal review, including updating of waste volumes, TRU waste
locations, and the long-term performance assessment.
The Department received four letters on the final SEIS-II. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 letter stated that the
agency had completed its review and had no further comments on the
final SEIS-II. The State of Tennessee's Department of Environment and
Conservation, the State of Idaho Oversight Program, and the Southwest
Research and Information Center submitted comments which the Department
has considered.
In its comments, the DOE Oversight Division of the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation requested clarification of
responses provided in SEIS-II regarding: (1) Consolidation of TRU waste
at sites prior to being shipped to WIPP, (2) management of ``special
case'' waste, (3) management of the excess inventory of RH-TRU waste if
WIPP's capacity is reached, and (4) plans and schedules for
transporting TRU waste to WIPP. In addition, the State asked DOE to
provide assurance in the Record of Decision that RH-TRU waste will be
removed from DOE's Oak Ridge site in accordance with the Oak Ridge
Reservation Site Treatment Plan.
Decisions regarding consolidation of TRU waste for preparation and
storage pending disposal will be made in the Record of Decision for the
WM PEIS. With regard to what the commenter referred to as ``special
case'' waste, such waste that is classified as post-1970 defense TRU
waste is included in the SEIS-II analysis as CH-TRU waste as part of
the Basic Inventory, and under this Record of Decision upon preparation
to meet the planning basis WIPP WAC would be disposed of at WIPP.
Materials cited by the commenter that are not classified as TRU waste
could not be disposed of at WIPP and are beyond the scope of SEIS-II
and this Record of Decision. Regarding the comment about the excess
inventory of RH-TRU waste, DOE expects that there will be sufficient
capacity at WIPP to
[[Page 3628]]
dispose of all RH-TRU waste currently in storage and to be generated
over approximately the next 35 years, based on the most recent
estimates contained in the TRU Waste Management Plan. DOE's proposed
plans and schedule for transporting waste from particular sites to WIPP
are contained in the TRU Waste Management Plan. Finally, as stated in
SEIS-II, DOE intends to meet its obligations with regard to the
disposition of TRU waste as set forth in the agreements (including Site
Treatment Plans) that it has reached with states and in related court
orders.
The State of Idaho Oversight Program requested that the ROD be
consistent with the agreements made with the State with regard to
transuranic waste that will be disposed of at WIPP. As noted above, the
Department intends to fulfill its obligations with regard to the
disposition of TRU waste as set forth in its agreements with states and
in related court orders.
In its comments on the final SEIS-II, the Southwest Research and
Information Center stated that disposal of TRU waste in a high-level
waste repository is a reasonable alternative that was not examined in
SEIS-II or the WM PEIS. This commenter also stated that, because all of
the estimated TRU waste inventory would not be disposed of at WIPP, DOE
will be required to consider additional disposal sites, and that such
other sites were not considered in SEIS-II or the WM PEIS. Further, the
commenter stated that DOE should prepare a comprehensive NEPA analysis
of storage and disposal options for all of DOE's nuclear waste,
including all TRU waste, before issuing a Record of Decision on TRU
waste disposal at WIPP. Finally, the commenter asked for clarification
of DOE's position regarding the opening of WIPP without a RCRA permit
from the New Mexico Environment Department.
The Department has examined all reasonable TRU waste disposal
alternatives in SEIS-II and the preceding environmental impact
statements, including disposal in a high-level waste repository and
disposal at sites other than WIPP. DOE decided in 1981 to develop WIPP
for the disposal of TRU waste, and SEIS-II confirms that WIPP is an
effective disposal facility for TRU waste. The most recent waste volume
estimates contained in the TRU Waste Management Plan indicate that DOE
would be able to dispose of all of the TRU waste currently in storage,
and waste to be generated by DOE over approximately the next 35 years.
In SEIS-II, DOE analyzes the disposal at WIPP of all defense, non-
defense, and commercial TRU waste and TRU waste that was buried prior
to 1970. The WM PEIS comprehensively analyzes the management of all of
DOE's radioactive and hazardous waste types. With regard to the RCRA
permit issue, DOE has applied for a RCRA permit from the New Mexico
Environment Department for mixed TRU waste. Such a permit is not needed
for disposal of other TRU waste at WIPP.
Decision
The Department will dispose of up to 175,600 cubic meters (6.2
million cubic feet) of defense TRU waste (except PCB commingled TRU
waste) at WIPP. Transportation of waste to WIPP will initially be by
truck, although the Department reserves the option to use commercial
rail transportation in the future. DOE will prepare (including
treatment, as necessary, and packaging) the wastes to be disposed of to
meet the WIPP WAC (WIPP WAC Revision 5, including any future revisions
as analyzed in SEIS-II, such as pipe overpacks used in waste
packaging). This decision establishes only the minimum waste acceptance
requirements that must be met for disposal of waste at WIPP. DOE has
treated in the past (and based on site-specific circumstances, may
decide to treat in the future) TRU waste at some sites more extensively
than is required under the WIPP WAC. WIPP may accept for disposal
grouted TRU waste, thermally treated TRU waste, or TRU waste treated by
any other process that meets the WIPP WAC.
Under this decision, the wastes to be disposed of include both CH
and RH defense TRU waste (except PCB commingled TRU waste) placed in
retrievable storage after 1970, and TRU waste generated for
approximately the next 35 years by plutonium stabilization and
management activities, environmental restoration (including defense TRU
waste from future remediation of sites where TRU waste was buried
before 1970), decontamination and decommissioning, waste management,
and defense testing and research. The amount of TRU waste that will be
disposed of at WIPP will not exceed limits established by the WIPP Land
Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. Impacts of disposal at WIPP of
this volume of defense TRU waste are analyzed in the SEIS-II under the
Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative).
TRU waste will be transported to WIPP in containers certified by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as required by the WIPP Land
Withdrawal Act. DOE will initially use trucks to transport waste.
However, DOE reserves the option to use commercial rail service for TRU
waste transportation in the future, because SEIS-II analyses show that,
under normal operations, regular rail transportation would cause fewer
fatalities and would cost less than truck transportation (although
consequences of a low probability accident would be similar for all
transportation options). In contrast, SEIS-II analyses show that
dedicated rail shipments would cause the largest number of fatalities
and would be the most costly transportation mode.
Basis for Decision
The decision described above minimizes, to the extent possible
under current statutory restrictions contained in the WIPP Land
Withdrawal Act, the impacts and costs of continued TRU waste management
activities at DOE sites. Disposal of TRU waste at WIPP would
effectively isolate the waste from human contact for more than 10,000
years if the repository remains undisturbed, and, under the Preferred
Alternative, is not expected to adversely impact human health even if
the repository were to be breached by drilling. For example, based on
analyses in the WIPP SEIS-II, the probability that a member of a
drilling crew that breached the repository would die of cancer from
exposure to the waste is 4 in 10,000. If an intrusion occurred,
radionuclides and heavy metals could reach the Culebra Dolomite (the
principal water-bearing unit overlying WIPP). However, impacts would be
negligible.
The Department has taken into consideration irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of resources, impacts from retrieval of waste
from the repository, and cumulative impacts in making this decision.
There would be irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources
associated with the use of the WIPP site resulting from residual salt
that remains after remediation of the salt storage pile. Although DOE
has no plans to retrieve waste from WIPP, if the waste were retrieved
prior to repository closure, the impacts would be the same as from
emplacing the waste. If the waste were required to be recovered after
repository closure, there could be several worker fatalities from
recovering waste and any contaminated salt. The impacts from
transporting waste back to the treatment sites would be higher than
from transporting it to WIPP because of the additional volume of
contaminated salt. In considering cumulative impacts, DOE recognizes
that for all alternatives involving transportation of TRU waste, there
would be cumulative impacts from past, present and reasonable
foreseeable
[[Page 3629]]
future activities involving transportation of other waste types
(hazardous, low-level, low-level mixed, and high level waste). There
would also be cumulative impacts at some of the treatment sites as a
result of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities.
DOE did not select the No Action Alternatives because they would
not isolate TRU waste from humans and the environment, and could cause
public harm if long-term institutional control were to be lost.
(Although no deaths would be expected based on current population
densities and distributions under No Action Alternative 1, intruders
could receive doses that greatly exceed current regulatory limits; up
to 800 deaths could occur over 10,000 years under No Action Alternative
2). Maintaining such controls indefinitely would require future
generations to incur risks and costs that can be avoided by disposing
of the waste in WIPP now. In addition, the No Action Alternatives could
not be implemented without modification of agreements that DOE has
reached with several states regarding the offsite disposition of TRU
waste.
DOE did not select the Action Alternatives because disposal of the
volumes and waste types involved in these alternatives would require
modification of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement. DOE
did not select either thermal or shred and grout treatment because the
SEIS-II analyses show that these treatments do not materially improve
the repository's performance, and also have greater costs and near-term
impacts across the DOE complex.
This decision is consistent with the intent of Congress, as
expressed in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, that DOE commence disposal
operations at WIPP once all applicable health and safety standards and
laws have been met. The decision will enable the Department to comply
with the agreements that DOE has entered into with several states,
particularly those agreements that set a schedule for removal of TRU
waste from DOE sites.
Implementation of the decision to dispose of TRU waste at WIPP is
contingent on obtaining a Compliance Certification from EPA. EPA
recently proposed to certify compliance, subject to certain conditions
(62 FR 58792, October 30, 1997). DOE has applied for a RCRA permit from
the New Mexico Environment Department for disposal of mixed TRU waste;
such a permit is not needed for disposal of other TRU waste at WIPP.
Mitigation Measures
DOE has a Mitigation Action Plan in effect for WIPP to reduce
possible adverse environmental effects. DOE will continue to implement
those actions and provide information on their status in its annual
mitigation action reports.
DOE will comply with applicable Department of Transportation and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations governing the shipment of TRU
waste. As described in SEIS-II, DOE will transport TRU waste to WIPP in
such a manner as to alleviate, to the maximum extent possible,
potential impacts from transportation of TRU waste over the highways.
These measures include tracking shipments with the TRANSCOM satellite
tracking system and maintaining constant communication with the driver
to provide notice of adverse weather or road conditions along the
route. Equipment will be inspected at the beginning of each shipment
and periodically every 100 miles or every two hours while on route. If
shipments are delayed on route, drivers will park at designated DOE or
Department of Defense sites, or State designated parking areas if
possible. If no such sites are available, drivers will park in areas
away from population concentrations and notify the State Police of the
shipment's location.
In addition to maintaining its own emergency response capabilities,
DOE offers emergency response training to police, fire, and medical
personnel located along the WIPP transportation routes. In the event of
an accident involving a WIPP shipment, the driver would notify
emergency responders by cellular phone and also the WIPP Central
Monitoring Room using the TRANSCOM system. A DOE official would be
dispatched to assist at the accident site. DOE resources would be
available to support mitigation of the accident, including but not
limited to package recovery and site cleanup.
The United States Department of the Interior suggested in comments
on the draft SEIS-II that DOE should develop a spill contingency plan
to address the potential impacts of a diesel fuel spill on fish and
wildlife and their habitats. DOE already has plans in place to address
the potential impacts of a truck accident; these plans address
potential releases of TRU waste and other materials. Remediation
efforts may include excavation and disposal of contaminated
environmental media as appropriate.
A copy of SEIS-II and this Record of Decision are available from
the Center for Environmental Management Information, telephone: 1-800-
7EM-DATA (1-800-736-3282) (in Washington, D.C., call 202-863-5084).
Issued in Washington, D.C., this 16th day of January, 1998.
Elizabeth A. Moler,
Deputy Secretary of Energy.
[FR Doc. 98-1653 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
