[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 209 (Monday, October 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55249-55254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26845]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision; Savannah River Site Waste Management,
Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, SC
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE announces its intention to implement the moderate
treatment configuration alternative identified in the Savannah River
Site (SRS) Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement
(WMEIS). DOE has evaluated the potential environmental impacts and
costs of storing, treating, and/or disposing of liquid high-level
radioactive, low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed (radioactive and
[[Page 55250]]
hazardous), and transuranic wastes at SRS in the WMEIS.
DOE plans to use a phased approach to making decisions on
treatment, storage and disposal facilities identified in the moderate
treatment configuration alternative. This Record of Decision (ROD)
identifies decisions regarding continuation of existing activities and
current operation of existing facilities, new waste recycling
initiatives, operation of the Consolidated Incineration Facility (CIF),
low-level waste volume reduction activities, and the operation of a
mobile soil sort facility. After DOE and the State of South Carolina
complete negotiations under the Federal Facility Compliance Act
(FFCAct), DOE will issue additional RODs on the treatment of mixed low-
level radioactive and mixed transuranic waste.
The final SRS WMEIS provides a baseline for the analysis of future
SRS waste management needs. DOE will continue to review its SRS waste
management activities at the SRS to ensure that those activities are
adequately addressed by this EIS, or in the event they are not, that
the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews are
initiated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on Savannah
River Site Waste Management, write or call: A. R. Grainger,
Environmental Compliance Division, SR NEPA Compliance Officer, Savannah
River Operations Office, P.O. Box 5031, Aiken, South Carolina 29804,
Phone/FAX: (800) 242-8269, e-mail: nepa@barms036.b-r.com.
For general information on the U.S. Department of Energy NEPA
process, write or call: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of
NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20580, Telephone: (202) 586-
4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR
Parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part
1021). This Record of Decision is based on DOE's Final WMEIS, Savannah
River Site, Aiken, South Carolina (DOE/EIS-0217). DOE's SRS occupies
approximately 800 square kilometers (300 square miles) adjacent to the
Savannah River, principally in Aiken and Barnwell counties of South
Carolina, about 40 kilometers (25 miles) southeast of Augusta, Georgia,
and about 32 kilometers (20 miles) south of Aiken, South Carolina.
DOE's primary mission at SRS from the 1950s until the recent end of
the Cold War was the production and processing of nuclear materials to
support defense programs. The end of the Cold War has led to a
reduction in the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Many of the
facilities used to manufacture, assemble, and maintain the arsenal are
no longer needed. Some of these facilities can be converted to new uses
through decontamination processes; others must be decommissioned.
Wastes generated during the Cold War also must be cleaned up in a safe
and cost-effective manner. In addition, DOE must manage wastes that may
be generated in the future in compliance with the applicable
environmental requirements.
DOE estimates that it will manage the following approximate amounts
of wastes (expected waste forecast) at SRS over the next 30 years (1995
to 2024): 153,000 cubic meters of liquid high-level radioactive waste;
476,000 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste; 435,000 cubic
meters of hazardous waste; 230,000 cubic meters of mixed waste; and
23,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste.
DOE analyzed three alternatives, in addition to the no action
alternative, for minimizing, treating, storing, and/or disposing of
wastes (low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic) in a
manner that would protect human health and the environment, achieve
regulatory compliance, and be cost effective. (Alternatives for
managing high-level radioactive waste were considered in the Defense
Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) EIS and Supplemental EIS (DOE/EIS-0082
and DOE/EIS-0082-S) and decisions were announced in the DWPF Records of
Decision on June 1, 1982 (47 FR 23801) and April 12, 1995 (60 FR
18589)). Mixed wastes are regulated under both the Atomic Energy Act
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the
FFCAct. The FFCAct requires DOE to prepare a Site Treatment Plan (STP)
that addressses options for treating mixed wastes currently in storage
or that will be generated within the next 5 years at the SRS. The
Department expects that negotiations with the State of South Carolina
under the FFCAct will not be completed until later this year. Because
these negotiations are an essential part of DOE's decision making
process regarding mixed waste and mixed transuranic waste, no decision
concerning mixed waste management options analyzed in the SRS WMEIS
will be made until those negotiations are concluded. The sole exception
to this is the Department's decision concerning the CIF.
DOE prepared an environmental assessment (DOE/EA-0400) and issued a
Finding of No Significant Impact (Federal Register, December 24, 1992,
57 FR 61402) for the construction and operation of the CIF to
incinerate mixed, hazardous, and low-level radioactive wastes. In 1993
DOE decided to reexamine whether incineration was the most appropriate
method to treat low-level radioactive waste. DOE is now deciding to
complete construction and operate the CIF for hazardous, mixed, and
low-level radioactive waste. This decision concerning mixed waste was
made after consultation with the State of South Carolina.
DOE published a Notice of Intent to prepare the SRS WMEIS in the
Federal Register on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16494). The notice announced a
public scoping period that ended on May 31, 1994, and solicited
comments and suggestions on the scope of the EIS. DOE held scoping
meetings in Savannah, Georgia, and North Augusta and Columbia, South
Carolina on May 12, 17, and 19, 1994, respectively. Comments received
from individuals, organizations, and government agencies during the
scoping period were considered in the preparation of the EIS.
On January 27, 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a Notice of Availability of DOE's Draft SRS WMEIS in the
Federal Register (60 FR 5388). This notice officially started the
public comment period on the Draft SRS WMEIS, which DOE extended
through March 31, 1995, in response to a request from the Savannah
River Site's Citizens Advisory Board. Comments were received by letter,
electronic mail, and formal statements made at 12 public hearings. The
hearings (2 sessions each) provided opportunity for informal
discussions with DOE personnel involved with waste management. They
were held in Barnwell, South Carolina on February 21, 1995; Columbia,
South Carolina on February 22, 1995; North Augusta, South Carolina on
February 23, 1995; Savannah, Georgia on February 28, 1995; Beaufort,
South Carolina on March 1, 1995; and Hilton Head, South Carolina on
March 2, 1995.
DOE considered comments it received on the Draft WMEIS from
agencies, organizations, and individuals in preparing the Final WMEIS.
EPA published a Notice of Availability of the
[[Page 55251]]
Final WMEIS in the Federal Register on July 28, 1995 (60 FR 38817).
DOE received three letters after issuance of the Final WMEIS. The
South Carolina Department of Transportation stated that it had no
comments on the project. The Centers for Disease Control, on behalf of
the U. S. Public Health Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, stated that the Final EIS adequately addressed their
comments on the Draft EIS. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
however, stated that it would have preferred that the Final EIS not
characterize the Agency's comments as endorsing Department of Energy
actions. The Agency noted that it does commend DOE for its efforts to
develop a strategy for long-term waste management at SRS using the NEPA
process, and will continue to work with DOE to ensure that waste
management activities protect human health and the environment, comply
with applicable environmental requirements, and minimize waste
generation.
Alternatives Considered
The three treatment configuration alternatives considered in this
EIS (limited, moderate and extensive) addressed treatment, storage and
disposal facilities using three potential waste volume forecasts. The
minimum waste volume forecast included current inventories and current
waste receipts from offsite, and projections of the waste that would be
generated as a result of reasonable lower-bound estimates of ongoing
site operations and environmental restoration and decontamination and
decommissioning activities. The maximum waste volume forecast included
current inventories and current waste receipts from offsite, additional
wastes that might be received from offsite based on decisions resulting
from the FFCAct process and ongoing DOE NEPA reviews; and projections
of the waste that would be generated as a result of reasonable upper-
bound estimates of ongoing site operations and environmental
restoration and decontamination and decommissioning activities. The
expected waste volume forecast included current inventories and current
waste receipts from offsite, additional wastes that might be received
from offsite based on decisions resulting from the FFCAct process and
ongoing DOE NEPA reviews, and DOE's current estimates of the waste
volumes anticipated to result from continuing site operations,
environmental restoration of existing waste sites, and decontamination
and decommissioning of surplus facilities.
Limited Treatment Configuration Alternative
This alternative consists of the siting, construction, and
operation of facilities and the implementation of management techniques
that would reduce impacts from treatment processes while complying
fully with existing waste management requirements. For each waste type,
however, the treatment under this alternative would be the minimum
needed to meet applicable standards and allow prompt storage and/or
disposal. The limited treatment processes under this alternative would
produce a waste form suitable for disposal, but not one that had
undergone the most vigorous volume reduction or stabilization treatment
available. The volume of low-level radioactive wastes to be disposed of
would be greater than under the moderate and extensive treatment
configuration alternatives, the volume of mixed waste to be disposed of
would be greater than under the moderate treatment configuration
alternative but less than under the extensive treatment configuration
alternative, and the potential for impacts in the future from storage
and disposal would be greater than under the other action alternatives.
Short-term impacts associated with treating waste generally would be
less than under the more extensive treatment alternatives.
Moderate Treatment Configuration Alternative
This alternative consists of the siting, construction, and
operation of facilities and the implementation of management techniques
that would provide a balanced mix of technologies that includes
extensive treatment of those waste types that have the greatest
potential to adversely affect the public or the environment because of
their mobility or toxicity if left untreated (such as wastes containing
plutonium-238), or that would remain highly radioactive far into the
future (such as waste containing transuranic elements). This
alternative would provide less rigorous treatment than the extensive
treatment configuration alternative of wastes that do not pose high
potential for harm to humans or the environment, or that will not
remain highly radioactive far into the future (such as non-alpha low-
level radioactive waste). Under this alternative, the volume of low-
level radioactive waste would be reduced by onsite compactors and some
of the low-level radioactive waste would then be sent offsite for
supercompaction, size reduction (e.g., sorting, shredding, melting),
and incineration as part of a low-level radioactive waste offsite
volume reduction initiative.
Under this alternative, the volume of low-level radioactive and
mixed wastes to be disposed of would be less than under both the
limited and extensive treatment alternatives. The moderate treatment
configuration would provide the highest degree of compatibility with
the preferred treatments for mixed wastes described in the STP that was
prepared and submitted to the State of South Carolina under the FFCAct
process, and would use to the maximum extent practicable existing
facilities or facilities that are proposed for operation in the near
future (i.e., the CIF).
Extensive Treatment Configuration Alternative
This alternative consists of the siting, construction, and
operation of facilities and the implementation of management techniques
that would minimize environmental impacts from storage and disposal by
extensive treatment of waste to reduce its toxicity and to create
stable, migration-resistant waste forms. Under this alternative, the
volume of low-level radioactive waste to be disposed of would be less
than under the limited treatment alternative, but more than under the
moderate treatment alternative. The volume of mixed waste to be
disposed of would be greater than under either of the other action
alternatives. The extensive treatment alternative would, however, be
more likely than other alternatives to increase the short-term impacts
due to the construction of additional treatment facilities and
increased exposure to emissions that would result from more extensive
treatment and increased handling.
No-Action Alternative
As required by NEPA, DOE also considered potential impacts if the
Department were to take ``no action'' other than to continue its
current waste management practices (including building additional
facilities to store newly generated waste, as has been done in the
past) and vitrify high-level waste in the DWPF as discussed above.
Under this alternative the Department would continue current practices
for storage and treatment of liquid high-level radioactive, for storage
of mixed and transuranic waste; for treatment, storage, and disposal of
low-level radioactive waste; and for offsite treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste. Under this alternative, transuranic and mixed wastes
would remain untreated and in storage, in a state not suitable for
disposal. Were
[[Page 55252]]
DOE to take no action, it would not be in a position to comply with
some regulatory requirements and compliance agreements.
Environmentally Preferrable Alternative
In DOE's judgment the extensive treatment alternative is
environmentally preferrable because it would minimize potential long-
term environmental impacts as a result of achieving more stable,
migration-resistant waste forms. DOE recognizes, however, that this
treatment alternative would result in greater short-term impacts to
workers.
Decision
Determination
DOE announces its intention to configure its waste management
system according to the moderate treatment alternative. Pursuant to 10
CFR 1021.315, DOE may revise this ROD at any time, so long as the
revised decision is adequately supported by existing reviews prepared
in accordance with NEPA. Upon issuance of a ROD for the DOE Waste
Management Programmatic EIS (DOE/EIS-0200, draft issued for public
review September 22, 1995), this ROD will be reviewed to evaluate
whether there is consistency with decisions reached on broader
programmatic issues or whether a revised ROD or supplemental EIS for
SRS waste management is needed to maintain consistency. Accordingly,
DOE has decided to initiate the following actions and activities
included in the moderate treatment configuration alternative.
* Continue activities to manage waste at SRS, including
construction of additional storage capacity for mixed transuranic, and
low-level radioactive alpha wastes.
High-Level Waste
* Continue to store liquid high-level waste in storage tanks.
* Operate the newly constructed New Waste Transfer Facility,
continue to construct and operate the Replacement High-Level Waste
Evaporator, and operate waste removal equipment. These facilities will
transfer waste from the high-level waste storage tanks to the Defense
Waste Processing Facility for treatment (vitrification) when the
facility becomes operational.
Hazardous Waste
* Continue to treat and dispose of hazardous waste offsite until
the CIF is operational, then treat wastes, including filters, paint
waste, organic and aqueous liquids, organics and inorganic sludges, and
up to 50% of organic and inorganic heterogeneous debris, in the CIF.
* Continue offsite treatment and disposal for wastes such as
polychlorinated biphenyls, organic debris, inorganic debris,
heterogeneous debris, metal debris, bulk equipment, glass debris,
soils, and lead.
* Continue to treat some aqueous liquids in the M-Area air
stripper.
* Continue to recycle some hazardous wastes, including solvents,
fluorocarbons, lead, silver (from spent photographic fixatives), and
sell excess chemicals and lead/acid batteries.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
* Operate the CIF for volume reduction of some low-activity job-
control waste and some tritiated job-control waste.
* Treat some low-activity job-control wastes and some low-activity
equipment offsite (about 40% of the low-level radioactive waste in the
expected waste forecast). About 60% of the waste sent offsite would be
supercompacted, and the remainder reduced in size by sorting,
shredding, or melting, and repackaged. The treated waste would be
returned to SRS for further treatment in the CIF or for disposal in the
low-activity waste vaults or in shallow land disposal trenches. About
10% of the waste treated offsite would be incinerated when CIF is not
operating, and the treatment residuals would be returned to SRS.
(Paragraph 2.6.3.1, Low-Level Waste--Expected Waste Forecast, of the
WMEIS)
* Send uncompacted low-level waste (currently stored in the low-
activity waste vaults) to an offsite incinerator until CIF is operable.
* Dispose of stabilized ash and blowdown from incineration in the
low activity waste disposal vaults or shallow land disposal trenches.
* Operate a mobile low-level waste soil sort facility for treatment
of low-activity soils and suspect soils. (Paragraph 2.6.1.1, Pollution
Prevention/Waste Minimization--Expected Waste Forecast, of the WMEIS)
* Decontaminate and recycle some low-activity equipment waste
(metal) in an offsite smelter. Treatment residuals would be returned to
SRS for shallow land disposal. (Paragraph 2.2.1.4, Waste Minimization
Practices and Initiatives, and 2.6.1.1, Pollution Prevention/Waste
Minimization--Expected Waste Forecast, of the WMEIS)
* Continue vault disposal of offsite job-control waste, tritiated
soils, some tritiated job-control waste, tritiated equipment, and
intermediate-activity job-control waste.
* Continue disposal of naval hardware in shallow land disposal
trenches.
Mixed Wastes
* Treat small quantities of mixed polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
wastes offsite. Return treatment residuals to SRS for disposal.
* Operate the CIF for mixed heterogeneous debris, inorganic debris,
organic debris, DWPF benzene, organic liquid, radioactive oil, PUREX
solvent, paint waste, and aqueous liquids.
* Store tritiated oil to allow time for radioactive decay.
* Recycle mixed waste, including radioactively contaminated lead
and cadmium-coated HEPA filter frames, in an offsite facility. Return
treatment residuals to SRS for shallow land disposal.
Transuranic and Alpha Low-Level Radioactive Waste
* Return Rocky Flats Incinerator ash to the Rocky Flats Site for
consolidation and treatment with similar wastes at that facility.
* Dispose of alpha low-level waste in low-activity waste vaults.
Reasons for Determination
DOE selected the moderate treatment configuration for SRS because
the Department believes that alternative will provide more than
adequate protection of human health and the environment, and will be
consistent with expected budgetary limitations. Specifically, DOE bases
its choice of the moderate treatment configuration alternative for SRS
on factors listed below, including potential environmental impacts and
regulatory commitments.
* In the moderate treatment configuration alternative, the CIF
would treat hazardous, mixed, and low-level waste for its entire
project life (approximately 30 years), which is the most cost-effective
use of the facility. CIF also provides the ``regulatory specified
treatment'' for certain waste streams and is the Best Demonstrated
Available Technolgy (BDAT) for other waste streams. In contrast, under
the limited treatment configuration alternative, the CIF would treat
hazardous and mixed waste only, which would not be cost-effective.
Similarly, under the extensive treatment configuration alternative,
operation of the CIF would be discontinued after approximately 10 years
when the non-alpha vitrification facility became operational. The
potential environmental impacts from operating the CIF under the
moderate treatment configuration alternative would be very small.
[[Page 55253]]
* Mixed waste treatment technology under the moderate treatment
configuration alternative is consistent with the Site Treatment Plan,
which is currently being negotiated with the State of South Carolina,
and existing commitments under the Federal Facility Compliance
Agreement regarding land disposal restrictions, which are being
discussed with the EPA. The moderate treatment configuration
alternative includes the same technologies as identified as the
preferred treatment in the proposed STP. In contrast, the limited and
extensive treatment configuration alternatives are not consistent with
the STP submitted to the State of South Carolina because both
alternatives include vitrification for some wastes for which
incineration is the BDAT. The limited and extensive treatment
configuration alternatives are also inconsistent with costs and
technologies specified in the STP, and schedules that are currently
under negotiation with the State of South Carolina.
* In the moderate treatment configuration alternative, transuranic
waste technology is consistent with the ``planning-basis'' Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) waste acceptance criteria. Treatment
(vitrification) is provided only for those transuranic wastes that do
not conform to the applicable shipping requirements (i.e., plutonium-
238). All other SRS transuranic wastes are expected to meet the WIPP
waste acceptance criteria after repackaging and characterization/
certification. DOE believes this to be the most realistic situation
with respect to the operation of WIPP and the National TRU Program,
which is currently being developed. The extensive treatment
configuration alternative would use vitrification for both transuranic
and alpha waste and would require a larger and more expensive
vitrification facility. The limited treatment configuration alternative
does not include a vitrification facility. It assumes that WIPP will
receive a no-migration variance from the EPA, and that the transuranic
waste transportation containers will be developed to allow Pu-238 waste
to be safely transported to WIPP. Thus, all SRS transuranic waste would
be disposed of at WIPP without additional treatment under the limited
treatment configuration alternative. Both of these assumptions rely on
developments that have not yet occuurred. Therefore, this alternative
is more speculative that the moderate treatment configuration
alternative.
* In the moderate treatment alternative, hazardous wastes are
treated onsite subject to availability of onsite treatment capacity and
compatibility with onsite technologies used to manage mixed waste. This
alternative provides the most extensive utilization of existing onsite
facilities, supplemented by use of offsite treatment and disposal
options. The extensive treatment configuration alternative would call
for new facilities (i.e., non-alpha vitrification) for treatment of
hazardous waste while the limited treatment configuration alternative
would rely on offsite treatment and disposal of hazardous waste.
* The moderate treatment configuration alternative provides the
best volume reduction for low-activity waste (75 percent reduction in
the moderate treatment alternative compared to 22 percent for the
limted treatment configuration alternative and 70 percent for extensive
treatment configuration), and thus conserves space in low-activity
waste vaults, requires the lowest number of low-activity waste vaults,
and thus avoids expenditures of land and money.
* The moderate treatment configuration alternative results in the
smallest number of additional transuranic and alpha waste storage pads
(10 compared to 12 and 11 for limited and extensive treatment
alternatives, respectively). It also results in the smallest number of
disposal facilities (low activity waste vaults, shallow land disposal
trenches, and RCRA-permitted vaults). The total number of these
disposal facilities are 85 for the moderate treatment configuration
alternative, compared to 151 under the limited treatment alternative,
and 167 under the extensive treatment configuration alternative.
* The moderate treatment configuration alternative results in the
least construction-related air emissions. The largest percentage
increase over current emissions would be from carbon monoxide (existing
sources at 171 micrograms per cubic meter, compared to the 1-hr
standard of 40,000 micrograms per cubic meter) at 673 micrograms per
cubic meter for the moderate treatment configuration alternative. This
compares to 769 and 737 micrograms per cubic meter for the limited and
extensive treatment configuration alternatives, respectively. The
diffferences between these increases would be insignificant.
* The moderate treatment configuration alternative employs less
thermal treatment than the extensive treatment configuration
alternative, under which a greater volume of waste would undergo
thermal treatment through vitrification. The moderate treatment
configuration alternative would result in lower emissions and smaller
radiological air impacts to workers and the public than would occur
under the extensive treatment configuration alternative. Under both
alternatives, however, the impacts would be very small and the
difference would be insignificant. (For example, the maximally exposed
offsite individual's probability of a fatal cancer probability is
estimated to be 1.7 x 10-8 for the moderate treatment
configuration alternative and 9.0 x 10-8 for the extensive
treatment configuration alternatives.)
* The moderate treatment configuration alternative life cycle cost
($6.9 billion) is higher than the extensive treatment configuration
alternative ($5.6 billion). However, the extensive treatment
configuration alternative would require greater expenditures in the
near term, and would be difficult for DOE to fund.
Environmental Impacts
In eight resource categories (socioeconomic, groundwater, surface
water, air, traffic, transportation, occupational health and public
health) the difference among the total impacts from any one alternative
as compared to any other would be indistinguishable. Nevertheless, the
no action alternative would not allow DOE to comply with all applicable
requirements, and is therefore unacceptable.
For the expected waste forecast, the greatest differences among
alternatives are in potential land use and potential impacts on
ecological resources. The moderate and extensive treatment
configuration alternatives would require the most additional land.
These configurations would also require the most acres to be cleared.
All of the additional land that would be needed is included within the
current boundary of the area at the SRS that has been designated for
waste management activities in future land use plans. In proposing
sites for the waste management facilities, every effort was made to
efficiently use the available land in E-Area, the current SRS waste
management area. Land development plans have considered the change in
demand for waste management facilities over the 30 year period
considered in the EIS. For example, mixed waste storage buildings and
transuranic and alpha waste storage pads required during the period
while treatment capacity is being developed would be converted to long
term use as long-lived waste storage buildings. In other instances, the
buildings or pads would be removed and the land used as the location
for new facilities.
[[Page 55254]]
DOE has conducted a survey of the forested lands within the SRS
waste management area and determined that there are no threatened or
endangered species or critical habitats on this land. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have
concurred in DOE's determination.
Mitigation
Based upon the above discussion, DOE believes that all practicable
means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the moderate
treatment alternative have already been adopted. DOE believes that all
appropriate mitigation measures are included in the moderate treatment
alternative.
There are 12 archaeological sites within the SRS waste management
facility boundary that may be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. Potential impacts to these sites will be
achieved by avoiding them, if possible. If avoidance is not possible,
there will be an archaeological excavation of the sites before any land
clearing begins. Mitigation will be conducted in consultation with the
South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office.
Conclusion
DOE has determined that the most appropriate method of managing
low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic wastes at SRS,
considering all relevant factors, is to implement the moderate
treatment configuration alternative. These factors include beneficial
and adverse environmental impacts, monetary costs, and regulatory
commitments.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 22, 1995.
Richard J. Guimond,
Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 95-26845 Filed 10-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
