[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8068-8076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3987]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Second Record of Decision on Management of Certain Plutonium
Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing a Second Record of
Decision for processing certain categories of plutonium residues for
disposal or other disposition as specified in the Preferred Alternative
contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Management of
Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site (the Final EIS, DOE/EIS-0277F, August
1998). The material categories covered by this Record of Decision are:
(1) Incinerator ash residues, (2) Graphite fines residues, (3)
Inorganic ash residues, (4) Molten salt extraction/electrorefining salt
residues, (5) Direct oxide reduction salt residues (high plutonium
concentration), (6) High-efficiency particulate air filter media
residues, and (7) Sludge residues.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS, the first Record of Decision, and
this Second Record of Decision are available in the public reading
rooms and libraries identified in the Federal Register Notice that
announced the availability of the Final EIS (63 FR 46006, August 28,
1998), or by calling the Center for Environmental Management
Information at 1-800-736-3282 (toll free) or 202-863-5084 (in
Washington, DC).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the management of
plutonium residues and scrub alloy currently stored at the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site, contact: Ms. Patty Bubar, Acting
Director, Rocky Flats Office (EM-64), Office of Nuclear Material and
Facility Stabilization, Environmental Management, U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone:
301-903-7130.
For information concerning the Final EIS or either Record of
Decision, contact: Mr. Charles R. Head, Senior Technical Advisor,
Office of Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization (EM-60),
Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: 202-586-5151.
[[Page 8069]]
For information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy
and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: 202-586-4600, or leave a
message at 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Synopsis of the Decision
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced issuance of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Certain Plutonium
Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site (Final EIS, DOE/EIS-0277F) on August 28, 1998 (63 FR
46006, August 28, 1998). In the Final EIS, DOE considered the potential
environmental impacts of a proposed action to process certain plutonium
residues and scrub alloy currently stored at the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site (Rocky Flats) near Golden, Colorado in
preparation for disposal or other disposition. After consideration of
the Final EIS, including public comments submitted on the Draft EIS,
and public comments submitted following issuance of the Final EIS, DOE
issued a First Record of Decision on November 25, 1998 (63 FR 66136,
December 1, 1998), on nine of the categories of material addressed in
the Final EIS.
After further consideration of the Final EIS, including public
comments submitted on the Draft EIS, and public comments submitted
following issuance of the Final EIS, DOE has decided to implement the
Preferred Alternative specified in the Final EIS for the remaining
categories of material covered in the Final EIS, namely: (1)
Incinerator ash residues, (2) Graphite fines residues, (3) Inorganic
ash residues, (4) Molten salt extraction/electrorefining salt residues,
(5) Direct oxide reduction salt residues (high plutonium
concentration), (6) High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter media
residues, and (7) Sludge residues.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative for these materials
will involve the following:
1. Up to approximately 32,160 kg of plutonium residues (containing
up to approximately 1,970 kg of plutonium) will be processed at Rocky
Flats and packaged in preparation for disposal in the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. This includes all of the residues
covered by this Record of Decision, except for the residues discussed
in the following paragraph.
2. Approximately 727 kg of direct oxide reduction (DOR) salt
residues (containing up to about 139 kg of plutonium) will either be
(1) pyro-oxidized (if necessary), followed by repackaging (with
blending, if necessary, to no more than 10 percent plutonium), at Rocky
Flats, or (2) pyro-oxidized at Rocky Flats (if necessary), followed by
acid dissolution/plutonium oxide recovery at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL). DOE expects that no more than approximately 306 kg
of the DOR salts will have to be shipped to LANL for processing, with
the remainder, and possibly all, of the DOR salts being processed at
Rocky Flats. Any plutonium that is separated at LANL will be converted
to an oxide and will be placed into safe and secure storage, along with
a larger quantity of plutonium already in storage at LANL, until DOE
has completed the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact
Statement (DOE/EIS-0283, under preparation, draft issued in July 1998;
see Section VI. E. 2, below, for additional discussion of the plutonium
disposition topic) and made final decisions on the disposition of the
separated plutonium. Transuranic wastes generated during the acid
dissolution operations at LANL will be sent to WIPP for disposal. Other
wastes generated during the chemical separations operations will be
disposed of in accordance with LANL's normal procedures for disposing
of such wastes.
The only shipments of plutonium residues for offsite processing
that might occur under this Record of Decision are shipments of no more
than about 306 kg of high assay DOR salt residues to LANL. Shipment of
transuranic wastes from processed Rocky Flats plutonium residues was
analyzed in National Environmental Policy Act documentation previously
completed for WIPP.
The actions summarized above are scheduled to take place at Rocky
Flats and LANL between 1999 and 2004.
II. Background
During the Cold War, DOE and its predecessor agencies conducted
various activities associated with the production of nuclear weapons.
Several intermediate products and wastes were generated as a result of
those operations, some of which are still in storage at various DOE
sites, including Rocky Flats. Now that the Cold War is over and the
United States has ceased production of fissile nuclear weapons
materials, DOE is conducting activities to safely manage, clean up, and
dispose of (where appropriate) the intermediate products and wastes
from prior nuclear weapons production activities. Among the
intermediate products and wastes requiring proper management and
preparation for disposal or other disposition are approximately 106,600
kg of plutonium residues and 700 kg of scrub alloy currently stored at
Rocky Flats.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), in its
Recommendation 94-1, addressed health and safety concerns regarding
various materials at Rocky Flats, including the plutonium residues and
scrub alloy. The Board concluded that hazards could arise from
continued storage of these materials in their current forms and
recommended that they be stabilized as expeditiously as possible.
Approximately 64,400 kg of the plutonium residues in storage at Rocky
Flats contain very low concentrations of plutonium and are currently
being stabilized under the Solid Residue Treatment, Repackaging, and
Storage Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
(Solid Residue EA, DOE/EA-1120, April 1996), thus preparing them for
disposal. However, the remaining 42,200 kg of plutonium residues, which
contain higher concentrations of plutonium, and all 700 kg of scrub
alloy (not analyzed in the Solid Residue EA) require processing for
stabilization and to prepare them for disposal or other disposition.
These materials are addressed in the Final EIS.
The approximately 42,200 kg of plutonium residues consist of
several heterogeneous categories of materials (e.g., ashes, salts,
combustible materials, sludges, pieces of glass, pieces of graphite).
On average, the plutonium residues contain about 6% plutonium by
weight, although a small amount of the plutonium residues contains well
above the average percentage of plutonium by weight. For example, the
315 kg of plutonium fluoride residues (less than 1 percent of the
material addressed in the Final EIS) contains approximately 45%
plutonium by weight. The approximately 700 kg of scrub alloy (less than
2 percent of the material addressed in the Final EIS) consists
primarily of a metallic alloy of magnesium, aluminum, americium, and
plutonium, containing approximately 29% plutonium by weight.
Although the average concentration of plutonium in the 42,200 kg of
residues is small, there is still enough plutonium present (about 2,600
kg) to subject the residues to a special set of requirements (referred
to as ``safeguards and security'' requirements) to maintain control of
the materials and ensure that the plutonium in them is not stolen or
diverted for illicit use, perhaps in a nuclear weapon. The 700 kg of
scrub alloy, with its
[[Page 8070]]
greater plutonium concentration, is also subject to safeguards and
security requirements. Prior to disposal or other disposition of the
residues and scrub alloy, action must be taken to reduce the plutonium
concentration in the materials, make the plutonium more difficult to
remove from the materials, or otherwise implement steps to ensure that
the plutonium would not be stolen or diverted for illicit purposes.
This process is referred to as ``termination of safeguards'' or
``meeting safeguards termination limits''.
Accordingly, the Purpose and Need for Agency Action addressed in
the Final EIS was to evaluate action alternatives for processing the
approximately 42,200 kg of plutonium residues and 700 kg of scrub alloy
currently in storage at Rocky Flats to address the health and safety
concerns regarding storage of the materials, as raised by the Board in
its Recommendation 94-1, and to prepare the materials for offsite
disposal or other disposition (including termination of safeguards,
when appropriate). The action alternatives evaluated would be
implemented in a manner that supports closure of Rocky Flats by 2006
and limits worker exposure and waste production. Disposal or other
disposition would eliminate the health and safety concerns associated
with indefinite storage of these materials.
Subsequent to completion of the Final EIS, DOE completed
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the
Endangered Species Act. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
provides Federal agencies with the authority to determine whether a
proposed Federal action may affect protected species or habitats and,
if the agency determines that it will not (i.e., makes a ``no effect''
determination), then no consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service
is required. Rather than specifying a ``no effect'' determination, the
Final EIS concludes that the proposed processing of plutonium residues
and scrub alloy is not likely to adversely affect threatened or
endangered species or critical habitats in areas involved in this
proposal. (Although indicating some effect on threatened or endangered
species, a ``not likely to adversely affect'' determination falls short
of a determination that a species or critical habitat is likely to be
adversely affected overall by the proposed action.)
Upon further review of the likely impacts of the proposed
processing, DOE concludes that a ``no effect'' determination would have
been more appropriate in this case because DOE does not believe that
the proposed processing will affect protected species or critical
habitats overall. Therefore, no consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service is required.
The decision process reflected in this Record of Decision complies
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations at 10
CFR Part 1021. Further, section 308 of the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-245) specifies
that: ``None of the funds in this Act may be used to dispose of
transuranic waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant which contains
concentrations of plutonium in excess of 20 percent by weight for the
aggregate of any material category on the date of enactment of this
Act, or is generated after such date.'' The decisions specified in this
Record of Decision comply with the requirements of P.L. 105-245.
As noted above and in accordance with a plan described in Section
1.4.2 of the Final EIS, DOE has already issued a first Record of
Decision on the other categories of materials (plutonium residues and
scrub alloy) within the scope of the Final EIS. The material categories
covered by the First Record of Decision are: (1) Sand, slag and
crucible residues, (2) Direct oxide reduction salt residues (low
plutonium concentration), (3) Combustible residues, (4) Plutonium
fluoride residues, (5) Ful Flo filter media residues, (6) Glass
residues, (7) Graphite residues, (8) Inorganic (metal and other)
residues, and (9) Scrub alloy. All of these materials will also be
processed in accordance with the Preferred Alternative specified in the
Final EIS.
III. Alternatives Evaluated in the Final EIS
DOE evaluated the following alternatives for management of the
Rocky Flats plutonium residues covered by this Record of Decision.
These alternatives are the same as the alternatives described in the
first Record of Decision, although the processing technologies listed
here are those that apply to the material categories covered by this
Second Record of Decision:
III. A. Alternative 1 (No Action--Stabilize and Store)
This alternative consists of stabilization or repackaging to
prepare the material for interim storage as described in the Rocky
Flats Solid Residue Environmental Assessment. Under this alternative,
further processing to prepare the materials for disposal or other
disposition would not occur. Under this alternative, approximately 40
percent of the Rocky Flats plutonium residues would be left in a form
that would not meet the requirements for termination of safeguards,
thus making these materials ineligible for disposal. Thus, while
implementation of this alternative would address the immediate health
and safety concerns associated with near-term storage of the materials,
the health and safety risks associated with potential long-term storage
of these materials would remain.
III. B. Alternative 2 (Processing Without Plutonium Separation)
Under this alternative, the materials would be processed to convert
them into forms that would meet the requirements for termination of
safeguards. The materials would be ready for shipment to WIPP in New
Mexico for disposal.
The technologies evaluated for use under this alternative for the
material categories covered by this Record of Decision are listed in
Table 1.
Table 1.--Alternative 2 Processing Technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material category Processing technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerator ash residues and Calcination followed by
Inorganic ash residues. vitrification.
................................. Cold Ceramification (incinerator
ash residues only).
Calcination followed by blend down.
Graphite fines residues............ Vitrification.
Blend down.
Molten salt extraction/ Blend down.
electrorefining salt residues.
DOR salt residues (high plutonium Blend down.
concentration).
HEPA filter media residues......... Calcination followed by
vitrification.
Blend down.
[[Page 8071]]
Sonic wash.
Sludge residues.................... Calcination followed by
vitrification.
Blend down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the technologies specified in Table 1 would be implemented
onsite at Rocky Flats. The blend down operation referred to in Table 1
would consist of mixing the plutonium residues within the scope of the
Final EIS with other, lower plutonium content residues that are also
planned for disposal in WIPP, or with inert material, so that the
resulting mixture would be below the safeguards termination limits.
III. C. Alternative 3 (Processing With Plutonium Separation)
Under this alternative, the plutonium residues and scrub alloy
would be processed to separate plutonium from the material and
concentrate it so that the secondary waste would meet the requirements
for termination of safeguards and be ready for disposal, while the
separated and concentrated plutonium would be placed in safe and secure
storage pending disposition in accordance with decisions to be made
under the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement.
DOE would not use this plutonium for nuclear explosive purposes.
The technologies evaluated for use under this alternative for the
material categories covered by this Record of Decision are listed in
Table 2. These technologies would be implemented at the sites specified
in Table 2.
Table 2.--Alternative 3 Processing Technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing
Material category technology Processing site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerator ash residues.... Purex processing.... Savannah River Site.
Mediated
Electrochemical
Oxidation.
Graphite fines residues..... Mediated Savannah River Site.
Electrochemical
Oxidation.
Inorganic ash residues...... None................
Molten salt--extraction/ Salt distillation... Rocky Flats or LANL.
electrorefining salt
residues.
Salt scrub followed Rocky Flats/Savannah
by Purex processing. River Site.
Water leach......... Rocky Flats.
DOR salt residues (high Salt scrub followed Rocky Flats/Savannah
plutonium concentration). by Purex processing. River Site.
Water leach......... Rocky Flats or LANL.
Acid dissolution.... LANL.
HEPA filter media residues.. Mediated Rocky Flats.
Electrochemical
Oxidation.
Sludge residues (not incl. Acid dissolution.... Rocky Flats.
Item Description Codes
[IDCs] 089, 099 and 332).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. D. Alternative 4 (Combination of Processing Technologies)
Under this alternative, the residues would be stabilized and
blended down, if necessary, and repackaged in preparation for shipment
of the material to WIPP. Blend down would be conducted so that none of
the residues processed under this alternative would contain more than
10% plutonium by weight. Termination of safeguards would be
accomplished through use of a variance to the safeguards requirements.
A variance is the record of a review process whereby DOE's Office of
Safeguards and Security approves a proposal by another part of DOE to
terminate safeguards on specific quantities of safeguarded materials
because of special circumstances that make the safeguards controls
unnecessary. The variance to safeguards termination limits that is
required to allow implementation of this alternative was approved by
the DOE Office of Safeguards and Security after conducting a detailed
review and extensive vulnerability assessment regarding the alternative
mechanisms that would be used to protect and control access to the
material. The Office of Safeguards and Security concluded that the
nature of the residues, the relatively low concentration of plutonium
in the residues after blend down (if necessary), and the waste
management controls that would be in effect during the transportation
to and staging at WIPP prior to disposal would be sufficient to provide
a level of protection for the materials comparable to that required by
safeguards.
III. E. Strategic Management Approaches
Theoretically, it would be possible to process all of the residues
using only one of the alternatives listed above (e.g., all the
materials would be processed under a single alternative, except for
certain material categories for which there is no processing technology
under that alternative). Nevertheless, in practice, DOE recognized in
preparing the EIS that the most appropriate technologies were likely to
be chosen separately for each material category by selecting from among
the technologies in all the alternatives. However, there are too many
combinations of material categories, processing technologies and
processing sites to address each individual combination in the EIS in a
manner that would be easily understandable. As a result, in addition to
individually evaluating technologies that could be used to implement
the alternatives for each material category, DOE also evaluated several
``Strategic Management Approaches.'' These approaches involve
compilations of sets of processing technologies which would allow a
specific management criterion to be met. The management criteria
addressed in the Strategic Management Approaches are as follows:
1. No Action (i.e., Alternative 1 discussed above)
[[Page 8072]]
2. Preferred Alternative (Discussed in more detail in Section III.
F. below).
3. Minimizing Total Processing Duration at Rocky Flats.
4. Minimizing Cost.
5. Conducting all Processing at Rocky Flats.
6. Conducting the Fewest Actions at Rocky Flats.
7. Processing with the Maximum Amount of Plutonium Separation.
8. Processing without Plutonium Separation.
The decisions on which technology to implement have been made
separately for each material category covered by this Record of
Decision; the Strategic Management Alternatives were merely
illustrative. Nevertheless, evaluation of the Strategic Management
Approaches allowed presentation of the environmental impacts of the
proposed action as one set of data, instead of separate sets of data
representing the impacts from management of each of the material
categories individually. Examination of the various Strategic
Management Approaches also allowed DOE and the public to determine
whether there are any significant differences between the impacts that
would result from implementation of one Strategic Management Approach
as compared to any other.
III. F. Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative was constructed by selecting a preferred
technology for each material category from among the action
alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3 and 4) described above.
The technologies that comprise the Preferred Alternative for the
material categories covered by this Record of Decision are listed in
Table 3 (the bases for selection of these technologies are discussed in
Section 2.4 of the Final EIS and in Section VI of this Record of
Decision). These technologies would be implemented at the sites
specified in Table 3.
Table 3.--Preferred Alternative Processing Technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing
Material category technology Processing site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerator ash residues.... Repackage Rocky Flats.
(Alternative 4).
Graphite fines residues..... Repackage Rocky Flats.
(Alternative 4).
Inorganic ash residues...... Repackage Rocky Flats.
(Alternative 4).
Molten salt extraction/ Repackage Rocky Flats.
electrorefining salt (Alternative 4).
residues.
DOR salt residues (high Pyro-oxidation (if Rocky Flats and
plutonium concentration). necessary) followed LANL.
by acid dissolution
(Alternative 3).
Pyro-oxidation (if Rocky Flats.
necessary) followed
by blend down and
repackaging
(Alternative 4).
HEPA filter media residues.. Neutralize (if Rocky Flats.
necessary) and
repackage
(Alternative 4).
Sludge residues............. Filter/dry, if Rocky Flats.
necessary, and
repackage
(Alternative 4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Other Factors
In addition to comparing the environmental impacts of implementing
the various alternatives, DOE also considered other factors in reaching
the decisions announced here. These other factors included issues
raised by comments received during scoping, or on the Draft and Final
versions of the EIS. The other factors considered are briefly
summarized in the following paragraphs.
IV. A. Nonproliferation
Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons has been a fundamental
national security and foreign policy goal of the United States since
1945. The current United States policy is summarized in the White House
Fact Sheet on Nonproliferation and Export Control Policy, dated
September 27, 1993. This policy makes it clear that the United States
does not encourage the civil use of plutonium and, accordingly, does
not itself engage in plutonium reprocessing for either nuclear power or
nuclear explosives purposes. In addition, it is United States policy to
seek to eliminate where possible the accumulation of stockpiles of
plutonium.
The alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS, including plutonium
separation alternatives, would result in varying levels of risk
associated with potential use of the plutonium in nuclear weapons,
either by the United States or an adversary. None of the alternatives
would eliminate the plutonium from the current inventory. Nevertheless,
as discussed in Section 4.1.9 of the Final EIS, all of the action
alternatives would result in appropriate management of the plutonium
residues and scrub alloy to ensure that they are not stolen or diverted
for illicit purposes. Furthermore, all of the action alternatives set
the stage for significantly reducing the proliferation risk posed by
the plutonium in the plutonium residues and scrub alloy by preparing
these materials for disposal or other disposition in a form that is
highly proliferation resistant (i.e., a form which contains very little
plutonium per unit weight, from which the plutonium would be especially
difficult to extract, or for which other measures are taken to ensure
sufficient security). In addition, because of the potential concern
regarding any processing and consolidating of plutonium that might be
accomplished by DOE, the Secretary of Energy has committed that any
plutonium-239 separated or stabilized for health and safety purposes
would be prohibited from use for nuclear explosive purposes
(Secretarial Action Memorandum approved on December 20, 1994). This
prohibition would apply to plutonium-239 processed through actions
implemented by this Record of Decision.
IV. B. Technology Availability and Technical Feasibility
DOE considered technology availability and technical feasibility in
identifying processing technologies to be evaluated in the Final EIS
and in making the decisions specified in Section VI of this Record of
Decision. DOE considered the extent to which technology development
would be required and the likelihood of success of such endeavors. All
of the technologies evaluated in the Final EIS are technically
feasible. In general, however, the more that processing technologies
vary from the historical processes and facilities used by DOE, the
greater the technical uncertainty and extent to which new facilities or
modifications to existing facilities would have to be made (as
discussed in Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS).
[[Page 8073]]
IV. C. Timing
DOE considered the degree to which the various technologies that
could potentially be used in management of the plutonium residues and
scrub alloy would support DOE's plans for cleanup of the radioactive,
chemical and other hazardous wastes left after 50 years of nuclear
weapons production by the United States, as outlined in the document
titled Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure (DOE/EM-0362, June 1998),
including the goal of closing Rocky Flats by 2006.
IV. D. Cost
In reaching decisions on processing technologies, an important
consideration for DOE was cost. DOE evaluated the costs of implementing
the various processing technologies for each material category on both
an individual basis and collectively. DOE estimates it would cost from
approximately $428 million to $814 million to implement the Strategic
Management Approaches (other than No Action) analyzed in the Final EIS.
An even larger expenditure (approximately $1.1 billion) would be
required to pay for continued storage of the nuclear materials if DOE
chose to implement the No Action alternative. On the other hand, DOE
expects that the annual costs of operating and maintaining Rocky Flats
facilities will decrease as nuclear materials are removed from the
site. DOE expects further reductions in costs as the Rocky Flats
facilities are deactivated.
V. Comments on the Final EIS
The only comments on the Final EIS were received by DOE prior to
issuance of the first Record of Decision. The responses to those
comments were provided in Section V of the first Record of Decision.
VI. Decision
DOE has decided to implement the proposed action in the manner
described in this section. The alternatives that DOE has decided to
implement are presented separately below for each material category
because the decisions on the selected technology were based on
considerations that are unique to the chemical and physical
characteristics of the individual material categories. Furthermore,
these decisions are independent of one another and are not connected to
the decisions that were made in the first Record of Decision. Although
alternative technologies analyzed in the EIS might use certain common
facilities or personnel, sufficient facility capacity and personnel are
available to allow use of any technology without interfering with any
other.
For clarity and brevity, this section also includes the discussion
of the environmentally preferable alternative (as required by CEQ
regulations [40 CFR 1505.2]) and the basis for selection of the
alternative to be implemented.
The analysis of alternative technologies presented in the Final EIS
indicates that all of the alternative technologies, including those in
the Preferred Alternative and the No Action alternative, would have
only small impacts on the human environment on or around the DOE
management sites and on the populations along transportation routes
(see Sections 4.23 and 4.24 of the Final EIS). Using conservative
assumptions (i.e., assumptions that tend to overestimate risks), the
potential risks from incident-free operations and postulated accidents
that are of most interest would be those associated with radiation
exposure to workers performing processing operations on the plutonium
residues or near loaded transportation containers, and transportation
routes. The Final EIS also estimates (1) the risks from incident-free
operations and postulated accidents associated with chemical releases
and transportation accidents; (2) the amounts of various wastes and
other materials that would result from implementation of the various
alternative technologies; (3) the cost of implementing the various
alternative technologies; (4) the effect on nuclear weapons
nonproliferation; and (5) air quality impacts.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Although there are differences among the estimated impacts for the
various alternatives, the impacts would be small for any of the
alternative technologies, and the magnitude of the differences in
potential impacts between alternatives is small. In addition, the
nature of the potential impacts is such that comparing them is a very
judgmental process. For example, under the salt distillation at Rocky
Flats alternative (Alternative 3) for electrorefining and molten salt
extraction residues (not including IDC 409), only 519 drums of
transuranic waste would be generated, whereas the blend down at Rocky
Flats alternative for this material (Alternative 2) would generate
10,802 drums of transuranic waste. However, salt distillation would
also result in generation of 569 kg of separated plutonium, whereas
blend down would result in no separated plutonium. Comments received
from members of the public on the Draft EIS demonstrate that different
individuals would make different value judgements as to which of these
product/waste materials is of most concern. In addition to having no
indisputable means of identifying which waste or product stream would
be most important to minimize, there is no indisputable way to trade
off differences between the amounts of various types of waste and
separated plutonium against differences in levels of radiological risk
or chemical hazards, or between risks to workers versus risks to the
public (risks to the public would be lower than those to workers for
all technologies evaluated in the Final EIS).
In general, because of the small risks that would result from any
of the action alternatives (as demonstrated by Tables in Sections 2.10,
4.2, 4.3, 4.6 and 4.7 of the Final EIS) and the absence of any clear
basis for discerning an environmental preference, DOE considers that no
one of the action alternatives is clearly environmentally preferable
over any other action alternative. On the other hand, under the No
Action alternative, the materials would be left in storage at Rocky
Flats with no defined disposal path. There would be additional risk
associated with both the indefinite storage and whatever processing may
ultimately be determined to be necessary to prepare the material for
ultimate disposition. There would also be risks from potential
degradation of storage facilities and containers. Accordingly, in
consideration of the long-term risks that would be associated with
implementation of the No Action alternative, DOE considers that all of
the action alternatives are environmentally preferable over the No
Action alternative.
The processing technologies that DOE has decided to implement are
as follows for each material category addressed in this Record of
Decision:
VI. A. Incinerator Ash Residues
VI. A. 1. Selected Alternative
DOE has decided to repackage the incinerator ash residues to
prepare them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). Material that is
above 10 percent plutonium by weight will be blended with low plutonium
concentration material from the same Item Description Code (IDC), or
with inert material, to reach the 10 percent plutonium limit.
VI. A. 2. Basis for the Decision
Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be
implemented for this material category because it is the simplest and
least costly of all processing technologies considered, and the one
that will allow
[[Page 8074]]
DOE to complete processing and ready the material for disposal most
expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of resources that
would otherwise be required to manage these residues to accelerate
other activities required to close the site.
VI. B. Graphite Fines Residues
VI. B. 1. Selected Alternative
DOE has decided to repackage the graphite fines residues to prepare
them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). Material that is above 10
percent plutonium by weight will be blended with low plutonium
concentration material from the same IDC, or with inert material, to
reach the 10 percent plutonium limit.
VI. B. 2. Basis for the Decision
Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be
implemented for this material category because it is the simplest and
least costly of all processing technologies considered, and the one
that will allow DOE to complete processing and ready the material for
disposal most expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of
resources that would otherwise be required to manage these residues to
accelerate other activities required to close the site.
VI. C. Inorganic Ash Residues
VI. C. 1. Selected Alternative
DOE has decided to repackage the inorganic ash residues to prepare
them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). Material that is above 10
percent plutonium by weight will be blended with low plutonium
concentration material from the same IDC, or with inert material, to
reach the 10 percent plutonium limit.
VI. C. 2. Basis for the Decision
Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be
implemented for this material category because it is the simplest and
least costly of all processing technologies considered, and the one
that will allow DOE to complete processing and ready the material for
disposal most expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of
resources that would otherwise be required to manage these residues to
accelerate other activities required to close the site.
VI. D. Molten Salt Extraction/Electrorefining Salt Residues
VI. D. 1. Selected Alternative
DOE has decided to repackage the molten salt extraction/
electrorefining salt residues to prepare them for disposal in WIPP
(Alternative 4). Material that is above 10 percent plutonium by weight
will be blended with low plutonium concentration material from the same
salt category, or with inert material, to reach the 10 percent
plutonium limit.
VI. D. 2. Basis for the Decision
Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be
implemented for this material category because it is the simplest of
all processing technologies considered and the one that will allow the
site to complete processing and ready the material for disposal most
expeditiously. This approach will also allow use of the resources that
would otherwise be required to manage these residues to accelerate
completion of other activities required to close the site. Finally,
selection of repackaging avoids the technical uncertainty (discussed in
Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS) that would be associated with
implementation of the least expensive alternative, i.e., salt
distillation.
VI. E. Direct Oxide Reduction Salt Residues (High Plutonium
Concentration)
VI. E. 1. Selected Alternative
DOE has decided to take the following action for the high plutonium
concentration direct oxide reduction salt residues:
a. As much of the high plutonium concentration direct oxide
reduction salt residues as possible, and probably all, will be pyro-
oxidized (if necessary), and then repackaged (with blending to no more
than 10 percent plutonium, if necessary) at Rocky Flats to prepare them
for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4).
b. If any of the high plutonium concentration direct oxide
reduction salt residues are found to be unsuitable for processing as
described in the preceding paragraph, they would be transported to LANL
where the plutonium could be separated from the residues by acid
dissolution (Alternative 3). 1. Prior to shipment, these
residues would be pyro-oxidized at Rocky Flats (if necessary). The
recovered plutonium would be converted into an oxide and placed into
safe and secure storage, along with a larger quantity of plutonium
already in storage at LANL, until DOE has completed the Surplus
Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0283,
under preparation, draft issued in July 1998; see Section VI. E. 2,
below, for additional discussion of plutonium disposition) and made
final decisions on the disposition of the separated plutonium.
Transuranic wastes generated during the acid dissolution operations
would be sent to WIPP for disposal. Other wastes generated during the
chemical separations operations would be disposed of in accordance with
LANL's normal procedures for disposing of such wastes. DOE expects
that, at most, approximately 306 kg of the DOR salts might be shipped
to LANL for processing, with the remainder, and probably all, of the
DOR salts being processed at Rocky Flats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As stated in the Final EIS, Appendix B, end of Section
B.3.3.3, there are no Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
hazardous waste codes associated with any of the DOR salts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. E. 2. Basis for the Decision
Repackaging at Rocky Flats was chosen as the technology to be
implemented for as much of this material category as possible because
it is the simplest and least costly of all processing technologies
considered and the one that will allow the site to complete processing
and ready the material for disposal most expeditiously. This approach
will also allow use of the resources that would otherwise be required
to manage these residues to accelerate completion of other activities
required to close the site.
Acid dissolution/plutonium oxide recovery at LANL was selected as
the technology to be implemented for any material in this category that
cannot be repackaged as discussed above because this process will
result in shorter exposures of the workers to radiation than would be
experienced with the blend down process in Alternative 2, thus
providing health and safety benefits to the workers. Selection of acid
dissolution also avoids the technical uncertainty associated with the
water leach plutonium separation process (see Section 4.17.7 of the
Final EIS).
The Final EIS specified that any plutonium separated under any
alternative analyzed in this EIS would be disposed of using the
immobilization process. (Final EIS, page 2-2.) Upon further review, DOE
has decided for the following reasons not to make a determination at
this time on the disposition of any plutonium separated under the
decisions announced in this ROD. In December 1996, DOE published the
Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0229, the PEIS).
That PEIS analyzed, among other things, the potential environmental
consequences of alternative strategies for the long-term storage and
disposition of weapons-usable plutonium that has
[[Page 8075]]
been or may be declared surplus to national security needs. DOE
announced the Record of Decision for that PEIS in January 1997, which
outlines an approach to plutonium disposition that would allow for both
the immobilization of some of the surplus plutonium, and the use of
some of the surplus plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in existing
domestic, commercial reactors (62 FR 3014, January 21, 1997).
As a follow-on analysis to that PEIS, DOE is in the process of
preparing the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact
Statement, which addresses the extent to which each of the two surplus
plutonium disposition approaches (immobilization and MOX) would be
implemented. Thus, at the present time, DOE has not decided the extent
to which either the immobilization or the MOX approach to surplus
plutonium disposition would be implemented. Moreover, as noted above,
even after completion of the Surplus Plutonium Disposition
Environmental Impact Statement, DOE does not expect to make decisions
about which, if any, of the surplus plutonium would be used in MOX fuel
until shortly before any such material would be transferred to a MOX
fuel fabrication facility. Thus, DOE believes at this time it is
appropriate not to make any commitment as to which approach would be
implemented for the disposition of any plutonium to be separated under
the decisions announced in this Second Record of Decision.
The plutonium declared to be surplus includes any weapons-useable
plutonium resulting from the stabilization (for health and safety
reasons) of the Rocky Flats DOR salt residues discussed under this
Second Record of Decision. As a result, weapons-useable plutonium that
is separated under actions from this Second Record of Decision is a
candidate for both of the surplus weapons-useable plutonium disposition
alternatives that have been identified by DOE (i.e., MOX and
immobilization).
VI. F. HEPA Filter Media Residues
VI. F. 1. Selected Alternative
DOE has decided to neutralize and dry the HEPA filter media in IDC
338, as necessary, and then repackage them in preparation for disposal
in WIPP. DOE has determined that the other HEPA filter media do not
need to be neutralized and dried. They will be repackaged in
preparation for disposal in WIPP.
VI. F. 2. Basis for the Decision
The average concentration of plutonium in the HEPA filter media
residues is less than 10 percent, allowing them to be prepared for
disposal in WIPP with little processing. Selection of the repackaging
alternative (Alternative 4) allows DOE to use resources that would
otherwise be required to process the HEPA filter media to accelerate
completion of other activities required to process other residues and
close the site. It also allows DOE to avoid the technical uncertainty
(discussed in Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS) that would be associated
with selection of the less expensive vitrification technology or the
uncertainty (also discussed in Section 4.17.7 of the Final EIS)
associated with whether the less expensive blend down alternative would
be sufficient to eliminate the safety concerns associated with nitric
acid contaminated filters.
VI. G. Sludge Residues
VI. G. 1. Selected Alternative
DOE has decided to repackage all sludge residues in IDCs 089, 099
and 332 to prepare them for disposal in WIPP (Alternative 4). DOE has
decided to filter and dry all of the other sludge residues, as
necessary, and then repackage them to prepare them for disposal in WIPP
(Alternative 4).
VI. G. 2. Basis for the Decision
Repackaging under Alternative 4 was selected for the sludges in
IDCs 089, 099 and 332 because they would be difficult to process by
other means. Furthermore, their small quantity (about 7 kg bulk [0.95
kg plutonium]) makes them particularly easy to process by repackaging.
Use of repackaging under Alternative 4 for the sludges in IDCs 089, 099
and 332 will avoid the technical uncertainties (discussed in Section
4.17.7 of the Final EIS) that would be associated with the
vitrification alternative.
Filtration and drying, followed by repackaging under Alternative 4,
was selected for the remaining sludge residues because it is the
simplest of all processing technologies considered and the one that
will allow the site to complete processing and ready the material for
disposal most expeditiously. This approach will allow use of the
resources that would otherwise be required to manage these residues to
accelerate completion of other activities required to close the site.
It will also avoid the uncertainty regarding whether the less expensive
blend down alternative would be sufficient to address the safety issues
related to the nitric acid and solvent contamination of the sludges.
VII. Use of All Practical Means To Avoid or Minimize Harm
Implementation of this decision will result in low environmental
and health impacts. However, DOE will take the following steps to avoid
or minimize harm wherever possible:
VII. A.
DOE will use current safety and health programs and practices to
reduce impacts by maintaining worker radiation exposure as low as
reasonably achievable and by meeting appropriate waste minimization and
pollution prevention objectives.
VII. B.
DOE will provide a level of health and safety for DOE
transportation operations that is equivalent to or greater than that
provided by compliance with all applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and
local regulations. In addition to meeting applicable shipping
containment and confinement requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission regulations on Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive
Material (10 CFR Part 71) and Department of Transportation regulations
at 49 CFR, all packaging for transportation of the material covered by
this Record of Decision will also be certified by DOE. DOE also
provides Federal, State, Tribal and local authorities with access to
training and technical assistance necessary to allow them to safely,
efficiently, and effectively respond to any incident involving
transportation of the materials covered by this Record of Decision.
Items A and B above will be accomplished under existing business
practices in the normal course of implementing this Record of Decision.
VIII. Conclusion
DOE has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative specified in
the Final EIS to prepare the plutonium residue categories specified in
Sections I and VI of this Record of Decision for disposal or other
disposition. This decision is effective upon being made public, in
accordance with DOE's NEPA implementation regulations (10 CFR
1021.315). The goal of this decision is to prepare the plutonium
residues for disposal or other disposition in a manner that addresses
immediate health and safety concerns associated with storage of the
materials, and that also supports Rocky Flats closure. Disposal or
other disposition of these materials will also eliminate health and
safety concerns and costs that would be
[[Page 8076]]
associated with indefinite storage of these materials.
Issued in Washington, D.C. this 11th day of February, 1999.
James M. Owendoff,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 99-3987 Filed 2-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
