[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 165 (Thursday, August 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46661-46663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22149]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste
Management Program: Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has decided to store
immobilized high-level radioactive waste (HLW), at three DOE-owned
sites (the Hanford Site in the State of Washington, the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site
in South Carolina) and one DOE-managed site (the West Valley
Demonstration Project in New
[[Page 46662]]
York, a project that is managed by DOE under the West Valley
Demonstration Project Act, at a site owned by the State of New York).
Immobilized HLW is a final waste form that will remain in storage until
accepted for disposal at a geologic repository. This decision is based
on the Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (WM PEIS).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the WM PEIS and this Record
of Decision (ROD) are available in DOE public reading rooms and
selected libraries located across the United States. A list of the
public reading rooms at which the WM PEIS and this ROD are available
can also be accessed on the DOE Office of Environmental Management's
World Wide Web site at http://www.em.doe.gov/em30/. To request copies
of the WM PEIS, this ROD, or a list of the reading rooms and public
libraries, please write or call: Center for Environmental Management
Information, P.O. Box 23769, Washington, DC 20026-3769, telephone: 1-
800-736-3282 (in Washington, DC: 202-863-5084).
For further information on the WM PEIS or this ROD, please write or
call: Ms. Karen Guevara, WM PEIS Program Manager, Office of Planning
and Analysis (EM-35), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Environmental Management, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874,
telephone: 301-903-4981.
For general information on the DOE National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process, please write or call: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom,
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety, and Health, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0119, telephone: 202-586-4600, or
leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
Supplementary Information:
Background
The Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(WM PEIS), DOE/EIS-0200F, issued in May 1997, studied the potential
nation-wide impacts of managing four types of radioactive waste (low-
level waste, mixed low-level waste, transuranic waste, high-level waste
(HLW)) and hazardous waste generated by defense and research activities
at 54 sites around the United States. Two Records of Decision (RODs)
have been issued, based in part on the analyses in the WM PEIS. These
are the transuranic waste treatment and storage ROD (63 FR 3629,
January 23, 1998) and the non-wastewater hazardous waste treatment ROD
(63 FR 41810, August 5, 1998). The ROD for low-level and mixed low-
level waste treatment and disposal is expected to be issued shortly.
The WM PEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of broad
alternatives for DOE's waste management program, and was designed to
provide part of the basis for DOE to decide upon a programmatic
configuration of sites for waste management activities. In addition,
DOE will perform site-wide or project-specific NEPA reviews, as needed,
to more specifically analyze site-specific waste management activities,
consistent with the selected programmatic approach. Those reviews
provide more focused analysis, including specific storage facility
capacities and design parameters. DOE will not decide the specific
location of any new facilities at sites selected to store HLW, or
specific facility capacities and designs, until the completion of these
follow-on NEPA reviews.
This ROD applies only to the storage of immobilized HLW as analyzed
in the WM PEIS. DOE prepared this ROD in accordance with NEPA (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and DOE's
NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021).
High-Level Waste Storage
HLW is the highly radioactive waste resulting from the reprocessing
of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in
reprocessing and any solid material derived from the liquid waste that
contains fission products in sufficient concentrations, and other
highly radioactive material that is determined, consistent with
existing law, to require permanent isolation (DOE Order 435.1,
Radioactive Waste Management, July 1999). In Chapter 9 of the WM PEIS,
DOE analyzed alternatives for the storage of HLW, immobilized to a
final form, that has been or will be generated at three DOE-owned
sites: the Hanford Site in Washington, the Idaho National Environmental
Engineering Laboratory (INEEL), and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in
South Carolina, as well as at the West Valley Demonstration Project
(WVDP) in New York. The State of New York retains title to the WVDP
site and the stored HLW, but the waste has been treated by DOE pursuant
to the West Valley Demonstration Project Act. Discussion and agreement
with the State of New York would be necessary if DOE were to move the
HLW canisters to another site.
For all four sites, DOE needs to decide where to store the
immobilized HLW until its acceptance for disposal at a geologic
repository managed by DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. The Department is preparing an EIS on a proposal to
construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic
repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada for the disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Department plans to
distribute the draft Yucca Mountain EIS in August of 1999 for public
comment, and issue the Final EIS in the Fall of 2000. If Yucca Mountain
were eventually approved as the site of the nation's first geologic
repository, DOE intends to dispose high-level radioactive waste there.
For the HLW at Hanford, WVDP, and SRS, DOE has already selected
borosilicate glass poured into stainless steel canisters as the final
waste form. No decision on a final immobilized waste form has yet been
made for the HLW at INEEL but DOE is currently preparing the Idaho
High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition at the INEEL EIS (DOE/EIS-
02870) which will evaluate the environmental impacts associated with
alternative strategies for treatment, storage, and disposal (including
the waste form) of high-level and associated radioactive wastes at the
site, including offsite treatment options.
Alternatives Considered for Storage of Immobilized High-Level Waste
In the WM PEIS, the term ``alternative'' generally refers to a
nationwide configuration of sites for treating, storing, or disposing
of a waste type. In the case of HLW, however, the analysis did not
include the impacts of storing non-immobilized HLW, treating HLW, or
disposing of HLW. The following summarizes the alternatives DOE
analyzed for immobilized HLW storage.
No Action Alternative. A no action or ``status quo'' alternative
may not comply with applicable laws and regulations; however, analysis
of such an alternative is required under NEPA regulations, and provides
an environmental baseline against which the impacts of other
alternatives can be compared. Selection of the No Action Alternative,
in this case, would involve using only currently existing or approved
HLW storage facilities at DOE sites. Immobilized HLW canisters would be
stored at Hanford, SRS, and WVDP until transfer to a geologic
repository managed by DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. HLW at INEEL would be stored as a solidified calcine
material (a dry noncorrosive
[[Page 46663]]
granular solid) or as liquids, until its final disposition is
determined. Because sufficient storage capacity for the projected
number of HLW canisters is not already existing or approved at Hanford
and SRS, immobilization activities would have to be interrupted or
delayed, based on the rate at which a repository could accept the
immobilized HLW.
Decentralized Alternative. Selection of this alternative would
result in storing HLW, immobilized to a final form, where it was
generated or will be generated in the future. The activities that
differentiate the Decentralized Alternative from the No Action
Alternative would be the siting, construction and operation of new
storage facilities or the modification of existing storage facilities
at some sites. Hanford, SRS, and WVDP would store immobilized HLW
canisters, and INEEL would store HLW in a final immobilized form, yet
to be determined, until transfer to a geologic repository. This was
designated as the preferred alternative in the WM PEIS.
Regionalized Alternatives. Two alternatives were considered for
regionalized storage of immobilized HLW. Under Regionalized Alternative
1, immobilized HLW canisters would be stored at Hanford and SRS,
immobilized HLW canisters from WVDP would be transported to SRS, and
HLW at INEEL would be stored there after immobilization until the HLW
is accepted at a geologic repository. Under Regionalized Alternative 2,
HLW canisters would be stored at Hanford and SRS, HLW canisters from
WVDP would be transported to Hanford, and immobilized INEEL HLW would
be stored there until transfer to a geologic repository.
Centralized Alternative. Immobilized HLW from INEEL, and HLW
canisters from WVDP and SRS would be transported to Hanford where all
of the HLW would be stored with Hanford HLW canisters until transfer to
a geologic repository.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Table 9.16-1 in the Final WM PEIS summarizes the key impacts that
may be associated with storage of immobilized HLW. This table
quantifies potential worker health risks, transportation risks, and
costs for the various HLW alternatives analyzed in the WM PEIS. Chapter
9 details additional HLW impact areas analyzed in the WM PEIS,
including cultural resource and environmental justice concerns. All of
these impacts were considered in identifying environmentally preferable
alternatives and in making this waste storage decision.
The potential health and environmental impacts for all immobilized
HLW storage alternatives are generally low. Differences among the
alternatives are small, but the No Action, Decentralized (the preferred
option), and Regionalized 1 Alternatives have 1-2 fewer estimated
potential fatalities, over twenty years, than the Regionalized 2 and
Centralized Alternatives (total fatalities are estimated to range from
8 to 10 among each of the five alternatives.) Under the No Action
Alternative, however, immobilization of large quantities of HLW to a
stable, durable form would be delayed or interrupted, posing an
environmentally undesirable condition. Environmental impacts of the
Decentralized and Regionalized 1 Alternatives are essentially
comparable; however, the need for additional construction of a larger
facility under the Regionalized 1 Alternative makes the Decentralized
Alternative marginally more environmentally preferable. Additionally,
under the Decentralized Alternative, immobilized HLW would need to be
loaded and unloaded for transportation purposes less often, compared to
the other action alternatives, thereby reducing worker radiological
exposure. None of the alternatives would pose environmental justice
concerns.
Decision: Storage of High-Level Waste
The Department has selected the Decentralized Alternative, to store
immobilized HLW in a final form at the site of generation--Hanford,
INEEL, SRS, or WVDP--until transfer to a geologic repository.
This decision is the same as the WM PEIS preferred alternative. The
decision allows use of existing immobilized HLW storage capacity at SRS
and WVDP, and use of the previously decided, almost complete Canister
Storage Building at Hanford, which will provide partial storage for its
immobilized HLW. This approach also reduces environmental impacts that
would result from constructing larger storage facilities that would be
needed under the Regionalized and Centralized Alternatives.
Although transportation-related fatalities are essentially the same
for all the alternatives, the Decentralized Alternative results in
reduced immobilized HLW loading and unloading operations for
transportation purposes, as compared to the other action alternatives.
Additionally, transportation-related administrative considerations
involving the need for notification and emergency preparedness
training, and public concerns in transportation corridor states,
weighed in favor of the Decentralized Alternative when compared to the
Regionalized and Centralized Alternatives.
DOE also considered uncertainties about the timing of accepting HLW
at a geologic repository. Stakeholders and local governments have
expressed concerns that sites may store immobilized HLW for much longer
periods than the Department's plans currently indicate. The
Department's selection of the Decentralized Alternative apportions the
amount of such HLW to be stored according to the quantity of HLW
generated at each site.
Mitigation
Although a mitigation action plan is not required because no non-
routine mitigation commitments are being made, Chapter 12 of the WM
PEIS describes measures that DOE takes in order to minimize the impacts
of its waste management activities. Mitigation measures are an integral
part of the Department's operations, so as to avoid, reduce, or
eliminate potentially adverse environmental impacts. Some of the more
important routine mitigation measures that DOE will continue to use in
its management of radioactive waste are:
Modifying engineering facility designs to reduce or
eliminate risk or impacts;
Implementing strict and mandatory safety programs for all
facility workers;
Using safety analyses to establish safety limits within
which facilities can operate, while limiting risks and adequately
protecting the environment; and
Reviewing and modifying, as appropriate, existing
emergency action plans at DOE sites to ensure appropriate response to
accidents or other emergencies.
Site-specific, non-routine mitigation measures may also be
identified and implemented in the course of further decision-making
under site-specific NEPA reviews.
Issued in Washington, DC this 12th day of August, 1999.
Carolyn L. Huntoon,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 99-22149 Filed 8-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
