[Federal Register: April 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 23733-23737]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ap04-45]
[[Page 23733]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Logistics Agency
Record of Decision for the Final Mercury Management Environmental
Impact Statement; Notice
AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, Defense National Stockpile Center,
DoD.
ACTION: Notice of availability of a Record of Decision for the Final
Mercury Management Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) announces the availability
of the Record of Decision for the Final Mercury Management
Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). This announcement is made
pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR
parts 1500-1508) and the DLA regulation (DLAR 1000.22, Environmental
Considerations in DLA Actions in the United States) that implement the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Notices of Availability
for the Final EIS were published in the Federal Register on March 26,
2004 (69 FR 15820 and 15830).
The Defense National Stockpile Center (DNSC) has decided to
consolidate its commodity-grade, elemental mercury stockpile at one
site. This decision is based on a combination of environmental and
economic factors, policy considerations, and stakeholder comments. The
Consolidated Storage Alternative and the rationale for selecting it are
presented in detail in the Supplementary Information section. DNSC will
select a site for consolidated storage after completion of a
procurement process. If a site other than one of those evaluated in the
Final EIS is selected, additional environmental documentation may be
required.
The Final EIS analyzes in detail three alternatives for managing
the National Defense Stockpile inventory of excess mercury: (1) No
action, i.e., leave the mercury at the existing storage locations; (2)
consolidated storage of the mercury stockpile at one site; and (3) sale
of the stockpile. Agencies are required by regulation to identify a
preferred alternative in the final EIS. The preferred alternative is
the one that best meets an agency's objectives. The Consolidated
Storage Alternative is DNSC's Preferred Alternative in the Draft and
Final EIS. DNSC has selected Consolidated Storage at one site in this
Record of Decision as the alternative it will implement.
NEPA requires identification of an environmentally preferable
alternative in the record of decision. An environmentally preferable
alternative is the alternative that poses the fewest overall impacts
and the least risk. It may differ from both the preferred alternative
and the alternative selected for implementation in the record of
decision. DNSC has identified the No Action Alternative as the
Environmentally Preferable Alternative. Details are provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paper copies of the Final EIS (about
1,000 pages) and the Executive Summary (about 20 pages) are available
by writing to: Attention: Project Manager, Mercury Management EIS;
DNSC-E; Defense National Stockpile Center, 8725 John J. Kingman Road,
Suite 3229, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6223, or by calling toll free
at 1-888-306-6682. Electronic versions of the Final EIS, the Executive
Summary, and this Record of Decision are available on the Internet at
http://www.mercuryeis.com. Requests for information can be made by: leaving a
voice message at 1-888-306-6682 or faxing a message to 1-888-306-8818
(through May 31, 2004); emailing a request to
information@mercuryeis.com; or accessing the Mercury Management EIS Web
site at http://www.mercuryeis.com.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DNSC is responsible for the disposition of stockpiled materials
declared in excess of national defense needs. The U.S. Congress has
determined that the U.S. Department of Defense no longer needs to
maintain a stockpile of commodity-grade mercury because of the
increased use of mercury substitutes and because of increases in the
Nation's secondary mercury production through recovery and recycling.
Therefore, as custodian of the mercury, DNSC must decide on a strategy
for long-term management of this material.
The DNSC inventory of mercury (approximately 4,890 tons [4,436
metric tons]) is safely stored in enclosed warehouses at four sites in
the United States: Hillsborough, New Jersey (2,885 tons [2,617 metric
tons]); New Haven, Indiana (614 tons [557 metric tons]); Oak Ridge,
Tennessee (770 tons [699 metric tons]); and Warren, Ohio (621 tons [563
metric tons]). DNSC excess mercury was offered for sale in open
competitions until 1994, when concerns over mercury accumulation in the
environment prompted DNSC to suspend sales. Mercury is a pollutant of
environmental concern because it is toxic and persistent; it
accumulates in the environment; and it poses human health and
ecological risks.
The potential impacts of transporting and storing mercury under the
various alternatives are summarized in this document. Terms used in
this Record of Decision and their definitions are provided in Tables 1
and 2.
Table 1.--Impact Categories and Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact category Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficial impacts:
Major.................................... An action that would greatly improve current conditions.
Moderate................................. An action that would moderately improve current conditions.
Minor.................................... An action that would slightly improve current conditions.
Negligible or no impact...................... An action that would neither degrade nor improve current
conditions.
Adverse impacts:
Minor.................................... An action that would slightly degrade current conditions.
Moderate................................. An action that would moderately degrade current conditions.
Major.................................... An action that would greatly degrade current conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Impacts may also be categorized as short term (less than 5 years) or long term.
[[Page 23734]]
Table 2.--Risk Categories and Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk category Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced risk:
Major.................................... An action that would greatly reduce risk.
Moderate................................. An action that would moderately reduce risk.
Minor.................................... An action that would slightly reduce risk.
Negligible or no risk increase............... An action that would neither reduce nor increase risk.
Increased risk:
Minor.................................... An action that would slightly increase risk.
Moderate................................. An action that would moderately increase risk.
Major.................................... An action that would greatly increase risk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Impacts may also be categorized as acute (less than or equal to 24 hours) or chronic.
Alternatives Considered
In compliance with NEPA and DLAR 1000.22, DNSC prepared an EIS to
evaluate the environmental impacts of a range of reasonable
alternatives for long-term management (i.e., 40 years) of the excess
mercury. The alternatives evaluated in detail in the EIS are: (1) No
Action; (2) Consolidated Storage; and (3) Sales.
Under the No Action Alternative, DNSC would continue to store its
excess mercury at the four current storage sites for up to 40 years.
Monitoring and maintenance would continue. There would be no major
modifications to existing storage buildings or the mercury storage
containers. This alternative would not allow DNSC to downsize or close
storage depots and is not compatible with the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE's) mission at the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12)
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Under the Consolidated Storage Alternative, which DNSC has selected
for implementation, the entire DNSC mercury stockpile would be stored
for up to 40 years at one of the three DNSC depots where mercury is
currently stored (i.e., in Hillsborough, New Jersey; near New Haven,
Indiana; or near Warren, Ohio) or at a non-DNSC site. DNSC mercury is
also stored at a fourth site, Y-12. Y-12 is not considered for
consolidated storage because it does not have enough space, and long-
term storage of DNSC mercury is not part of its national security
mission.
The non-DNSC sites analyzed in the Final EIS are the Hawthorne Army
Depot in Hawthorne, Nevada; the PEZ Lake Development near Romulus, New
York; and the Utah Industrial Depot in Tooele, Utah. These sites,
together with the DNSC storage locations, represent a wide range of
environmental and socioeconomic settings. The PEZ Lake Development is
no longer under consideration as a consolidated storage site because
the facility managers withdrew it from consideration based on business
and site development plans.
The Sales Alternative consists of two options: (1) Selling the
mercury at the proposed maximum allowable market rate over a period of
approximately 26 years and (2) selling the entire inventory in one year
to reduce mercury mining.
Under the first sales option, the mercury would be sold at the
estimated maximum allowable market rate of 5,000 flasks per year. The
mercury could be sold directly to producers and users or to traders or
brokers, who would then sell it to producers and users. Producers
include mercury mining, refining, and recovery companies. Users include
chemical processors and manufacturers of such products as lights,
electrical switches, thermometers, dental materials, medicine, and
medical equipment.
The second sales option calls for sale of the entire inventory to a
mercury mining company. To avoid undue disruption of the mercury
market, as required by the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98, et seq.), an agreement would be negotiated
requiring the mining company to sell DNSC mercury at a rate no greater
than the rate of sale for newly mined mercury.
DNSC considered evaluating alternatives for treatment of mercury
that would enable disposal in a qualified landfill. However, there are
currently no viable commercially-available technologies capable of
rendering large quantities of elemental mercury stable enough for
placement in landfills. For this reason, and because the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not approved a path forward
for treatment and disposal of elemental mercury, this alternative is
not evaluated in detail in the EIS.
Preferred Alternative
Agencies are required by regulation (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) to identify
a preferred alternative in the final EIS and are encouraged to identify
one as early as possible in the NEPA process. Consolidated Storage at
one site is identified as DNSC's Preferred Alternative in both the
Draft and Final EIS.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Agencies are required by regulation (40 CFR 1505.2(b)) to identify
an environmentally preferable alternative in the record of decision. An
environmentally preferable alternative is the one that poses the fewest
overall impacts and the least risk. It may differ from both the
preferred alternative and the alternative selected for implementation
in the record of decision.
Identification of the environmentally preferable alternative is
based on weighing higher-intensity, short-term impacts and risks (e.g.,
transportation risks) against lower-intensity, long-term impacts and
risks that could occur during storage of mercury.
DNSC has identified the No Action Alternative as the
Environmentally Preferable Alternative. The analysis in the Final EIS
indicates that it would have negligible long-term environmental impacts
and negligible-to-low human health and ecological risk. Because the
mercury would not be relocated under this alternative, there would be
no additional transportation risks.
As described in the Final EIS, few discriminating factors among the
impacts associated with the alternatives were identified. The
differences in environmental impacts are largely due to the number of
sites affected and the duration of the impacts. The differences in
human health and ecological risks are primarily a function of the
distance shipped.
Although the No Action Alternative is considered marginally
environmentally preferable, this alternative would not allow DNSC to
downsize or close storage depots and is not compatible with DOE's
national security mission at Y-12.
Public Participation
DNSC began the mercury management EIS process by publishing a
notice of
[[Page 23735]]
intent in the Federal Register on February 5, 2001. The Notice of
Intent described the proposed action, provided background information
on anticipated issues and potential impacts, and identified a
preliminary list of alternatives to implement the proposed action.
As part of this early and open process, DNSC sought input from the
public to help identify the alternatives, issues, and potential
environmental impacts to be analyzed in the Draft EIS. Five public
scoping meetings were held in communities near current mercury storage
sites and in Washington, DC, during the scoping period that ended on
June 30, 2001. Issues that were raised at the meetings and those
submitted in comments by letter, e-mail, fax, and phone are documented
in the report, Scope of the Mercury Management EIS (December 2001).
Scoping comments were considered in developing the Draft EIS and are
summarized in that document.
The Draft EIS or its Executive Summary was mailed to more than 830
individuals and organizations. The public comment period for the Draft
EIS began with the publication of the EPA Notice of Availability in the
Federal Register on April 11, 2003, and continued until July 18, 2003.
In response to public requests to extend the comment period, the
deadline for submittal of comments was extended informally until
September 2, 2003.
During the comment period, DNSC held seven meetings to receive
comments on the Draft EIS. The meetings were held in the communities
that could be affected by the proposed actions, as well as in
Washington, DC. Approximately 230 people attended the public meetings.
DNSC received 295 comment documents (i.e., letters, e-mails, faxes,
voice messages, comment forms, and meeting transcripts) containing 633
comments. Volume II of the Final EIS presents the comment documents,
identifies the specific comment(s) within each, and provides DNSC's
responses. The majority of the comments received on the Draft EIS are
related to the Consolidated Storage Alternative, impacts on human
health and safety, and environmental and economic impacts. Input from
the public meetings along with comments received by other means, was
considered in preparing the Final EIS. DNSC considered these comments
as well when preparing this Record of Decision.
The Notices of Availability for the Final EIS were published in the
Federal Register on March 26, 2004 (69 FR 15820 and 15830). The Final
EIS or the Executive Summary was mailed to more than 1,200 individuals
and organizations.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
As described in the Final EIS, the potential environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of alternatives for mercury management are
generally negligible to minor. The Final EIS analyzes weather, air
quality and noise, waste management, socioeconomics, geology and soils,
water resources, ecological resources, cultural resources, land use and
visual resources, infrastructure, and environmental justice. These
would be largely unaffected, because the alternatives involve low-
intensity activities associated with maintaining the stored mercury and
do not involve building construction and land disturbance. Human
health, ecological, and transportation risks are discussed in the
Summary of Risks section.
The absence of transportation and the low level of activity
associated with the No Action Alternative would result in negligible
impacts. However, because DNSC depots would not be able to downsize or
close, this alternative is not compatible with DNSC's long-term closure
strategy. This alternative is also not compatible with DOE's national
security mission at Y-12.
The Consolidated Storage Alternative would result in negligible-to-
minor impacts. The impacts of the Consolidated Storage Alternative
would be slightly greater than the No Action Alternative because of the
higher level of activity associated with shipping the mercury. There
would be minor beneficial impacts at the existing storage locations
after removal of the mercury.
The Sales Alternatives would result in negligible-to-minor impacts
from continuing to store the mercury until it is shipped and from
preparing the mercury for shipment. Impacts of the Sales Alternatives
would be slightly greater than those of the No Action Alternative
because of the activities associated with shipping the mercury. Under
the Sales at the Maximum Allowable Market Rate Alternative, the impacts
of mercury storage would continue for up to 26 years until all the
mercury is sold. Under the Sales to Reduce Mercury Mining Alternative,
the impacts of mercury storage would end after one year. Minor
beneficial impacts would occur at the existing storage locations after
the mercury is removed.
Mercury would be sold directly or indirectly to users where the
mercury would be employed in commercial processes. Because changes to
the supply and cost of mercury on the world mercury market are expected
to be negligible under either sales option, it is anticipated that
users would continue their commercial processes as before and would not
be expected to use more or less mercury because of DNSC mercury sales.
Therefore, it is likely that there would be no additional impact at the
users' locations resulting from implementation of either DNSC mercury
sales option. In addition, sales to reduce mercury mining would result
in moderate beneficial impacts of reduced mercury mining and refining.
Summary of Risks
Mercury is toxic and may pose human health and ecological risks.
The human health and ecological risks of mercury storage, handling, and
transportation activities during routine operations and accident
conditions were evaluated. This analysis considered potential impacts
on sensitive individuals such as children and the elderly.
``Routine operations'' refers to the conduct of activities without
incident. Activities entail use of equipment such as mercury vapor
detectors and personal protective gear, and procedures designed to
protect workers and minimize any emissions of mercury to the
environment. Facility accident scenarios evaluated include slow leaks,
dropped and punctured flasks, pallet collapse, forklift fires, building
fires, wildfires, earthquakes, high winds and tornadoes, lightning,
snow loads, aircraft and vehicle crashes, and explosions and fires at
nearby facilities. In addition, truck and rail car spills and
associated fires were analyzed.
Human health and ecological risks for the No Action Alternative
would be negligible during normal operations and facility accidents.
Because the mercury would not be transported under this alternative,
there would be no transportation risks.
When compared with the No Action Alternative, the Consolidated
Storage Alternative requires the transport of mercury, which could
result in low, short-term risk to the public and negligible-to-low,
short-term ecological risk. Higher levels of activity associated with
preparing the mercury for transport could result in low risk to the
public from facility accidents and negligible-to-low ecological risk.
Negligible-to-moderate ecological risks could result if an accident
resulting in a spill of mercury and a fire occurs while it is raining.
The Consolidated Storage Alternative would result in reduced human
health and ecological risk at the existing storage locations after the
mercury is removed.
[[Page 23736]]
When compared with the No Action Alternative, the Sales
Alternatives require the transport of mercury, which could result in
moderate, short-term risk to the public and negligible-to-moderate,
short-term ecological risk. Like the Consolidated Storage Alternative,
higher levels of activity associated with preparing the mercury for
transport could result in low risk to the public from facility
accidents and negligible-to-low ecological risk.
If, during a rainstorm, a facility accident occurs that results in
both a spill of mercury and a fire, negligible-to-moderate ecological
risks would be expected. If, during a rainstorm, a transportation
accident occurs that results in both a spill of mercury and a fire,
negligible-to-high ecological risks would be expected. However, Chapter
4 of the Final EIS states that an accident during a rainstorm and
resulting in a fire is a low probability event that is predicted to
occur once in 10,000 to 1 million years.
In addition, the Sales Alternatives would result in reduced human
health and ecological risk at existing storage locations after the
mercury is removed. The Sales to Reduce Mercury Mining Alternative is
estimated to result in reduced human health and ecological risk from
reduced mercury mining and refining.
Mitigation
All practicable measures to avoid and minimize environmental
impacts and risks that could result from consolidated storage are in
place. These measures are found in DNSC's standard operating practices.
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
Cumulative Impacts
As described in the Final EIS, the impacts from implementing any of
the mercury management alternatives would represent a negligible-to-
minor contribution to cumulative impacts in the areas near the sites
and to regional and global environments.
Summary of Costs
As described in the Final EIS, the estimated cost for 40 years of
storage under the No Action Alternative is approximately $26 million.
The estimated cost for 40 years of storage under the Consolidated
Storage Alternative is $29 million. The Sales at the Maximum Allowable
Market Rate Alternative costs range from $6.1 million to revenues of
$12 million. For purposes of evaluation in the EIS, the market price of
mercury is assumed to range from $58 to $195 per flask. This
alternative includes the cost of storage for up to 26 years while the
mercury is being sold. The estimated revenue from the Sales to Reduce
Mercury Mining Alternative ranges between $7.5 and $25 million. This
alternative does not include storage costs, because it is assumed that
all the mercury would be sold in less than 1 year.
Basis for the Decision
DNSC has selected Consolidated Storage at one site for
implementation. Consolidated Storage at one site is identified as the
Preferred Alternative in the Draft and Final EIS. Selection of this
alternative gives consideration to environmental and economic factors;
policy considerations, and stakeholder comments, as summarized below:
Consolidating the DNSC mercury inventory at one site results in
negligible-to-minor environmental impacts at that site and improves
environmental conditions at sites from which the mercury would be
removed;
Human health risks to the public are negligible for normal
operations and negligible to low for facility and transportation
accidents;
Ecological risks are negligible for normal operations and
negligible to low for facility and transportation accidents with dry
deposition. Ecological risks are negligible to moderate for facility
and transportation accidents if it is raining during an accident which
results in a release of mercury and a fire;
Consolidating the mercury inventory simplifies storage operations
and results in economies of scale (i.e., fewer resources required to
manage the mercury inventory);
Consolidating the excess mercury inventory facilitates DNSC's long-
term closure strategy at the sites from which the mercury is removed;
Removing DNSC's excess mercury inventory is consistent with the
national security mission of Y-12; and,
The stored DNSC commodity-grade elemental mercury will be available
for future uses.
DNSC will select a site for consolidated storage after completion
of a procurement process. If a site other than one of those evaluated
in the Final EIS is selected, additional environmental documentation
may be required. DNSC will announce the selection of its consolidated,
long-term mercury storage site after completion of the procurement
process.
Recent legislation, (section 113 of Pub. L. 108-199, Consolidated
Appropriations Act for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies), requires the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report on the consolidation of the mercury
stockpile to Congress on June 1, 2004. Additionally, for 180 days after
the report is submitted to Congress, DNSC is prohibited from making a
decision to consolidate at a site that is not currently storing DNSC
mercury.
Mercury flasks at the New Haven, Somerville, and Warren depots are
currently stored in 30-gallon (114-liter) drums (overpacks); flasks
from Y-12 are not overpacked. As described in the Final EIS, to provide
an additional layer of protection, DNSC has made a commitment to
overpack the flasks currently stored at Y-12 before they are placed in
the consolidated storage facility.
Because of the lack of space and rigid security constraints, it is
not feasible to overpack the flasks at Y-12. The Warren Depot, located
536 miles (863 kilometers) from Y-12, has warehouse space available for
this overpacking. Therefore, these mercury flasks will be transported
by truck to the Warren Depot, near Warren, Ohio, for overpacking and
storage pending selection of the consolidated storage location.
The impacts and risks of overpacking and storing the mercury at the
Warren Depot are comparable to those identified in the Mercury
Reflasking Environmental Assessment (EA), for which a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on October 19, 2000; and in the
Mercury Overpacking at Somerville, New Jersey EA, for which a FONSI was
signed on May 24, 2001. The impacts and risks of overpacking the Y-12
mercury flasks at the Warren Depot would be similar to or less than
those evaluated in these documents.
The risks of transporting to and storing the mercury at the Warren
Depot are less than those associated with the Consolidated Storage
Alternative analyzed in the Final EIS. Under the Consolidated Storage
Alternative, the shipment of 4,890 tons (4,436 metric tons) of mercury
to the Warren Depot is analyzed. The Final EIS estimates that
transportation of the entire stockpile of mercury would result in low
risk to human health and moderate risk to plants and animals. Because
only 16 percent (770 tons [699 metric tons]) of the total amount of
mercury analyzed in the Final EIS (4,890 tons [4,436 metric tons])
would be transported to the Warren Depot for overpacking, the impacts
would be considerably less than the EIS analysis indicates, and no
significant human health or ecological risks would be expected.
Similarly, storing a total of 30 percent of the mercury stockpile at
Warren would pose
[[Page 23737]]
no significant human health or ecological risks.
In accordance with DLAR 1000.22, a Record of Determination, based
on the EAs and FONSIs discussed above and the Final EIS, has
established that no significant impacts can be expected to result from
moving the mercury from Y-12 to the Warren Depot and overpacking and
storing it at the Warren Depot. A copy of this Record of Determination
has been placed in the Administrative Record.
Issued in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, on this 22nd day of April,
2004.
Cornel A. Holder,
Administrator, Defense National Stockpile Center.
[FR Doc. 04-9726 Filed 4-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3620-01-P