[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 46 (Friday, March 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12401-12403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4541]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Amendment to the Record of Decision for the Department of
Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic
Waste
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Amendment to Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to DOE National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (10 CFR 1021.315), is
amending the Record of Decision for the Waste Management Program:
Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste issued on January 20, 1998
(63 FR 3629), and amended previously including on December 29, 2000 (65
FR 82985), and June 30, 2004 (69 FR 39446).
Under this amendment to its Record of Decision (ROD), DOE intends
to send both contact-handled (CH) and remote-handled (RH) transuranic
(TRU) waste from certain generator sites as needed to the Idaho
National Laboratory (INL) to be treated and characterized prior to the
shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for disposal. These
sites are: the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) (Argonne, IL); Bettis
Atomic Power Laboratory (BAPL) (West Mifflin, PA); General Electric
Vallecitos Nuclear Center (GE) (Sunol, CA); the Hanford Site, (Hanford)
(Richland, WA); Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (Nuclear Fuel Services)
(KAPL-NFS) (Erwin, TN); Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL)
(Schenectady, NY); Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL)
(Berkeley, CA); Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
(Livermore, CA); the Nevada Test Site (NTS); Separations Process
Research Unit (SPRU) (Schenectady, NY); Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(PGDP) (Paducah, KY); and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)
(Albuquerque, NM).
DOE expects that most of the waste from these generator sites will
be sent to INL for treatment and characterization. However, DOE may,
when feasible, characterize some waste at these generator sites under
the provisions of the modified WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit
that allow characterization based solely on process knowledge and ship
that waste directly to WIPP or, in the case of SNL, send TRU waste to
Los Alamos National Laboratory to be characterized, in accordance with
the original (1998) ROD. In addition, TRU waste from Babcock and Wilcox
(BW) (Lynchburg, VA), and NRD L,L,C, (NRD) (Grand Island, NY), will
also be moved to INL to be treated and characterized prior to shipment
to WIPP for disposal, only if that waste meets waste acceptance
criteria for treatment at INL and is determined to be defense waste as
required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act for waste to be eligible for
disposal at WIPP.
TRU waste would be accepted for treatment and characterization at
INL only in accordance with the provisions of the settlement agreement
in Public Service Company of Colorado v. Batt entered into between DOE
and the State of Idaho in 1995 (the Idaho Settlement Agreement) and the
Site Treatment Plan. The Idaho Settlement Agreement allows TRU waste
from other DOE sites to be treated at INL if it is treated within 6
months of receipt and shipped out of Idaho within 6 months of
treatment. DOE would also continue to remove TRU waste currently stored
at INL in accordance with the terms of the Idaho Settlement Agreement.
In accordance with DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314), DOE
prepared a supplement analysis (SA), Supplement Analysis for the
Treatment of Transuranic Waste at the Idaho National Laboratory (DOE/
EIS-0200-SA-03), to determine whether the proposed treatment and
characterization of waste at INL prior to disposal at WIPP is a
substantial change to the proposed action analyzed in DOE's Waste
Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0200)
(WM-PEIS) or whether there are significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns such that a supplement
to the WM-PEIS or a new EIS is needed. Based on the SA, DOE has
determined that a supplement to the WM-PEIS or a new EIS is not needed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the documents referenced herein are available from the:
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 treatment, characterization of TRU
waste and disposal of TRU waste at WIPP, contact: Casey Gadbury (CBFO),
U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Field Office, P.O. Box 3093,
Carlsbad, NM 88221. Telephone: 575-234-7372.
For further information on the DOE program for the management of
TRU waste or this amendment to the ROD, contact: Ms. Christine Gelles
(EM-12), Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy,
19001 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874. Telephone: 301-903-1669.
For information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585. Telephone: 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
TRU waste is waste that contains alpha particle-emitting
radionuclides with atomic numbers greater than that of uranium (92) and
half-lives greater than 20 years in concentrations greater than 100
nanocuries per gram. TRU waste is classified according to the radiation
dose at a package surface. CH-TRU waste has a radiation dose rate at a
package surface of 200 millirem per hour or less; this waste can safely
be handled directly by personnel. RH-TRU waste has a radiation dose
rate at a package surface greater than 200 millirem per hour and must
be handled remotely (e.g., with machinery designed to shield workers
from radiation). Mixed TRU waste contains both radioactive and
hazardous components.
Prior NEPA Review
In the WM-PEIS TRU Waste ROD (63 FR 3629, January 20, 1998), DOE
selected the Decentralized Alternative, stating that ``each of the
Department's sites that currently has or will generate TRU waste will
prepare and store its waste on site'' prior to shipment to
[[Page 12402]]
WIPP.\1\ The WM-PEIS TRU Waste ROD also noted that ``in the future, the
Department may decide to ship transuranic wastes from sites where it
may be impractical to prepare them for disposal to sites where DOE has
or will have the necessary capability.'' The WM-PEIS TRU Waste ROD
stated that the sites that could receive TRU waste shipments from other
sites were the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(now referred to as the Idaho National Laboratory or INL), the Oak
Ridge Reservation, the Savannah River Site, and the Hanford Site, and
that such decisions would be subject to appropriate review under NEPA.
In DOE/EIS-0290, Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project Final
Environmental Impact Statement (1999), DOE examined the impacts of
treating up to 120,000 cubic meters of TRU from INL and other DOE sites
at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Facility (AMWTF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The only exception to this decision was the Sandia National
Laboratories in New Mexico, which would have shipped its TRU waste
to Los Alamos for storage and processing before disposal at WIPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Change in the Proposed Action
DOE has identified up to 8,764 cubic meters of CH-TRU waste and up
to 255 cubic meters of RH-TRU waste, that could be moved from various
TRU waste generator sites to INL for treatment and characterization
prior to shipment to WIPP. At INL, the CH-TRU waste would be treated at
the AMWTF to reduce the volume of the waste and characterized for
shipment to WIPP. The RH-TRU waste would be treated during repackaging
to remove prohibited items and characterized for shipment to WIPP at
the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), which is
located on the INL site. Four sites (Hanford Site, INL, Oak Ridge
Reservation, and the Savannah River Site) were identified in the 1998
ROD to potentially receive waste from other sites. INL has the
capabilities to process this TRU waste.
Approximately 2,067 shipments of CH-TRU waste and 188 shipments of
RH-TRU waste could move to INL for treatment and characterization.
Shipment of TRU wastes to INL for treatment and characterization would
increase the efficiency of TRU waste treatment and characterization
operations.
Once treated and characterized, the off-site TRU wastes would be
shipped from INL to WIPP for disposal. Approximately 795 shipments
would be required to transport the treated CH-TRU waste to WIPP and
approximately 621 \2\ shipments would be required to transport the
treated RH-TRU waste to WIPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The number of outbound RH-TRU shipments to WIPP would be
larger than the number of inbound RH-TRU shipments to INL because
waste is assumed to move to WIPP in RH 72-B casks, which hold a
smaller volume of waste than the 10-160B transportation containers
that would be used primarily for transportation to INL. The WIPP RH
waste handling process is designed to handle waste packaged in an RH
72-B without using the hot cell. Limitations on the amount of waste
that can be handled in the hot cell in the WIPP hazardous waste
facility RH waste permit will limit the use of the 10-160B for
shipments to WIPP, since waste shipped in the 10-160B must be
repackaged into a facility canister in the hot cell prior to
disposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Supplement Analysis
To determine whether the proposed action would warrant a supplement
to the WM-PEIS, DOE prepared the SA referred to above. The SA compared
the impacts of the proposed action to impacts of alternatives involving
shipment of waste to INL for treatment that were examined in the WM-
PEIS or in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0026-S-2) (SEIS-II).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The SEIS-II was used as a basis for comparison of
transportation impacts because the WM-PEIS did not examine the
impacts of shipping waste to WIPP for disposal. The SEIS-II was also
used as a basis for comparison of WIPP site accident impacts because
the WM-PEIS did not examine those impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SA examined the impacts of transporting TRU waste to INL for
treatment and characterization and the impacts of transporting waste
from INL to WIPP for disposal. It also examined potential
transportation accident impacts for waste proposed to be moved in the
TRUPACT-III container, which is currently undergoing certification by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, because some waste would be moved
from Hanford to INL in the TRUPACT-III once it is certified. The
transportation impacts of the proposed shipments of waste to INL and
subsequent shipments of treated waste to WIPP, including accident
impacts, were smaller than the impacts predicted in the SEIS-II for
similar movements of waste to and from INL except for the latent cancer
fatalities among workers.
Site impacts from packaging and loading waste at the generator
sites, unloading waste at INL, and treating waste at INL, including the
impacts of waste treatment accidents, were smaller than the impacts
predicted in the WM-PEIS (Alternative 3) for similar activities.
WIPP site impacts, including the impact of potential accidents
involving the standard large waste box (that would be transported in
the TRUPACT-III once approved), would be equal to or smaller than the
impacts predicted in the SEIS-II (Alternative 2B) for similar
activities at WIPP.
The SA also considered the potential impacts of intentional
destructive acts (i.e., acts of sabotage or terrorism) and estimated
the impacts would be no greater than the impacts of an accident
analyzed in the SA.
All of the impacts of the proposed action are within the boundaries
of the impacts previously predicted in the Regionalized Alternative 3
of the WM-PEIS and the Action Alternative 2B of the SEIS-II, except for
the worker transportation impacts. The increase in worker
transportation impacts is small and is not expected to increase worker
mortality if the proposed action were implemented. Based on the impact
analysis in the SA, DOE has determined that the proposed action would
not present a substantial change relevant to environmental concerns nor
are there significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts. Therefore, DOE has determined that a supplement to the WM-PEIS
or a new EIS is not required under 40 CFR 1502.9(c) or 10 CFR 1021.314
for this proposal. Both the WM-PEIS and the WIPP SEIS-II analyzed the
impacts associated with shipment, treatment, and characterization of
CH-TRU and RH-TRU wastes at INL. The WIPP SEIS-II examined the impacts
of shipping these wastes from INL to the WIPP for disposal. In
addition, the impacts of treatment of CH-TRU at the AMTWF and RH-waste
at the INTEC were evaluated using the same approach as used for the
AMTWF EIS.
IV. Decision
DOE has decided to ship up to 8,764 cubic meters of CH-TRU waste
and up to 255 cubic meters of RH-TRU waste as needed from ANL, BAPL,
BW, GE, Hanford, KAPL-NFS, KAPL, LBL, LLNL, NRD, PGDP, NTS, SPRU and
SNL, to INL for treatment and characterization prior to shipment to
WIPP for disposal. After treatment and characterization at INL, all of
the waste will be shipped to WIPP for disposal. The BW and NRD waste
will be shipped to INL only if that waste is determined to meet waste
acceptance criteria for treatment at INL and be defense waste eligible
for disposal at WIPP, as required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
DOE may, where feasible, characterize some of this waste at the
generator sites under the provisions of the WIPP permit allowing
characterization based on process knowledge and ship that waste
[[Page 12403]]
directly to WIPP or, in the case of SNL, ship the waste to Los Alamos
National Laboratory for characterization, in accordance with the 1998
TRU Record of Decision.
Waste will be accepted for treatment and characterization at INL
only if this can be done in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho
Settlement Agreement and the Site Treatment Plan. The Idaho Settlement
Agreement allows TRU waste from other DOE sites to be treated at INL if
it is treated within 6 months of receipt and shipped out of Idaho
within 6 months of treatment. DOE will also continue to remove TRU
waste currently stored at INL in accordance with the terms of the Idaho
Settlement Agreement.
V. Basis for the Decision
Using the existing INL CH- and RH-TRU waste program and facilities
at INL will avoid the time and expense of establishing capability at
sites that do not currently have an existing program or facilities.
Also, the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Facility at INL will reduce
the volume of some CH-TRU waste (e.g., waste which consists primarily
of waste containers overpacked in larger containers that hold a
relatively small volume of waste when compared with the container
volume), thus reducing the volume of this waste that would be disposed
of at WIPP.
Issued in Washington, DC this 27th day of February 2008.
Ines R. Triay,
(Acting) Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. E8-4541 Filed 3-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P