[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20582-20589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9101]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision: Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley
Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of
Decision (ROD), based on information and analyses contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-
Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western
New York Nuclear Service Center (Decommissioning and/or Long-Term
Stewardship EIS) (DOE/EIS-0226) issued on January 29, 2010, comments
received on the Final EIS, and other factors including cost and
environmental stewardship considerations. The Decommissioning and/or
Long-Term Stewardship EIS was prepared by DOE and the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to examine the
[[Page 20583]]
potential environmental impacts of the range of reasonable alternatives
to meet DOE's responsibilities under the West Valley Demonstration
Project (WVDP) Act and NYSERDA's responsibilities for management of the
Western New York Nuclear Services Center (WNYNSC). This ROD addresses
DOE decisions for actions at WNYNSC necessary to complete WVDP. NYSERDA
will publish its decisions regarding actions at WNYNSC in a Findings
Statement in the New York State Environmental Notice Bulletin.
The Proposed Action is the completion of WVDP and the
decommissioning and/or long-term management or stewardship of WNYNSC.
This includes the decontamination and decommissioning of the waste
storage tanks and facilities used in the solidification of high-level
radioactive waste, and any material and hardware used in connection
with the WVDP. DOE needs to determine what, if any, material or
structures for which it is responsible would remain on site, and what,
if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or stewardship
provisions would be needed. NYSERDA needs to determine what, if any,
material or structures for which it is responsible would remain on site
and what, if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or
stewardship provisions would be needed.
DOE and NYSERDA evaluated four alternatives in the Final EIS:
Sitewide Removal, Sitewide Close-In-Place, Phased Decisionmaking (the
Preferred Alternative), and No Action.
DOE has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative, Phased
Decisionmaking. Under this alternative, decommissioning will be
completed in two phases. Phase 1 involves near-term decommissioning and
removal actions for certain facilities and areas and undertakes
characterization work and studies that could facilitate future
decisionmaking for the remaining facilities or areas on the property.
DOE intends to complete any remaining WVDP decommissioning
decisionmaking with its Phase 2 decision (to be made within 10 years of
this ROD) and expects to select either removal or in-place closure, or
a combination of the two for those portions of the site for which it
has decommissioning responsibility.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding WVDP or this
ROD, or to receive a copy of the Decommissioning and/or Long-term
Stewardship EIS or this ROD, contact: Catherine Bohan, EIS Document
Manager, West Valley Demonstration Project, U.S. Department of Energy,
Ashford Office Complex, 9030 Route 219, West Valley, NY 14171. Requests
for information may also be submitted via e-mail at http://www.westvalleyeis.com or by faxing toll-free to 866-306-9094.
The West Valley Web site (http://www.wv.doe.gov) may also be
accessed for the Decommissioning and/or Long-term Stewardship EIS (DOE/
EIS-0226), this ROD, and additional information related to the West
Valley site.
For general information on DOE's NEPA process contact: Carol
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585; e-mail [email protected]; telephone 202-586-4600; or leave a
message at 800-472-2756. Additional information regarding DOE NEPA
activities and access to many DOE NEPA documents, including the
Decommissioning and/or Long-term Stewardship EIS, are available through
the DOE NEPA Web site at: http://www.gc.energy.gov/nepa.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DOE has prepared this ROD pursuant to the regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA
Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021). This ROD is based on
information and analyses contained in the Final Decommissioning and/or
Long-Term Stewardship EIS (DOE/EIS-0226) issued on January 29, 2010 (75
FR 4803); comments received on the Final EIS; and other factors,
including cost and environmental stewardship considerations.
WNYNSC is a 1,351-hectare (3,338-acre) site located 48 kilometers
(30 miles) south of Buffalo, New York, and owned by NYSERDA. WNYNSC was
established in 1961 as the site of a nuclear center consisting of
commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and waste disposal
facilities. Nuclear Fuel Services, Incorporated (NFS), a private
company, built and operated the fuel reprocessing plant and burial
grounds, processing 640 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel at WNYNSC
from 1966 to 1972 under an Atomic Energy Commission license. Fuel
reprocessing ended in 1972, when the plant was shut down for
modifications to increase its capacity, reduce occupational radiation
exposure, and reduce radioactive effluents. However, between 1972 and
1976, there were major changes in regulatory requirements, including
more stringent seismic and tornado siting criteria for nuclear
facilities and more extensive regulations for radioactive waste
management, radiation protection, and nuclear material safeguards.
As a result, NFS announced its decision to withdraw from the
nuclear fuel reprocessing business and to exercise its contractual
right to yield responsibility for WNYNSC to NYSERDA, the site owner.
NFS withdrew from WNYNSC in 1976 without removing any of the in-process
nuclear wastes. NYSERDA now holds title to and manages WNYNSC.
In 1980, Congress passed the WVDP Act (Pub. L. 96-368, 42 U.S.C.
2021a). The WVDP Act requires DOE to demonstrate that the liquid high-
level radioactive waste from reprocessing could be safely managed by
solidifying it at WNYNSC, and transporting it to a repository for
permanent disposal. Specifically, Section 2(a) of the Act directs DOE
to take the following actions:
1. Solidify high-level radioactive waste by vitrification or such
other technology that the DOE deems effective;
2. Develop containers suitable for the permanent disposal of the
solidified high-level radioactive waste;
3. Transport the solidified high-level radioactive waste to an
appropriate Federal repository for permanent disposal;
4. Dispose of the low-level radioactive waste and transuranic waste
produced by the high-level radioactive waste solidification program;
and
5. Decontaminate and decommission the waste storage tanks and
facilities used to store the high-level radioactive waste, the
facilities used for solidification of the high-level radioactive waste,
and any material and hardware used in connection with the project in
accordance with such requirements as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) may prescribe.
In 1982, DOE assumed control but not ownership of the 68-hectare
(167-acre) Project Premises portion of WNYNSC to conduct the WVDP, as
required under the aforementioned WVDP Act.
As part of the WVDP Act, NRC was charged with developing
decommissioning criteria. In the ``Decommissioning Criteria for the
WVDP at the West Valley Site; Final Policy Statement'' (NRC Policy
Statement) (67 FR 5003), NRC prescribes the requirements for
decommissioning WVDP. The decommissioning criteria define the
conditions that would allow WVDP to be used with specified
[[Page 20584]]
restrictions or without restrictions on future use. If those conditions
cannot be met, the NRC Policy Statement also defines the circumstances
under which portions of the site could remain under long-term
management or stewardship.
A 1987 Stipulation of Compromise between the Coalition on West
Valley Nuclear Wastes and DOE specified that a closure EIS be prepared
that also addresses the disposal of those Class B and C low-level
radioactive wastes generated as a result of DOE's activities at WVDP.
In 1990, DOE and NYSERDA entered into a supplemental agreement to
prepare an EIS to address both the completion of WVDP and closure or
long-term management of WNYNSC.
EIS Process
On December 30, 1988, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the
Federal Register to prepare an EIS for WVDP completion. In 1990, DOE
and NYSERDA entered into a supplemental agreement to prepare a joint
EIS to address both the completion of WVDP and closure or long-term
management of WNYNSC. A Draft EIS was issued for public comment in
1996: the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Completion of the
West Valley Demonstration Project and Closure or Long-Term Management
of Facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, also
referred to as the 1996 Cleanup and Closure Draft EIS (DOE/EIS-0226D),
January 1996. The 1996 Draft EIS did not identify a preferred
alternative.
On March 26, 2001, DOE and NYSERDA announced (66 FR 15447) their
intent to revise their strategy for completing the EIS process. On
November 6, 2001, DOE issued an Advance NOI (66 FR 56090) to provide an
early opportunity for interested parties to comment on the proposed
scope of the EIS, and on March 13, 2003, DOE and NYSERDA issued an NOI
(68 FR 12044) for the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS.
After considering all public scoping comments and based on
decommissioning criteria for WVDP issued by NRC since the publication
of the 1996 Cleanup and Closure Draft EIS and public comments on that
EIS, DOE and NYSERDA (as co-lead preparers) issued the Revised Draft
EIS known as the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS for
public comment in December 2008. The public comment period, originally
scheduled to end June 8, 2009, was extended through September 8, 2009,
in response to requests from the public. Following consideration of all
public comments, the Final EIS was issued in January 2010. The NRC,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) participated as
cooperating agencies in preparing the EIS. The New York State
Department of Health and NYSDEC are involved agencies under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR).
The Proposed Action is the completion of WVDP and the
decommissioning and/or long-term management or stewardship of WNYNSC.
This includes the decontamination and decommissioning of the waste
storage tanks and facilities used in the solidification of high-level
radioactive waste, and any material and hardware used in connection
with the WVDP. DOE needs to determine what, if any, material or
structures for which it is responsible would remain on site, and what,
if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or stewardship
provisions would be needed. NYSERDA needs to determine what, if any,
material or structures for which it is responsible would remain on site
and what, if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or
stewardship provisions would be needed as a result.
Alternatives Considered
The Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS analyzes the
potential environmental impacts of the range of reasonable alternatives
to decommission and/or maintain long-term stewardship at WNYNSC. The
alternatives analyzed in the EIS include Sitewide Removal, Sitewide
Close-In-Place, Phased Decisionmaking (the Preferred Alternative), and
No Action.
Sitewide Removal. Under this alternative, site facilities would be
removed; contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater would be removed
to meet criteria that would allow unrestricted release of WNYNSC; and
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste would be characterized,
packaged as necessary, and eventually shipped off site for disposal.
Immediate implementation of this alternative would generate waste for
which there is currently no offsite disposal location (e.g., potential
non-defense transuranic waste, commercial Class B and C low-level
radioactive waste, and Greater-Than-Class C waste). Any such ``orphan
waste'' would be stored on site until an appropriate offsite facility
is available. Completion of these activities would allow unrestricted
use of the site (i.e., the site could be made available for any public
or private use).
Sitewide Close-In-Place. Under this alternative, most facilities
would be closed in place. Major facilities and sources of contamination
such as the Waste Tank Farm, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-
Licensed Disposal Area (NDA), and State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA)
would be managed at their current locations.
Residual radioactivity in facilities with larger inventories of
long-lived radionuclides would be isolated by specially designed
closure structures and engineered barriers. These structures would be
designed to meet regulatory requirements both to retain hazardous and
radioactive constituents and to ensure they would be resistant to long-
term degradation. This approach would allow large areas of the site to
be released for unrestricted use. The NRC license for remaining
portions of WNYNSC could be terminated under restricted conditions, or
could be converted to a long-term license. Facilities that are closed
in place, and any buffer areas around them, would require long-term
stewardship.
Phased Decisionmaking (the Preferred Alternative). Under this
alternative, decommissioning would be completed in two phases. This
alternative involves substantial removal actions in the first phase and
also provides for additional site characterization and scientific
studies to facilitate decisionmaking for the remaining facilities or
areas.
Phase 1 decommissioning actions would include removal of the Main
Plant Process Building, the Vitrification Facility, and the source area
for the North Plateau Groundwater Plume. In addition, the lagoons and
all facilities in Waste Management Area (WMA) 2 (except the permeable
treatment wall) would be removed. The Remote Handled Waste Facility and
a number of facilities in WMAs 5, 6, 9, and 10 would also be removed.
Foundations, slabs, or pads from these facilities, as well as those
from previously demolished facilities would also be removed. During
Phase 1, several facilities would continue under active management.
These facilities include the Waste Tank Farm and its support
facilities, the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, the
nonsource area of the North Plateau Groundwater Plume, the NDA, and the
SDA. Phase 1 activities would make use of proven technologies and
available waste disposal sites to reduce the potential short-term
health and safety risks from residual radioactivity and hazardous
contaminants at the site.
Phase 1 activities are expected to take 8 to 10 years to complete.
During this time, a number of activities would be conducted to evaluate
the best technical approach to complete decommissioning
[[Page 20585]]
of the remaining facilities and to facilitate interagency
decisionmaking. These activities would include further characterization
of site contamination and additional scientific studies. These
additional studies may reduce technical uncertainties related to the
decision on final decommissioning and long-term management of the
balance of WNYNSC. In particular, these studies may address
uncertainties associated with the long-term performance models, the
viability and cost of exhuming buried waste and tanks, the availability
of waste disposal sites, and technologies for in-place containment.
While the Phase 1 activities are being conducted, DOE and NYSERDA would
assess the results of site specific studies as they become available,
along with other emerging information such as applicable technology
development.
In consultation with NYSERDA and cooperating and involved agencies
on this EIS, DOE would determine whether new information or
circumstances would warrant preparation of a Supplemental EIS prior to
proceeding with Phase 2.
The Phase 2 decision would be made within 10 years of this ROD and
the initial NYSERDA Findings Statement. The timeframe associated with
this decision in the Revised Draft EIS was 30 years. This timeframe was
modified for the Final EIS in response to public comments. For DOE,
WVDP Phase 2 actions would complete decommissioning or long-term
management decisionmaking for each remaining facility according to the
approach determined most appropriate. Phase 2 alternatives that would
be considered by NYSERDA for the SDA include at least: complete
exhumation, close-in-place, and continued active management consistent
with SDA permit and license requirements.
No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, no actions toward
decommissioning would be taken. The No Action Alternative would involve
the continued management and oversight of all facilities located on
WNYNSC property. The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose
and need for agency action, but analysis of the No Action Alternative
is required under NEPA and SEQR as a basis for comparison.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
The Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS presents the
potential impacts on land resources, air quality, noise, water
resources, soils, biological resources, cultural resources,
socioeconomics, and human health for the four alternatives, including
those from potential facility accidents and transportation of
radioactive materials. DOE considered the impacts of activities for
each alternative, the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of
resources, and the relationship between short-term uses of the
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity. Comparisons of the alternatives were based on both short-
and long-term impacts. Five resource areas where meaningful impact
differences could occur were used to compare short term impacts: land
use (land available for reuse), socioeconomics (employment), human
health and safety, waste management, and transportation. For
comparative analyses of long-term impacts, the projected radiation dose
to future hypothetical individuals and populations is identified as a
meaningful difference among the alternatives; that is, long-term risks
are dominated by radiological rather than chemically hazardous
constituents.
The Sitewide Removal Alternative would result in the most land
available for release for unrestricted use (the entire WNYNSC); long-
term stewardship at WNYNSC would not be required, although
institutional controls would be needed for any temporary management of
orphan waste. This alternative would result in the highest
decommissioning impacts at the site, on site workers, and on the public
in the vicinity of WNYNSC and along the transportation routes over a
period of about 60 years. This alternative would incur the highest
short-term collective radiological dose to the public and workers from
both onsite and transportation activities. These activities could
result in up to 2 latent cancer fatalities among workers. No latent
cancer fatalities would be expected for the public. Nonradiological
consequences of transporting the waste off site for disposal are
estimated to be as many as 10 to 15 fatalities from truck and rail
accidents, respectively. Potential long-term radiological dose to the
general population in the vicinity of WNYNSC would be negligible.
The Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative would result in fewer
decommissioning impacts at the site, require the least amount of time
to accomplish, and generate the least amount of waste (other than the
No Action Alternative) that would need to be disposed of elsewhere.
This alternative would result in less land available for release for
unrestricted use than the Sitewide Removal Alternative. No latent
cancer fatalities would be expected among the public, onsite workers,
or transportation workers. Transporting the waste off site for disposal
is estimated to result in 1 fatality from transportation accidents.
However, implementing this alternative would require long-term
stewardship at WNYNSC, including institutional controls. The reasonably
foreseeable long-term peak annual dose to an average Lake Erie water
user (assumed to be consuming water from the Sturgeon Point water
intake with unmitigated erosion at the West Valley site) would be about
0.4 millirem, which would be indistinguishable from the dose associated
with background radiation.
The Phased Decisionmaking Alternative (Phase 1) would not result in
more land available for release than the No Action Alternative, but
would have positive long-term impacts because contaminated facilities
and the source area of the North Plateau Groundwater Plume would be
removed during decommissioning activities. No latent cancer fatalities
would be expected among the public, onsite workers, or transportation
workers as a result of Phase 1 activities. Transporting waste off site
is estimated to result in 1 to 2 fatalities from nonradiological
transportation accidents.
If the Phase 2 decision is removal of remaining waste and
contamination, total impacts from the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative
would be similar to those for the Sitewide Removal Alternative.
If the Phase 2 decision is in-place closure of the remaining waste
and contamination, total waste generation and transportation impacts
(including nonradiological fatalities from traffic accidents) for the
alternative would be only slightly more than those for Phase 1 alone
because of the limited amount of waste that would be generated by in-
place closure activities. The total worker exposure would be about 50
percent higher than that for Phase 1 alone because of the additional
occupational exposure that would occur from in-place closure of the
facilities not removed during Phase 1. Long-term impacts would be less
than those for the Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative. Because of
removal actions during Phase 1, the time-integrated (cumulative)
population dose over 1,000 years would be about 85 percent of the 4,000
person-rem dose projected for the Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative.
However, because of the long-lived radionuclides that would remain in
the waste disposal areas, the time-integrated population dose over
10,000 years would be about 97 percent of the 34,000 person-rem dose
projected for the Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative.
[[Page 20586]]
If the Phase 2 decision for the SDA is continued active management,
short-term Phase 2 impacts for some resource areas are expected to be
bounded by those for the No Action Alternative. There would also be
less transportation, so the associated impacts, including
nonradiological fatalities from traffic accidents, would be lower. The
long-term human health impacts for continued active management of the
SDA would be the same as those identified for the SDA under the No
Action Alternative.
Making the Phase 2 decision at 10 years instead of 30 years, as was
cited in the Revised Draft EIS, would result in a small reduction in
the total impact of decommissioning because most of the Phase 1 impacts
are the result of the removal actions that occur in the first 8 years
of Phase 1. The most important change in impacts associated with the
shorter duration of Phase 1 would be the reduced socioeconomic impact.
A shorter Phase 1 would eliminate the approximately 20-year period of
reduced site employment following completion of the Phase 1
decommissioning actions followed by an increase in site employment when
Phase 2 implementation begins.
The No Action Alternative would not involve decommissioning. Waste
and contamination would not be removed, and there would be no change in
site operations. Long-term impacts would be higher than those for the
Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative because there would be fewer
engineered barriers to retard the migration of radionuclides from their
original locations and to act as intrusion barriers in the event of
loss of institutional controls, although the associated health risks
would be small. For example, the long-term peak annual dose to an
average Lake Erie water user (assumed to be consuming water from the
Sturgeon Point water intake with unmitigated erosion at the West Valley
site) would be about 3 millirem, which is unlikely to result in a
cancer fatality.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
As required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b), DOE has identified the
environmentally preferable alternative for completion of WVDP and
decommissioning of WNYNSC. DOE has compared the impacts of implementing
each of the four alternatives evaluated in the EIS and considers the
Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative to be the environmentally
preferable alternative. DOE considered the short-term impacts
associated with removing waste and contamination from WNYNSC and the
estimated long-term impacts of leaving those materials on site and
concluded that the long-term benefits of removing the waste and
contamination do not outweigh the short-term impacts of the removal
activities. DOE considers impacts on human health and safety to be
important aspects of the human environment, and in this case, the
principal discriminator for both short- and long-term impacts.
In the EIS, five resource areas for which meaningful short-term
impact differences could occur were identified: land use (land
available for reuse), socioeconomics (employment), human health and
safety, waste management, and transportation. In its identification of
the environmentally preferable alternative, however, DOE narrowed its
consideration (based on the differences in impacts between
alternatives) to the amount of waste generated and the human health
impacts of its removal and transportation for disposal. From an
environmental stewardship perspective, DOE qualitatively considered
overall land disturbance, resources consumed, and the need for long-
term stewardship at any location that would receive the West Valley
waste for disposal, not just at WNYNSC.
If only short-term impacts were considered, the No Action
Alternative, would be the environmentally preferable alternative
because the short-term adverse impacts would be the least of all the
alternatives.
The short-term adverse impacts would be greatest for the Sitewide
Removal Alternative, although the local long-term benefits would also
be greatest. After decommissioning actions are completed, the entire
WNYNSC would be available for release; without waste or contamination
remaining onsite, there would not be any long-term human health impacts
nor would there be a need for long-term stewardship. The short-term
impacts would result primarily from removal of waste and contamination
which would involve construction; waste and contamination removal,
packaging, and transportation to offsite locations; followed by site
restoration with geologic materials (e.g., soil and gravel) from
offsite locations. These short-term impacts would occur in the vicinity
of WNYNSC and along the transportation corridors, and affect both the
natural environment and human health. The Sitewide Removal Alternative
would involve the disturbance and restoration of approximately 20
hectares (50 acres) over 60 years, the generation and shipment of about
1.6 million cubic meters (57 million cubic feet) of waste, result in an
estimated 10 to 15 nonradiological fatalities from offsite
transportation of waste, and result in a total radiological exposure to
the public and workers (including from waste transportation) from about
1,300 to 3,600 person-rem (the lower end of this range assumes all
waste is transported by rail; the upper end, all by truck). The lower
population dose would result in less than 1 latent cancer fatality
while the higher population dose would result in up to 2 latent cancer
fatalities.
The short-term impacts would be less for the Sitewide Close-In-
Place Alternative, as this alternative would involve less material
movement (materials would be needed primarily for the construction of
waste isolation barriers), less worker exposure, and less
transportation of waste. Under this alternative, approximately 12
hectares (30 acres) at WNYNSC would be disturbed over a 7-year period,
and 26,000 cubic meters (920,000 cubic feet) of waste (mostly non-
hazardous) would be generated. No latent cancer fatalities are expected
to result from the estimated 160 to 220 person-rem total radiological
exposure to workers and the public (the lower end of this range assumes
all waste is transported by rail; the upper end, all by truck), nor
would any nonradiological fatalities be expected to result from
transportation activities under this alternative. However, less land
would be available for release than under the Sitewide Removal
Alternative and long-term stewardship would be required.
For comparison of long-term impacts, the projected radiation dose
to future hypothetical populations and individuals was identified in
the EIS and considered in DOE's identification of the environmentally
preferable alternative as a meaningful difference among the
alternatives. DOE also considered the long-term stability of the WNYNSC
site. The long-term erosion analysis performed to support the EIS
suggests that the site can be managed in a way that prevents erosion of
waste-containing areas for 10,000 years or longer.
Long-term impacts were evaluated for offsite water users from the
release of contaminants (primarily radionuclides) into the environment
and for intruders who were postulated to enter WNYNSC in the event that
institutional controls failed. The greatest impacts to offsite water
users would occur under the No Action Alternative, for which the peak
annual individual dose is estimated to be less than 1 millirem per year
if site maintenance activities continue and up to 34 millirem per year
if site maintenance activities cease. Under the Sitewide Close-In-Place
Alternative, the peak annual dose to offsite water users is estimated
to be less than 1 millirem
[[Page 20587]]
per year if site maintenance activities continue and up to 4 millirem
per year if site maintenance activities cease. For both of these
alternatives, the time-integrated population dose to offsite water
users over thousands of years could be many thousands of person-rem.
These values are composite doses that result from small individual
doses that would be received by hundreds of thousands of people over
thousands of years. The average annual individual dose over this time
frame is about a factor of 10 or more lower than the estimated peak
annual doses, with no latent cancer fatalities expected.
Potential long-term impacts to intruders would occur if
institutional controls failed and there were human intrusion into
onsite areas where waste or contamination would be present. The
magnitude of the long-term human health impacts is sensitive to the
timing of human intrusion, the location of the intrusion, and the
specific nature of actions taken by the intruder. The range of
potential peak annual doses to intruders is highest for the No Action
Alternative (less than 1 millirem, which would be indistinguishable
from background radiation, to 400 rem, a potentially fatal dose), less
for the Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative (less than 1 millirem to
160 millirem, with no cancer fatalities expected), and negligible for
individuals who might occupy WNYNSC under the Sitewide Removal
Alternative because essentially all of the contamination would have
been removed.
Environmental stewardship considerations include land disturbance
activities at WNYNSC and other affected sites. In addition to the
temporary disturbance of the natural environment at WNYNSC during
removal of the waste and contamination, offsite locations would be
permanently impacted. These locations would be those from which large
quantities of fill materials would be removed, and others at which the
wastes from WNYNSC would be disposed. At these offsite locations, land
would be permanently altered and possibly removed from future
beneficial uses in support of remediating and releasing land at WNYNSC.
In addition, moving waste from WNYNSC to other locations for disposal
would transfer the long-term risk and the need for long-term
institutional control (stewardship) to the sites receiving materials
for disposal.
On balance, the overall environmental impacts of the Sitewide
Removal Alternative, which include the short-term impacts in and around
WNYNSC and along representative transportation routes, and the
environmental stewardship considerations at other locations are
considered to be greater than the corresponding overall impacts of the
Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative. Short-term impacts from
implementing Phase 1 of the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative, in which
certain removal actions would occur, are identified in the
Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. Phase 2
decommissioning actions have not yet been decided, but the impacts are
expected to range between those identified for the Sitewide Removal and
Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternatives. If the Phase 2 decision is
removal of the remaining waste and contamination, the impacts from
implementing the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative would be expected to
be similar to those of the Sitewide Removal Alternative. If the Phase 2
decision is in-place closure of the remaining waste and contamination,
the short-term impacts would be expected to be greater than the
Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative because the Phased Decisionmaking
Alternative would include both the Phase 1 removal actions and the
Phase 2 closure actions. The long-term impacts would be only slightly
less than those for the Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative because
only the long-lived radionuclides in the Process Building and source
area for the North Plateau Groundwater Plume would be removed under
this alternative (during Phase 1).
Public Comments on the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship
Final EIS
DOE received seven comment letters on the Final EIS. These letters
included one cosigned by New York's Senators and 15 Congressional
Representatives; one each from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA), Raymond C. Vaughan, The Coalition on West Valley Nuclear
Wastes, and Citizens' Environmental Coalition; as well as two cosigned
by multiple organizations including The Coalition on West Valley
Nuclear Wastes; Sierra Club; Zoar Valley Nature Society; Great Lakes
Sport Fishing Council; Catholic Care for Creation Committee of Buffalo;
Center for Health, Environment and Justice; International Institute of
Concern for Public Health; WNY Council on Occupational Safety & Health;
Niagara Health-Science Report; Downstream Denizens; Citizens Campaign
for the Environment; Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes; Don't
Waste Michigan; Beyond Nuclear; Citizens Awareness Network; and Nuclear
Information and Resource Service.
These letters raised a number of issues ranging from questioning
the adequacy of the Final EIS, including its comment response document,
to providing opinions on whether certain decisions can or should be
made. Other comments related to activities that would be expected to
occur after the ROD if the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative is
selected including identifying the studies that would be conducted
during Phase 1, public participation during decommissioning actions and
for Phase 2 decisionmaking, and the need for future NEPA analysis.
In addition to addressing the major comments in this ROD, DOE will
prepare individual responses to all commentors who submitted letters on
the Final EIS. Where appropriate, these letters will refer commentors
to the relevant sections of the Final EIS for the requested data.
Adequacy of the EIS
Several of the comment letters expressed the opinion that the Final
EIS is unscientific, incomplete and unacceptable for all options that
leave waste on site and that the EIS was never intended to be a
realistic look at various cleanup options. These concerns identify what
the commentors consider to be inadequate information, inadequate
analysis, and inadequate response to public comments on the Revised
Draft EIS. DOE has considered these comments, and finds the Final EIS
to be fully compliant with the requirements of NEPA. DOE further
believes that the document is adequate to support DOE decommissioning
decisionmaking for WNYNSC. The Final EIS uses all reasonably available
data to support its analyses comparing the potential environmental
consequences of all of the alternatives. DOE acknowledges in the Final
EIS that for the long-term performance assessment there is some
incomplete or unavailable information, but the analysis has been
conducted consistent with the requirements of NEPA as identified in 40
CFR 1502.22. In addition, wherever practical, DOE accommodated
recommendations of the co-lead and cooperating agencies and the public.
Several comments expressed the opinion that responses to specific
comments on the Revised Draft EIS provided in the Comment Response
Document (Volume 3 of the Final EIS) are inadequate. DOE has reviewed
the original comments and the responses in the Comment Response
Document, and finds that it has adequately considered and responded to
all comments received on the Revised Draft EIS.
One comment cited what were thought to be five new references dated
December 2009, questioned how
[[Page 20588]]
information received at such a late date could have been incorporated
into the Final EIS, and expressed dismay at not having had an
opportunity to review the referenced documents. These references are
final versions of Technical Reports prepared by the WNYNSC site
contractor and used throughout the EIS process. The Final Technical
Reports referenced in the Final EIS contain minor revisions to the
information presented in the 2008 versions of these reports that were
referenced in the 2008 Revised Draft EIS. There were no fundamental
changes in the engineering approach for the alternatives. The Technical
Reports are available along with all other Final EIS references in the
reading rooms identified in the Notice of Availability (75 FR 4803).
Several comments are requests for additional information about the
methods or details of specific analyses (e.g., erosion model
capability, input parameters to erosion analysis, injury and fatality
estimates for specific activities, time step for specific long-term
performance assessment).
Support of Sitewide Removal Alternative
The New York Senators and Representatives expressed concern about
delays in site cleanup and strong support for the full Sitewide Removal
alternative. They stated that, regardless of the alternative selected,
a formal NEPA process with meaningful public participation is essential
in the continued decisionmaking process. As noted in the decision
below, DOE acknowledges the importance of public participation in the
NEPA process and will provide robust opportunities to involve the
public in the Phase 2 environmental review and decisionmaking process.
Several comment letters stated that the Sitewide Removal
Alternative is the only acceptable decommissioning alternative for
WNYNSC, or is the only decision that could be scientifically supported
by the EIS. These letters identify what the commentors consider to be a
flawed long-term performance analysis and minimal cost differences
between removal and in-place closure alternatives, and cite these
issues and a potential higher level of public protection as the bases
for their conclusions. DOE acknowledges that these commentors prefer
the Sitewide Removal Alternative. DOE's decisionmaking is based on its
consideration of all the potential environmental impact information
presented in the EIS: short-term and long-term, at the site and along
potential transportation routes, as well as environmental stewardship
considerations. DOE also notes that Phase 1 of the Phased
Decisionmaking Alternative involves substantial removal actions, and
does not preclude the ability to select removal of the remaining waste
and contamination as the Phase 2 decision.
Phase 1 Studies
Regarding commentors' concerns about activities that would be
expected to occur after the ROD is issued, the Final EIS identifies
possible types of studies that could be conducted during Phase 1 of the
Phased Decisionmaking Alternative. These include studies that may
address uncertainties associated with the long-term performance models,
the viability and cost of exhuming buried waste and tanks, the
availability of waste disposal sites, and technologies for in-place
containment.
The U.S. EPA expressed its concern with shortening the maximum
duration of Phase 1 of the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative from 30
years to 10 years because of a lack of disposal capacity for high-level
radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and Greater-Than-Class C waste.
As a result, the U.S. EPA requested that Phase 1 studies be designed to
assure that storage of these wastes is in compliance with EPA's
Standards for the Storage and Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste
at 40 CFR part 191. The 40 CFR part 191, subpart A, dose standard
applies to the storage of the WVDP high-level waste form and
transuranic waste or spent nuclear fuel that may require continued
storage at the WVDP. Specifically, section 191.03 defines the annual
dose equivalent to any member of the public from the storage to not
exceed 25 mrem whole body and 75 mrem to any critical organ. DOE Order
5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, chapter
II.1c, imposes the dose standard from 40 CFR part 191 with no changes.
Compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 would be required in applicable
contracts at the WVDP. Therefore, full compliance with 40 CFR part 191,
subpart A, would be met through full compliance with DOE Order 5400.5.
The EPA also requested clarification relative to the impact of the
Sitewide Removal Alternative on the available disposal capacity at the
Energy Solutions disposal facility in Utah under the Commercial
Disposal Option. DOE notes that, if Sitewide Removal were selected, the
potential volume of low-level and low specific activity waste generated
could require approximately 35% of the remaining available capacity, or
10% of the total licensable capacity of the Energy Solutions facility.
Public Involvement
The Final EIS explicitly states DOE's commitment to continue public
involvement as site decommissioning progresses. As indicated earlier in
this ROD, DOE has committed to having robust and meaningful
opportunities for public participation during decommissioning. DOE is
committed to working with NYSERDA to identify and initiate appropriate
studies as soon as practicable and to continued public involvement as
Phase 1 studies are defined and as results become available. DOE is
further committed to meeting with the public on at least a quarterly
basis to discuss the status of decommissioning actions and studies and
will schedule additional meetings as necessary to assure timely
communication with the public. One commentor suggested DOE conduct
workshops as a potential mechanism for transmitting technical
information. DOE will consider this request as it develops its public
participation effort.
Future NEPA Analyses
DOE's commitment to the NEPA process is also described in the Final
EIS. During Phase 1, DOE and NYSERDA will assess the results of site-
specific studies and other emerging information such as applicable
technology development. In consultation with NYSERDA and cooperating
and involved agencies, DOE will determine whether new information or
circumstances would warrant preparation of a Supplemental EIS. If it is
unclear whether a Supplemental EIS is required, DOE will prepare a
Supplement Analysis in accordance with 10 CFR 1021.314(c) and make this
analysis available to the public prior to making a determination.
Decision
To continue to meet its obligations under the WVDP Act to complete
WVDP, DOE has decided to implement the Phased Decisionmaking
Alternative as identified in the Final EIS. In implementing this
alternative, DOE will provide robust and meaningful opportunities for
public participation prior to making its Phase 2 decision.
Basis for Decision
DOE has determined that the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative
provides the best path forward for completing its obligations under the
WVDP Act.
Phase 1 of the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative would remove major
facilities (such as the Main Plant
[[Page 20589]]
Process Building and lagoons), thereby reducing or eliminating
potential human health impacts associated with these facilities while
introducing minimal potential for generation of new orphan waste.
Phase 1 would remove the source area for the North Plateau
Groundwater Plume, thereby reducing a source of radionuclides that is a
potential contributor to human health impacts.
Phase 1 would allow up to 10 years for collection and analysis of
data and information on major facilities or areas (such as the Waste
Tank Farm, NDA, and SDA), with the goal of reducing technical risks
associated with implementation of the Sitewide Removal and Sitewide
Close-In-Place Alternatives, because one of these alternatives, or a
combination that could include continued active management of the SDA
by NYSERDA, could be selected for Phase 2.
The anticipated result of Phase 1 information gathering and
analysis is to provide additional information that may inform
decisionmaking for both the removal and in-place closure options for
remaining facilities. It is also anticipated that, during Phase 1,
progress would be made in identifying and developing disposal
facilities for any orphan wastes, thereby facilitating removal actions
if they are selected as part of Phase 2 decisionmaking. Establishment
of improved close-in-place designs or improved analytical methods for
long-term performance assessment would facilitate close-in-place
actions if they are selected as part of Phase 2 decisionmaking.
Mitigation Measures
DOE will use all practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm when implementing the actions described in this ROD.
These measures include employing engineering design features to meet
regulatory requirements, maintaining a rigorous health and safety
program to protect workers from radiological and chemical contaminants,
monitoring worker exposure and environmental releases, and continuing
efforts to reduce the generation of wastes. More detailed examples of
such practicable measures, including those applicable to implementation
of the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative, are documented in the text
and table of Chapter 6 (Potential Mitigation Measures) of the EIS. The
measures applicable to Phase I are integral elements of the alternative
and, therefore, a separate Mitigation Action Plan is not required to
ensure that the measures are implemented effectively. The need for a
Mitigation Action Plan for Phase 2 will be dependent on the nature of
the Phase 2 decommissioning decision. DOE will implement Phase 1 of the
Phased Decisionmaking Alternative in compliance with DOE orders as well
as the comprehensive lists of standards and requirements to protect
workers, the public, and the environment specified in Chapter 5 of the
Final EIS, as appropriate.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 14th day of April 2010.
In[eacute]s R. Triay,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-9101 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P