CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

FOR AGENCY ACTION 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is required to develop a capability for the safe and secure long-term 

management and storage of elemental mercury pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414). 

Accordingly, DOE will identify or construct an appropriate facility(ies) to host this capability. DOE’s proposed action 

is to select a suitable location for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated in the 

United States. DOE has prepared this Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental 

Impact Statement (Mercury Storage EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations 

(40 CFR 1500–1508), and DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR 1021) to evaluate the reasonable 

alternatives for managing and storing elemental mercury. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Mesa 

County Board of Commissioners (Mesa County, Colorado) are cooperating agencies in the preparation of this 

Mercury Storage EIS. 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

What Is Elemental Mercury? 

Elemental mercury is a dense, naturally 

occurring metal that is liquid at room 

temperature. Sometimes called “quicksilver,” 

liquid mercury has been used in manufacturing 

processes because it conducts electricity, 

reacts to temperature changes, and alloys with 

many other metals. Certain mercury-bearing 

wastes are hazardous wastes under the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act, as amended (commonly 

referred to as the “Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act” [42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.]). 

Mercury is designated a hazardous substance 

under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) because it is a toxic 

pollutant under Section 307(a) of the Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and a 

hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). 

Furthermore, the transportation of mercury is 

regulated under Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 171–178. 

Mercury is a naturally occurring element, liquid at room temperature, that enters the environment as a 

result of natural processes (e.g., volcanoes, wildfires, 

surface emissions) and human activities. Human 

activities that release mercury to the environment 

(i.e., anthropogenic sources) include fuel burning, 

incineration, metal smelting, use of mercury in 

industrial processes, mining, waste disposal, and 

production of commercial products containing 

mercury. Examples of products that historically 

contained or currently contain mercury include 

batteries, paint, thermometers, thermostats, blood 

pressure monitors, switches for automobile lighting, 

fluorescent lights, and dental fillings. Emissions from 

human activities worldwide are estimated at 1,220 to 

2,900 metric tons (1,345 to 3,197 tons) per year, with 

natural emissions estimated at 900 to 2,300 metric tons 

(992 to 2,535 tons) per year (UNEP 2002:75; 

2009:10). Mercury vapor in the atmosphere can be 

transported thousands of miles from the source of 

emission. 

Mercury is a globally deposited pollutant, affecting 

water bodies near industrial sources (e.g., the Great 

Lakes) and remote areas (e.g., the Arctic Circle). 

Mercury is found in the environment as elemental mercury (e.g., elemental mercury vapor [Hg0

], 

inorganic mercury compounds (e.g., mercuric chloride [HgCl2] and mercuric sulfide [HgS]); and organic 

mercury compounds (e.g., methylmercury [CH3Hg]). It is emitted from human activities primarily in its 

elemental or inorganic forms. The inorganic form of mercury, when bound to airborne particles (Hgp) or 

in its gaseous divalent form (Hg+2), is readily removed from the atmosphere by dry deposition (settling) 

and wet deposition (precipitation). Most of the mercury in water, soil, sediment, plants, and animals is in 

the form of inorganic mercury salts (e.g., mercuric chloride) and organic mercury (e.g., methylmercury). 

As it cycles through the environment, mercury undergoes a series of chemical and physical 

transformations (EPA 1997:2-2, 2000:1). Figure 1–1 provides a simplified diagram of how mercury 

moves through the environment. 

1–1
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–2

Figure 1–1. The Mercury Cycle 

Mercury and its compounds are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, and they pose risks to human 

health and the environment. The toxic effects of mercury depend on its chemical form and the route of 

exposure. Methylmercury, a mercury compound that is generally not used commercially or stored, is the 

most toxic form. It can affect the immune system; alter genetic systems; and damage the nervous system, 

including coordination and the senses of touch, taste, and sight. Methylmercury can be particularly 

damaging to developing embryos. Exposure to methylmercury is usually by ingestion; it is absorbed 

more readily than other forms of mercury. Less toxic than methylmercury, elemental mercury (Hg0

) 

vapors can cause tremors, gingivitis, and excitability when inhaled over a long period of time. If 

elemental mercury is ingested, it is absorbed relatively slowly and can pass through the digestive system 

without causing damage (USGS 2000). 

The free trade of elemental mercury on the world market encourages its continued use outside the 

United States, often involving highly dispersive activities such as artisanal gold mining. It is estimated 

that since the 19th century, the total amount of mercury available in the environment has increased by a 

factor of two to five above pre-industrial levels. As the quantity of available mercury in the environment 

has increased, so have the risks of neurological and reproductive problems for humans and wildlife. 

These increases in risk make mercury a pollutant of environmental concern in the United States and 

throughout the world (EPA 2000:1). 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AGENCY ACTION 

The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414), hereafter referred to as “the Act,” prohibits, as of 

October 14, 2008, any Federal agency from conveying, selling, or distributing to any other Federal 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–3

agency, any state or local government agency, or any private individual or entity any elemental mercury1

under the control or jurisdiction of the Federal agency (with certain limited exceptions, as described in the 

Act). A copy of the Act is included in Appendix A. The Act also prohibits the export of mercury from 

the United States effective January 1, 2013 (subject to certain essential-use exemptions). The United 

States is a net exporter of mercury, exporting over 600 metric tons (660 tons) of mercury between 2004 

and 2007 (USGS 2009). Therefore, banning the export of mercury from the United States is expected to 

result in surplus inventories of mercury. 

Section 5 of the Act, “Long-Term Storage,” directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to designate a 

DOE facility(ies) for the long-term management and storage of mercury generated within the United 

States. Further, to comply with Section 5 of the Act, DOE needs to ensure the facility(ies) is operational 

and ready to accept custody of mercury by January 1, 2013. DOE thus needs to provide such a 

facility(ies) capable of managing a mercury inventory estimated to range up to 10,000 metric tons 

(11,000 tons) based on a 40-year period of analysis, as described in the next section. The Act specifies 

that the new DOE mercury storage facility(ies) shall not include the Y–12 National Security Complex 

(Y–12) or any other portion or facility of the Oak Ridge Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. DOE will 

take title to all mercury accepted for storage in the facility. 

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION 

DOE proposes to construct one or more new facilities and/or select one or more existing facilities 

(including modification as needed) for the long-term management and storage of mercury, as mandated 

by Section 5 of the Act. Any such facility must comply with applicable requirements of Section 5 of the 

Act, “Management Standards for a Facility,” including the requirements of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 

as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) and other 

permitting requirements. 

1.3.1 Estimated Mercury Inventory 

There are several potential sources of mercury in the United 

States, including mercury used in the chlorine and caustic 

soda manufacturing process (i.e., chlor-alkali industry), 

reclaimed from recycling and waste recovery activities, and 

generated as a byproduct of the gold-mining process. In 

addition, DOE currently stores approximately 1,200 metric 

tons (1,300 tons) of mercury at Y–12. In a 2007 report, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that 

between 7,500 and 10,000 metric tons (8,300 and 

11,000 tons) of excess mercury could be generated over a 

40-year period (EPA 2007), totaling 8,700 to 11,200 metric 

tons (9,600 to 12,300 tons) when added to the mercury stored 

at Y–12. 

U.S. Department of Defense Mercury 

The U.S. Department of Defense, 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has 

determined to locate a permanent 

storage facility for its stockpile of 

approximately 4,400 metric tons 

(4,900 tons) of elemental mercury at the 

Hawthorne Army Depot in Hawthorne, 

Nevada (DNSC 2006). The DLA 

mercury is not part of the inventory 

considered in this Long-Term 

Management and Storage of Elemental 

Mercury Environmental Impact 

Statement, although the Hawthorne 

Army Depot is evaluated in this 

environmental impact statement for 

storage of the additional mercury for 

which the U.S. Department of Energy will 

be responsible. 

In preparing this Long-Term Management and Storage of 

Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

(Mercury Storage EIS), DOE has reexamined the amount of 

mercury that potentially could be stored at the DOE 

facility(ies). The Act contemplates indefinite storage at the DOE-designated storage facility(ies). For 

 

1

 Unless indicated otherwise, elemental mercury is referred to hereafter simply as “mercury” in this environmental impact 

statement. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–4

purposes of analysis in this Mercury Storage EIS, it was assumed the mercury storage facility(ies) would 

operate over a 40-year timeframe. This corresponds to the 40-year planning projection for receipt into 

storage of up to 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of mercury. A 40-year period of analysis is consistent 

with the timeframe used in previous analyses by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) (DLA 2004) and 

EPA (EPA 2007). There currently is no approved method of treating high-purity elemental mercury for 

disposal. It is not known when such a treatment method might become available. These are estimates 

with a degree of uncertainty; therefore, it is possible that more or less than 10,000 metric tons 

(11,000 tons) of mercury could eventually require storage for a period longer or shorter than 40 years. 

Additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis may be required to expand the 

facility(ies) to accept more than 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of mercury or extend its operations 

beyond the 40-year period of analysis. 

As shown in Table 1–1, DOE estimates that up to approximately 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of 

mercury would be available for storage over the next 40 years. Either the entire inventory of Y–12 

mercury or a portion of this inventory could be retained in storage at Y–12, but, for purposes of analysis, 

the entire inventory was assumed to be sent to the new DOE mercury storage facility(ies). 

Table 1–1. Anticipated Mercury Inventory (Based on a 40-Year Period of Analysis) 

Source 

Years Sent 

to Storagea

Quantity 

(metric tons)b

DOE Y–12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee 2013–2014 1,200 

Closure of four chlor-alkali plants or conversion to non-mercury-cell technology 2013–2019 1,100 

Waste reclamation and recycling facilities 2013–2052 2,500 

Byproduct of gold mining 2013–2052 3,700–4,900 

Total 8,500–9,700 

a For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that the mercury from the Y–12 National Security Complex would be shipped to the 

DOE-designated storage facility(ies) in the first 2 years of operation; chlor-alkali plant mercury would be shipped in the first 

7 years of operation; and waste reclamation and recycling facility and gold-mining byproduct mercury would be shipped over 

the entire 40-year period of analysis. 

b Rounded to two significant figures. 

Note: To convert metric tons to tons, multiply by 1.1023. 

Key: DOE=U.S. Department of Energy. 

There is considerable uncertainty regarding the 10,000-metric-ton (11,000-ton) estimate of mercury that 

could be sent to DOE for storage. Estimates of mercury generated from gold mining are dependent on the 

amount of gold mining conducted. Mercury from gold mining could decrease as existing gold deposits 

are depleted or could increase if additional deposits are discovered. The amount of gold mined is also 

dependent on the price of gold. The quantity of mercury from waste reclamation and recycling facilities 

is dependent on the volume of waste and recyclable materials processed and are likely to decrease as 

programs to collect mercury-containing thermometers, thermostats, switches, and natural-gas-metering 

devices are completed. In addition, chlor-alkali plants may close or convert their mercury-cell processes 

before 2013. 

The Act prohibits the export of elemental mercury from the United States beginning in 2013. The Act 

does not ban the export of mercury compounds. Recognizing the potential for exported mercury 

compounds to be processed into elemental mercury, Congress directed EPA to publish, no later than 

1 year after the date of enactment of the Act, a report on “mercuric chloride, mercurous chloride or 

calomel, mercuric oxide, and other mercury compounds, if any, that may currently be used in significant 

quantities in products or processes.” EPA submitted a report entitled Potential Export of Mercury 

Compounds from the United States for Conversion to Elemental Mercury to Congress in October 2009. 

The report provides information on sources, amounts, and uses of mercury compounds; assesses the 

potential for these compounds to be processed into elemental mercury after export; and provides 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–5

information for Congress to consider in determining whether to extend the Act’s mercury export 

prohibition to include one or more of these mercury compounds. The report concludes that one mercury 

compound—mercury(I) chloride (also known as mercurous chloride or calomel)—is likely to be exported 

and processed into elemental mercury after export. Mercury(I) chloride is currently produced in 

significant quantities from pollution-control equipment at U.S. gold mines. The report also finds that three 

other mercury compounds—mercury(II) oxide, mercury(II) sulfate, and mercury(II) nitrate—could 

possibly be exported and processed into elemental mercury after export (EPA 2009). If certain mercury 

compounds are eventually added to the mercury export ban, additional environmental review may be 

necessary. Mercury must meet the acceptance criteria for the DOE storage facility(ies) and must be at 

least 99.5 percent pure (DOE 2009a). 

1.4 DECISIONS TO BE MADE 

DOE intends to decide (1) where to locate the mercury storage facility(ies) and (2) whether to use existing 

buildings, new buildings, or a combination of existing and new buildings. 

DOE’s objectives for the long-term management and storage of mercury are important to DOE, EPA, and 

the public. They are, in part, as follows: 

 Protect human health and the environment and ensure safety of the public and facility workers. 

 Meet the requirements of the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008. 

 Comply with applicable Federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. 

DOE will consider the environmental impact information presented in the final environmental impact 

statement (EIS), as well as other factors (e.g., cost, schedule, strategic objectives, and public comments) 

when making long-term mercury management and storage decisions. As required by Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1506.10), DOE will not make a decision on the 

proposed action until at least 30 days after EPA’s Notice of Availability of the Final Mercury Storage EIS

is published in the Federal Register. 

1.5 SCOPE OF THIS EIS 

To address the proposed action, DOE determined that it would need to prepare an EIS in accordance with 

NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); DOE implementing procedures for NEPA 

(10 CFR 1021); and CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA 

(40 CFR 1500–1508). To this end, DOE undertook a process to identify facilities that could potentially 

be suitable and a screening process to identify facilities and/or locations that would appropriately be 

included in the scope of this EIS. 

1.5.1 Candidate Sites 

In March 2009, DOE published a Request for Expressions of Interest in the Federal Register

(74 FR 11923), as well as in Federal Business Opportunities (Fed Biz Opps 2009), seeking potential 

locations for the mercury storage facility(ies) from interested Federal agencies and the private sector. In 

addition, DOE issued an internal memorandum requesting that DOE site offices determine if they have a 

facility(ies) that could be used for mercury storage (Triay 2009). (Appendix A contains copies of the 

Federal Register and Federal Business Opportunities requests and the internal memorandum of inquiry to 

DOE offices.) 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–6

At the same time, DOE developed objective criteria for identifying candidate sites within the scope of this 

EIS. DOE based these criteria on criteria used in other EISs for similar purposes. The criteria are as 

follows: 

The facility(ies) will not create significant conflict with any existing DOE site mission and will not 

interfere with future mission compatibility. 

The candidate host location has an existing facility(ies) suitable for mercury storage with the 

capability and flexibility for operational expansion, if necessary. 

The facility(ies) is, or potentially will be, capable of complying with RCRA permitting requirements 

(see Chapter 5, Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3), including siting requirements. 

The facility(ies) has supporting infrastructure and a capability or potential capability for flooring that 

would support mercury loadings. 

Storage of mercury at the facility(ies) is compatible with local and regional land use plans, and new 

construction would be feasible, as may be required. 

The facility(ies) is accessible to major transportation routes. 

The candidate location has sufficient information on hand to adequately characterize the site. 

DOE received responses from the following 10 sites/companies indicating capability to store the mercury. 

Their responses are available on the EIS website at http://www.mercurystorageeis.com. 

 DOE Grand Junction Disposal Site (GJDS), Grand Junction, Colorado 

 DOE Hanford Site (Hanford), Richland, Washington 

 Hawthorne Army Depot, Hawthorne, Nevada 

 DOE Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, Idaho 

 DOE Kansas City Plant (KCP), Kansas City, Missouri 

 Lowland Environmental Services et al., Knoxville, Tennessee 

 Meritex Enterprises, Incorporated, Cumberland Furnace, Tennessee 

 DOE Savannah River Site (SRS), Aiken, South Carolina 

 Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC, Henderson, Colorado 

 Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS), Andrews, Texas 

DOE reviewed the screening criteria relative to the potential candidate sites as expressed by the 

respondents and confirmed that 7 of the 10 locations appeared to be within the range of reasonable 

alternatives for mercury storage. That is, 7 sites met most, if not all, of the screening criteria. Therefore, 

DOE included these 7 candidate locations, listed below, in the scope of this Mercury Storage EIS. A 

discussion of the reasons for eliminating the 3 locations from further consideration is included in 

Chapter 2, Section 2.6. 

 GJDS, Grand Junction, Colorado 

 Hanford, Richland, Washington 

 Hawthorne Army Depot, Hawthorne, Nevada 

 INL, Idaho Falls, Idaho 

 KCP, Kansas City, Missouri 

 SRS, Aiken, South Carolina 

 WCS, Andrews, Texas 

Existing buildings at the candidate locations are being considered to store the mercury where the requisite 

information is available. Recognizing that existing buildings may not be available or adequate at some 

candidate locations, DOE also evaluated construction and operation of new facilities that would meet 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–7

RCRA requirements. Because the mercury would of necessity be transported to the designated 

facility(ies), DOE included transportation analyses in the scope of this EIS. These three elements of the 

EIS scope are introduced in the sections below. 

1.5.2 Construction and Modification 

This Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the environmental impacts associated with constructing a new 

mercury storage facility(ies) and modifying existing buildings for mercury storage at the various 

candidate sites. Construction and modification impacts are those related to land disturbance, resource 

use, air and water emissions, and employment. Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1 and Appendix C, Section C.2.3, 

describe construction and modification activities. Chapter 4 describes the environmental impacts of the 

construction and modification activities. 

1.5.3 Operations 

This Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the environmental consequences of operation of one or more new or 

existing mercury storage facilities at the various candidate sites. Operational impacts include those 

related to resource use, air and water emissions, and human health effects including accidents. Chapter 2, 

Section 2.3.2, and Appendix C, Section C.2.4, describe operational activities. Chapter 4 describes the 

environmental impacts of the operational activities. 

1.5.4 Transportation 

Transportation impacts include those related to air emissions, human health, and ecological risk. This 

Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the transport of mercury from potential source locations to the 

designated DOE mercury storage facility(ies), including potential transport of DOE mercury from 

existing storage at Y–12. 

This Mercury Storage EIS considers transportation of mercury by truck and rail. Appendix D describes 

transportation activities in detail, including transportation accidents. Chapter 4 describes the 

environmental impacts of transportation activities. 

1.5.5 Closure of Mercury Storage Facility(ies) 

For a complete life-cycle analysis, DOE considered the possibility that the facility(ies) could be no longer 

needed. If the mercury storage facility(ies) is no longer needed, DOE would close it, as described in 

Chapter 4, Section 4.10. More-detailed analysis of closure activity impacts is not possible at this time 

because DOE has not yet developed plans for future use or closure of this building(s). Reuse or closure 

plans would be subject to additional environmental analysis, as appropriate. 

1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DEVELOPING THE SCOPE OF THIS EIS 

As a preliminary step in the development of an EIS, regulations established by the CEQ (40 CFR 1501.7) 

and DOE require “an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues related to a Proposed Action.” The purpose of this scoping process is: 

(1) to inform the public about a proposed action and the alternatives being considered and (2) to identify 

and clarify issues relevant to the EIS by soliciting public comments. 

On July 2, 2009, DOE published a “Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury” in the Federal Register (74 FR 31723). 

Publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) initiated a 45-day public scoping period; the scoping period was 

later extended to 52 days. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–8

Between July 2, 2009, and August 24, 2009, DOE solicited comments from Federal, state, and local 

agencies; stakeholders; tribal nation representatives; and the general public to assist in defining the scope 

of the Mercury Storage EIS. DOE hosted eight meetings to obtain public comments on the proposed 

scope of this EIS. Public scoping meetings were held on the following dates at the following eight 

locations: 

 July 21, 2009 – Grand Junction, Colorado 

 July 23, 2009 – Kansas City, Missouri 

 July 28, 2009 – Richland, Washington 

 July 30, 2009 – North Augusta, South Carolina 

 August 4, 2009 – Hawthorne, Nevada 

 August 6, 2009 – Andrews, Texas 

 August 11, 2009 – Idaho Falls, Idaho 

 August 13, 2009 – Portland, Oregon 

A total of approximately 300 people attended these meetings, at which DOE provided information on the 

Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 and DOE’s proposed mercury management program. Each meeting 

began with a short DOE presentation on the NEPA process and the proposed scope of this EIS. 

Following the presentation, attendees were invited to provide comments. Oral comments were recorded 

by a court reporter; written comments were also accepted. In addition, the public was provided with the 

opportunity to discuss issues directly with DOE management and technical specialists who staffed an 

exhibit area. Additional public meetings will be conducted after the draft EIS is published. 

For those individuals who could not attend one of the public scoping meetings, DOE provided other 

methods to submit comments: (1) the Mercury Storage EIS website (http://www.mercurystorageeis.com), 

(2) a toll-free fax (1-877-274-5462), and (3) the U.S. mail. 

DOE received 507 comment documents containing a total of 1,244 comments during the scoping period. 

DOE considered all public comments in refining the scope of this EIS. 

This section summarizes the comments received during the public scoping period. The comments have 

been grouped into the following topics (the order of appearance here roughly corresponding to that in the 

EIS: Elemental Mercury, Candidate Site Selection, Alternatives, Storage, Transportation, Health and 

Safety, Facility Accidents, Land Use, Environment, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, Cultural 

Resources and American Indian Issues, Regulatory Compliance, Public Participation, Cost, and Other. A 

response is provided for each comment summary. 

Elemental Mercury

Commentors asked how much elemental mercury would be stored, where it would come from, and who 

would own it. Commentors expressed concern that the elemental mercury storage facility(ies) would be 

expanded to accept other mercury compounds and other hazardous materials in the future. 

Response: Section 1.3.1 describes the major sources of mercury in the United States and the quantity of 

mercury that is estimated to be excess and available for storage over a 40-year period of analysis. As 

described in Section 1.3.1, DOE estimates that up to approximately 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of 

mercury may be received for storage. This includes mercury (1) from closure of chlor-alkali plants or 

conversion to non-mercury-cell technology, (2) from waste reclamation and recycling facilities, 

(3) generated as a byproduct of gold mining; it is assumed to also include mercury currently in storage at 

Y–12. DOE would take title to all mercury accepted for storage in the facility(ies). 

As described in Section 1.3.1, Section 4 of the Act required that EPA publish—no later than 1 year after 

the date of enactment—a report on other mercury compounds that may currently be used in significant 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–9

quantities in products or processes. The report, dated October 14, 2009, provides information on 

sources, amounts, and uses of mercury compounds; assesses the potential for these compounds to be 

processed into elemental mercury after export; and provides information for Congress to consider in 

determining whether to extend the mercury export prohibition to include one or more of these mercury 

compounds (EPA 2009). If certain mercury compounds are eventually added to the mercury export ban, 

DOE would complete additional environmental review as necessary. 

Candidate Site Selection

Commentors expressed opinions that mercury should not be stored at various candidate sites. Reasons 

given for unsuitability of specific sites include inconsistency with site mission and cleanup activities; 

private ownership; proximity to population centers, surface water, and groundwater; and natural hazards, 

such as tornadoes and earthquakes. Commentors also expressed a preference at one or more of the 

candidate sites, citing (1) proximity to mercury generation sites or to existing or planned mercury storage, 

(2) large site size, and (3) remote location. Commentors suggested that one or more of the candidate 

locations are not consistent with DOE’s evaluation criteria listed in the NOI and questioned why other 

U.S. Department of Defense and DOE facilities were not evaluated, including Y–12 and the Oak Ridge 

Reservation. 

Response: Section 5 of the Act requires the Secretary of Energy to “designate a facility or facilities of the 

Department of Energy...for the purpose of long-term management and storage of elemental mercury 

generated within the United States.” DOE has interpreted Section 5 of the Act to authorize DOE to 

designate existing and/or new storage facilities at property either owned or leased by DOE. Chapter 2, 

Section 2.4, describes the alternative sites that are evaluated in this EIS. Chapter 2, Figure 2–4, shows 

the locations across the United States of the seven candidate sites for mercury storage. Therefore, DOE 

has analyzed a range of alternatives and their associated impacts for storing mercury in locations across 

much of the United States. These include sites near mercury source locations, small and large sites, and 

sites with large and small surrounding population densities. Section 1.5.1 describes the methods used to 

solicit sites interested in hosting the mercury storage facility and the evaluation criteria used to determine 

if the potential sites were reasonable alternatives for mercury storage. DOE used reasonable methods to 

identify, screen, and evaluate the candidate sites and believes that these sites represent a reasonable 

range of siting alternatives. Chapter 2, Section 2.6, describes candidate site and building options 

considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. The Act specifies that the DOE-designated mercury 

storage facility(ies) shall not include Y–12 or any other portion or facility of the Oak Ridge Reservation 

in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (42 U.S.C. 6939f(a)(1)). DOE may sometimes include reasonable alternatives 

that are outside the scope of what Congress has approved. However, in the case of this action, where 

Congress has expressly prohibited a potential alternative, DOE finds that it is reasonable to forego its 

consideration. Accordingly, DOE has eliminated this option as an action alternative. 

In the 2004 DLA Final Mercury Management Environmental Impact Statement (MM EIS), DLA and 

DOE, as a cooperating agency, evaluated mercury storage at seven sites across the United States. Four 

of these sites were DLA sites that are scheduled for closure. Two of the other sites were former U.S. 

Department of Defense sites scheduled for redevelopment. The final site was the Hawthorne Army Depot, 

the site eventually selected by DLA for consolidated storage of the 4,436 metric tons (4,890 tons) of DLA 

mercury. DOE has included the Hawthorne Army Depot as one of the seven candidate locations 

evaluated in this Mercury Storage EIS. The DLA mercury is not part of the inventory considered in this 

Mercury Storage EIS. 

Alternatives

Commentors expressed opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives. 

Commentors suggested that DOE evaluate storage at sites that are located in close proximity to the major 

sources of mercury. Other commentors requested that DOE evaluate the impacts of multiple-site storage 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–10

alternatives. Commentors questioned what would happen after the storage period, suggested that the 

impacts of indefinite storage be analyzed, and expressed concern that mercury storage would become 

de facto disposal. Commentors suggested that DOE evaluate treatment of the mercury to render it safer 

for long-term storage, and that DOE should consider treatment and disposal as an alternative to long-term 

storage. 

Response: Chapter 2, Section 2.4, describes the alternative sites that are evaluated in this EIS. Chapter 4 

of this Mercury Storage EIS contains analyses of potential impacts on the natural and manmade 

environment appropriate to the alternatives being evaluated. Chapter 2, Section 2.7, summarizes the 

analyses in Chapter 4 and provides a comparison of the impacts of the alternatives. This allows a 

comparison of the environmental strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. Chapter 2, Section 2.6, 

describes candidate site and building options considered but eliminated from detailed analysis, including 

multiple-site storage alternatives and treatment alternatives. There currently is no approved method for 

the treatment of high-purity elemental mercury wastes for disposal. Therefore, DOE is not considering 

treatment and disposal options for detailed evaluation in this Mercury Storage EIS. Section 1.3.1 

describes the basis for selection of the 40-year period of analysis. The Act contemplates indefinite 

storage at the DOE-designated storage facility(ies). For the purposes of analysis in this Mercury Storage 

EIS, it was assumed the mercury storage facility(ies) would operate over a 40-year timeframe. This 

corresponds to the 40-year planning projection for receipt into storage of up to 10,000 metric tons 

(11,000 tons) of mercury. These are estimates with a degree of uncertainty; therefore, it is possible that 

more or less than 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of mercury could eventually require storage for a 

period longer or shorter than 40 years. Additional NEPA analysis may be required to expand the 

facility(ies) to accept more than 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of mercury or extend its operations 

beyond the 40-year period of analysis. Chapter 4, Section 4.10, describes the environmental impacts of 

the potential future closure of the mercury storage facility(ies). 

Storage

Commentors expressed interest in a detailed description of how the mercury would be stored, including 

spill containment systems and spill cleanup, air flow and filtration, and monitoring systems. Commentors 

requested that the storage facility be air conditioned to reduce mercury vapor emissions. Commentors 

stated that the facility should have adequate security to protect the mercury from terrorist attack, sabotage, 

and vandalism. 

Response: Chapter 2 and Appendix C of this Mercury Storage EIS provide a summary description of the 

features of a mercury storage facility. Pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, Section 5, the 

U.S. Department of Energy Interim Guidance on Packaging, Transportation, Receipt, Management, and 

Long-Term Storage of Elemental Mercury (Interim Guidance) (DOE 2009a) contains more detail 

regarding the requirements for storage of mercury, including preliminary design elements and emergency 

response procedures for a mercury storage facility. A mercury storage facility(ies) would be a weathertight structure with a reinforced concrete floor, strong enough to withstand the heavy loads from mercury 

storage. The floors would also be curbed and treated with a sealant to add strength and spill 

containment properties. Lighting, ventilation, fire suppression, and security systems would be 

incorporated into the facility design. Monitoring would include leak detection and mercury vapor 

monitors. The facility(ies) would be RCRA regulated and would require regular inspection of stored 

materials, strict record-keeping, and periodic reporting. Due to the nature of mercury storage in sealed 

containers, air-conditioned buildings and filtered air are not required. However, the air exiting the 

Handling Area would be filtered to support operations that may require handling of open mercury 

storage containers. 

As described in Appendix C, Section C.2.1, the facility would be permitted under Subtitle C of RCRA and 

would be located in an area under the control and authority of DOE that would include appropriate 

fencing and security. Remote surveillance may also be employed, where necessary. As described in the 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–11

sections on intentional destructive acts in Chapter 4, a mercury storage facility is not expected to be an 

attractive target for a terrorist attack. 

Transportation

Commentors expressed interest in a detailed description of how the mercury would be transported, and by 

whom, and suggested that DOE describe how a mercury spill would be prevented and cleaned up if it 

occurred. Other commentors recommended development of a transportation plan. Commentors 

expressed concern about the potential for spills in populated areas and into water bodies during 

transportation accidents and asked if transportation security would be provided to prevent hijacking, 

sabotage, or terrorist attack. Another commentor expressed concern about the cumulative impacts of 

transportation. 

Response: Transportation of mercury would be in accordance with applicable RCRA hazardous waste 

and U.S. Department of Transportation hazardous material shipping requirements. As described in 

Appendix D, Section D.2.7, mercury shipments to the DOE storage facility(ies) are estimated to range 

from approximately 100 shipments per year between 2013 and 2020 to 50 shipments per year thereafter. 

Appendix C, Section C.1, of this Mercury Storage EIS provides a brief description of the shipping modes 

and containers that would be used to transport mercury from the existing storage and generation sites to 

the new DOE storage facility(ies). Pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, Section 5, the DOE 

Interim Guidance (DOE 2009a) contains more-detailed information on transportation. Commercial 

trucking companies and rail lines are typically used to ship hazardous wastes, and would be expected to 

be used to ship mercury to the DOE storage facility(ies). As is currently the case for the transport of 

mercury and other hazardous materials and wastes, in the event of a serious transportation accident, the 

local fire department has the primary first-response responsibility. Fire department personnel would be 

responsible for assessing the significance of any accident and determining if the evacuation of nearby 

residents is warranted. If the release of mercury is detected, hazardous materials response teams may be 

called in to assess, contain, and clean up the contamination. Commercial hazardous waste shipping 

companies are required to carry insurance to cover accident cleanup. DOE would take title to the 

mercury when received at the storage facility(ies). 

The transportation risk sections in Chapter 4 of this Mercury Storage EIS describe the risks from 

transportation of mercury by truck and rail, including accident risk along with the expected emergency 

response activities. Risks related to crossing water bodies during transportation are also discussed. 

Appendix D contains a detailed description of the transportation risk assessment. Mercury has been 

transported for many years and continues to be transported today as an industrial commodity and 

hazardous waste. Thus, the risks related to transportation of mercury to the DOE storage facility(ies) are 

not unique. 

Because there would few employees and 50 to 100 truck shipments of mercury each year, the impacts of 

transportation would be negligible. Therefore, transportation activities related to construction and 

operation of the mercury storage facility(ies) would not substantially add to cumulative transportation 

impacts. 

Health and Safety 

Commentors expressed concern about the health risks to workers and the public, including sensitive 

populations such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly. Commentors expressed concern about 

mercury storage near populated areas. 

Response: The sections on human health risks and facility accident risks in Chapter 4 of this Mercury 

Storage EIS describe the risks from exposure to mercury from normal operations and accidents. 

Appendix D contains a detailed description of the human health risk assessment. Risks are considered for 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–12

reasonable exposure routes, including breathing air and ingesting soil. As described in Chapter 4 and 

summarized in Chapter 2, Section 2.7, of the EIS, risks to workers and the public from normal operations 

would be negligible to low at any of the candidate sites. As described in Appendix D, the reference dose 

and reference concentrations used in estimating human health risk from long-term exposure to mercury 

include consideration of sensitive groups such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly. Likewise 

the Acute Exposure Guideline Level used in estimating human health risk from short-term exposure 

resulting from an accident, AEGL-2, is believed to be protective of all except a few extremely susceptible 

members of the population. 

Facility Accidents

Commentors expressed concern about the potential for adverse human health and ecological effects as a 

consequence of facility accidents (e.g., small spills and leaks of mercury or larger releases due to fire or 

other natural disasters such as earthquakes, sinkholes, tornadoes, and floods). Commentors also 

expressed concern about impacts of a terrorist act or act of sabotage, including a bombing or a deliberate 

plane crash, and about impacts of accidents at nearby facilities. Commentors expressed concern about 

emergency response in the event of an accident, including who would respond, the difficulty and expense 

of cleaning up mercury, who would pay for the cleanup, and how the public would be compensated. 

Response: The facility accident risks sections in Chapter 4 of this Mercury Storage EIS describe the risks 

from exposure to mercury during accidents as well as the emergency response and cleanup actions that 

are likely to take place in the event of an accident. As discussed in these sections and summarized in 

Chapter 2, Section 2.7, risks to workers from mercury released during facility accidents would be low. 

Mercury vapors that might escape from the storage facility(ies) after an accident would be diluted to low 

concentrations before reaching the public. Therefore, risks to the public would be negligible to low. 

These sections also include an assessment of intentional destructive acts that addresses terrorist acts and 

acts of sabotage. As discussed in Chapter 4, a mercury storage facility is not expected to be an attractive 

target for a terrorist attack. Appendix D contains a detailed description of the human health risk 

assessment for accidents. 

As discussed in the water resources sections of Chapter 4, the mercury storage sites would have approved 

spill prevention control and countermeasures plans to ensure that the appropriate response to a spill is 

made. As discussed in the facility accidents sections of Chapter 4, small leaks would be managed on site 

by trained technicians. The large sites, including Hanford, Hawthorne Army Depot, INL, SRS, and WCS, 

have onsite emergency response teams. In addition, these sites have mutual aide agreements with nearby 

county and/or municipal emergency response agencies. In the event of a serious accident at GJDS, or 

KCP, the county or municipal fire department would have primary first-responder responsibilities. In the 

event of an accident with release of mercury, the immediate concern for emergency responders would be 

to contain the mercury and minimize exposure to those on the scene. Emergency response personnel 

would be responsible for assessing the significance of any accident and determining if the evacuation of 

nearby residents is warranted. If the release of mercury is detected, additional hazardous materials 

response teams may be called in to help assess, contain, and clean up the contamination. DOE or the 

contractor responsible for operating the facility(ies) would be responsible for the costs of accident 

cleanup and any payments of damages to affected parties. 

Land Use

Commentors expressed the opinion that mercury storage would not be compatible with existing or future 

missions of the candidate site or with local, regional, or tribal land use plans. Commentors suggested that 

construction and operation of a mercury storage facility(ies) would divert funds and interfere with 

ongoing site cleanup. Commentors also expressed concern about proximity to parks and wilderness areas. 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–13

Response: The compatibility with candidate site missions and applicable land use plans is described in 

the land use sections in Chapter 4. Construction and operation of a mercury storage facility(ies) would 

be a separately funded item that would not divert funds from, nor interfere with, ongoing site cleanup. 

The proximity to parks and wilderness areas is described in the land use sections in Chapter 3. 

Environment

Commentors expressed concern about the extent of the regions of influence (ROIs) and the impacts on the 

environment, including impacts on air, soil, surface water, groundwater, ecosystems, critical habitats, 

wildlife, threatened and endangered species, global climate change, and cumulative impacts. 

Commentors requested that DOE analyze mitigation of environmental impacts. Commentors suggested 

that the U.S. Geological Survey should do an independent study to define the boundaries of the Ogallala 

Aquifer near WCS. Commentors stated that baseline surveys for mercury contamination should be 

performed. 

Response: As described in the introduction to Chapter 3, DOE evaluated the environmental impacts of 

the proposed actions within defined ROIs. These ROIs are specific to the resource area evaluated; 

encompass geographic areas within which any meaningful impact is expected to occur; and can include 

the areas within which the proposed action would take place, the sites as a whole, or nearby or distant 

offsite areas. 

As described in Appendix B, methods for assessing environmental impacts vary for each resource area 

(discipline). In addition, disciplines are analyzed in a manner commensurate with their importance and 

the expected level of impact on them under a specific alternative—the sliding-scale assessment approach. 

This is consistent with DOE guidance contained in its Recommendations for the Preparation of 

Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements (known as The Green Book) 

(DOE 2004a:1, 2, 19, 20), in which DOE expands on CEQ instructions for preparing EISs 

(40 CFR 1502.2) by stating that impacts should be discussed in proportion to their significance and 

specifically recommending the use of the sliding scale for impact identification and quantification. 

Chapter 4 of this Mercury Storage EIS contains the results of analyses of potential impacts on the natural 

and manmade environment appropriate to the alternatives being evaluated. Impacts are evaluated for 

land use and visual resources; geology, soils, and geologic hazards; water resources; air quality and 

noise; ecological resources; cultural resources; site infrastructure; waste management; occupational and 

public health and safety; ecological risk; socioeconomics; and environmental justice. Cumulative 

impacts, including global climate change, are presented in Section 4.11. Measures that could be used to 

mitigate adverse impacts are described in Section 4.12. 

As described in the WCS site discussion in Chapter 3, Section 3.8.3.2, the dry line, the southern limit of 

saturated conditions in the High Plains Aquifer (Ogallala Aquifer), is located just on the northern border 

of the current WCS facilities area. DOE believes this to be an accurate representation of the boundary of 

the Ogallala Aquifer near WCS. 

Existing data on mercury concentrations in environmental media (e.g., air, soil, surface water, and 

groundwater) are sufficient to support a mercury storage facility(ies) siting decision. Future sampling 

requirements would be addressed in site permits. 

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

Commentors asked about the economic benefits of construction and operation of the mercury storage 

facility(ies). Commentors expressed concern about impacts on traffic and the transportation infrastructure 

(e.g., bridges and highways). Commentors expressed the opinion that locating the mercury storage 

facility(ies) near a particular site could discourage future development and have adverse effects on 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–14

property values, agriculture, retirement, recreation, tourism, and overall quality of life. Commentors also 

expressed concern about environmental justice impacts. 

Response: The socioeconomics sections in Chapter 3 describe existing socioeconomic conditions at the 

candidate sites. As discussed in the corresponding sections of Chapter 4 and summarized in Chapter 2, 

Section 2.7, the alternatives would likely have negligible socioeconomic impacts at the candidate sites 

and in the affected ROIs in terms of employment levels and population trends. Impacts on traffic are 

expected to be negligible to minor during the 6-month construction period for a new facility(ies); they are 

expected to be negligible during operations because few new employees would be hired to operate the 

facility(ies) and few shipments of mercury would be delivered to the facility(ies) each day. As described 

in Appendix B, Section B.10.2, although publicity regarding the mercury storage facility(ies) may 

produce some short-term impacts on home sales and property values near the candidate sites, long-term 

impacts of perception and stigma are not expected. The existing distribution of minority and low-income 

populations within 16 kilometers (10 miles) and 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the candidate sites is 

described in Chapter 3. The environmental justice sections in Chapter 4 include an analysis of potential 

environmental justice impacts, defined as disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or 

low-income populations. 

Cultural Resources and American Indian Issues 

Commentors expressed concern about impacts on historic and archaeologic resources and American 

Indian interests. Commentors stated that DOE needs to perform required government-to-government 

consultations with tribal groups and that the tribes expect to be involved in the review and 

decisionmaking process. Commentors expressed concern that mercury storage is not compatible with the 

lifestyles of many tribal members or with tribal policies, which envision a site that is clean and restored. 

Commentors expressed concern that DOE’s methodology for estimating human health risk and 

environmental justice impacts does not account for the unique habits and lifestyles of tribal members. 

Response: As indicated in Chapter 5, Section 5.4.3, DOE is committed to performing its responsibilities 

regarding government-to-government consultations. DOE has initiated informal consultations with 

potentially affected tribes and believes that DOE and the tribes can effectively collaborate to ensure that 

Congress’s vision for a mercury storage facility(ies) is achieved. The land use sections in Chapter 4 

describe the compatibility of the mercury storage with site missions and applicable land use plans. As 

described in the appropriate sections of Chapter 4 and summarized in Chapter 2, Section 2.7, 

construction and operation of a mercury storage facility(ies) are expected to have little or no 

environmental, socioeconomic, and cultural resources impacts. As described in the human health risks 

sections in Chapter 4 and Appendix D, human health risk from normal operations would be negligible. 

Therefore adverse impacts on American Indians are not expected. As described in the cultural resources 

sections of Chapter 4, if American Indian remains or cultural resources are discovered during 

construction, land-disturbing activities would be suspended and DOE would contact the appropriate 

tribal representative and State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Decisions on mercury storage will be based on the environmental analyses presented in this Mercury 

Storage EIS and other factors, such as cost, schedule, strategic objectives, public input, and consultations 

with potentially affected American Indian tribal governments. DOE will announce its decision and 

approach for storage of the mercury in the Record of Decision (ROD), which will be published no earlier 

than 30 days after publication of the Final Mercury Storage EIS Notice of Availability. 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–15

Regulatory Compliance 

Commentors asked if mercury would be considered a commodity or an RCRA-regulated hazardous waste. 

Commentors expressed concern that the DOE mercury storage facility(ies) would be able to operate under 

the interim status provision of the Act before a state hazardous waste permit is granted, and that this 

would preclude the public involvement steps that normally occur in the permitting process. Commentors 

expressed concern that mercury storage may violate existing agreements with DOE and that long-term 

storage may be considered a disposal activity. 

Response: As described in Section 1.3.1, mercury must meet the acceptance criteria for the DOE storage 

facility and must be at least 99.5 percent pure. The mercury storage facility(ies) would be an 

RCRA-regulated hazardous waste storage facility. Mercury that is shipped to the DOE mercury storage 

facility(ies) would be managed as hazardous waste. Chapter 5 of this Mercury Storage EIS describes the 

environmental laws, regulations, permits, and other requirements applicable to mercury management and 

storage. Section 5 of the Act includes a provision to allow the mercury storage facility(ies) to operate 

under interim status provided it is in existence on or before January 1, 2013, until a final decision on a 

permit application is made. The mercury storage facility(ies) would be RCRA permitted and therefore 

would need to go through the EPA or state review and approval process. The RCRA permitting process 

includes additional opportunities for public involvement. 

In 1996, DOE and the Mesa County Board of Commissioners (Mesa County) entered into a Memorandum 

of Understanding (1996 MOU) (DOE and Mesa County 1996) to provide meaningful consultation with 

and participation of Mesa County in DOE’s use of GJDS. The position of Mesa County, a cooperating 

agency for purposes of this EIS, is that use of GJDS is restricted per the 1996 MOU between DOE and 

Mesa County, and that the 1996 MOU governs any proposed mercury storage at GJDS. Mesa County 

believes the agreement is clear and that GJDS is only to be used for uranium mill tailings, almost 

exclusively of local origin. Mesa County further asserts that DOE assured the citizens of Mesa County 

that the disposal site would never be used to store any wastes other than mill tailings. Mesa County 

believes DOE is obligated to honor this agreement. 

DOE acknowledges that the 1996 MOU stipulates that DOE must consult with Mesa County regarding 

decisions related to operations at the site. DOE will evaluate the applicability of the 1996 MOU to the 

long-term management and storage of elemental mercury at GJDS to determine whether the 1996 MOU 

would affect the viability of this site as a reasonable alternative. 

Activities at SRS are regulated under the National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 107-107, Section 3155 

[December 28, 2001]). This law includes a provision [Section 3155(c)(4)] that requires a “Plan for 

Disposition” that is to specify a “means by which all such defense plutonium and defense plutonium 

materials will be removed in a timely manner from the [SRS] for storage or disposal elsewhere”. The 

law does not include provisions that would regulate the storage of mercury within the proposed mercury 

storage facility(ies). 

Public Participation

Commentors stated that DOE should have provided notification of the public scoping meetings farther in 

advance of meeting dates and that the public scoping period should have been extended. Commentors 

also suggested that additional scoping meetings should have been held, and a scoping meeting should 

have been held closer to KCP. Commentors asked if there would be additional opportunities for public 

comment. Commentors requested that all public scoping transcripts and EIS reference documents be 

made available. 

Response: As described in Section 1.6, public scoping meetings were held at eight locations near 

candidate mercury storage sites. CEQ NEPA regulations require a minimum of 15 days between 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–16

publication of the NOI in the Federal Register and the first scoping meeting. DOE’s first scoping meeting 

was in compliance with these requirements. In response to public comments, DOE 

extended the public scoping period from 45 days to 52 days. DOE conducted public scoping meetings in 

the vicinity of each candidate mercury storage site because these areas are more likely to be directly 

affected by DOE’s decision on mercury storage. In response to public requests, DOE held an additional 

meeting in Portland, Oregon. For those individuals who could not attend one of the public meetings, 

DOE provided other methods to submit comments: (1) the Mercury Storage EIS website 

(http://www.mercurystorageeis.com), (2) a toll-free fax line (1-877-274-5462), and (3) the U.S. mail. 

Additional public hearings will also be held during the comment period on this draft EIS. DOE has 

added a public hearing in Eunice, New Mexico. 

DOE announced the dates and times of the public scoping meetings in the NOI in the Federal Register, on 

the project website, and in display advertisements prominently placed in local newspapers. Although 

display advertisements were prominently placed in one weekday and one weekend edition of local 

newspapers, DOE realizes that some individuals may not have seen the scoping meeting advertisements. 

Therefore, DOE is mailing notices for the draft EIS public hearings directly to persons on the Mercury 

Storage EIS mailing list. Meeting transcripts and reference documents will be a part of the 

administrative record for this Mercury Storage EIS. Reference documents are also available in the 

public reading rooms. 

Cost

Commentors suggested that life-cycle costs should be provided for each storage alternative. Commentors 

expressed concern that adequate fees must be collected by DOE to run the storage facility. Commentors 

suggested that DOE provide funding for state permitting and oversight. 

Response: Costs are not presented in the draft EIS. Section 5 of the Act authorizes DOE to assess and 

collect a fee at the time of delivery of mercury to the DOE storage facility to cover the costs of long-term 

management and storage. These costs include operations and maintenance, security, monitoring, 

reporting, personnel, administration, inspections, training, fire suppression, closure, and other costs 

required for compliance with applicable laws. Section 5 of the Act states that such costs shall not include 

costs associated with land acquisition or permitting. 

Other

A commentor expressed concern that the Act could result in more foreign mercury mining and recycling, 

resulting in more releases of mercury to the environment. Another commentor believed the Act could 

result in higher costs for the domestic mercury reclamation and recycling industry and therefore less 

recycling. A commentor suggested that DOE consider the need to fund research into mercury treatment 

and stabilization technologies while another commentor suggested implementation of a 50-year research 

program before mercury storage decisions are made. 

Response: In the Act, Congress mandates the preparation of two important studies. Section 5 of the Act 

requires DOE to submit to Congress no later than July 1, 2014, the results of a study to determine the 

impacts of the long-term mercury storage program on mercury recycling, including proposals to mitigate 

any negative impacts. Section 6 of the Act requires EPA to report on the global supply and trade of 

mercury no later than January 1, 2017; this report must include the amount of mercury traded globally 

that originates from primary mining, where such mining is conducted, and whether additional primary 

mining has occurred as a consequence of this Act. Funding for research into mercury treatment and 

stabilization technologies is outside the scope of this EIS. The Act contains specific near-term milestones 

for creation of a mercury storage facility(ies). A 50-year research program before mercury storage 

decisions are made would not be consistent with the Act. 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–17

1.7 OTHER RELEVANT NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEWS 

The proposed mercury management actions described in this Mercury Storage EIS would require 

coordination with other NEPA activities at each of the candidate sites. Ongoing and future hazardous 

waste management activities are particularly relevant. This section includes brief summaries of other 

activities that are occurring or planned at the seven candidate locations for long-term storage of mercury 

and at the current DOE mercury storage location at Y–12. The Final Waste Management Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and 

Hazardous Waste (DOE 1997) is applicable to all the candidate DOE sites and therefore, is described in 

this section. 

Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (Final WM PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0200) 

(DOE 1997). In May 1997, DOE issued the Final WM PEIS, which examined the potential 

environmental and cost impacts of strategic management alternatives for managing low-level radioactive 

waste (LLW), mixed low-level radioactive waste (MLLW), transuranic (TRU) waste, high-level 

radioactive waste, and nonwastewater hazardous waste resulting from activities at DOE sites around the 

United States. DOE published four initial RODs from this EIS, one each for TRU waste, hazardous 

waste, high-level radioactive waste, and LLW, and mixed waste. In the second ROD, published in the 

Federal Register on August 5, 1998 (63 FR 41810), DOE decided to continue using offsite facilities for 

the treatment of major portions of the nonwastewater hazardous waste generated at DOE sites. The Final 

WM PEIS is relevant because it evaluates the management of hazardous waste within the DOE complex. 

1.7.1 Grand Junction Disposal Site 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Remedial Actions at the Former Climax Uranium Company 

Uranium Mill Site, Grand Junction, Mesa County, Colorado (DOE/EIS-0126) (DOE 1986). This EIS 

evaluated alternatives for cleanup of contaminated material at the Climax Uranium Company mill site and 

associated vicinity properties in Grand Junction, Colorado. Six alternatives were evaluated, including 

disposal at the Cheney Reservoir Site, now known as GJDS. In the ROD for this EIS (DOE 1988), DOE 

selected disposal at GJDS of contaminated material from the mill site and associated properties. This EIS 

is relevant because it provides environmental information and evaluates the environmental impacts of 

GJDS operation. 

As described in Section 1.6, DOE and Mesa County entered into the 1996 MOU (DOE and Mesa County 

1996) to provide meaningful consultation with and participation of Mesa County in DOE’s use of GJDS. 

The position of Mesa County, a cooperating agency for purposes of this EIS, is that use of GJDS is 

restricted per the 1996 MOU between DOE and Mesa County, and that the 1996 MOU governs any 

proposed mercury storage at GJDS. Mesa County believes the agreement is clear and that GJDS is only 

to be used for uranium mill tailings, almost exclusively of local origin. Mesa County further asserts that 

DOE assured the citizens of Mesa County that the disposal site would never be used to store any wastes 

other than mill tailings. Mesa County believes DOE is obligated to honor this agreement. 

DOE acknowledges that the 1996 MOU stipulates that DOE must consult with Mesa County regarding 

decisions related to operations at the site. DOE will evaluate the applicability of the 1996 MOU to the 

long-term management and storage of elemental mercury at GJDS to determine whether the 1996 MOU 

would affect the viability of this site as a reasonable alternative. 

1.7.2 Hanford Site 

Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (Hanford 

Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS) (DOE/EIS-0222) (DOE 1999). As a result of public comments and 

changes in DOE’s policies regarding the integration of NEPA; the Comprehensive Environmental 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–18

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); and RCRA, DOE 

prepared this EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with implementing a 

comprehensive land use plan for Hanford. Working with Federal, state, and local agencies and tribal 

governments, DOE evaluated six land use alternatives. In the ROD for this EIS (64 FR 61615), 

DOE decided to adopt a comprehensive land use plan for Hanford. The purpose of this land use plan and 

its implementing policies and procedures is to facilitate decisionmaking about the site’s uses and facilities 

over at least the next 50 years. As part of this plan, the 200 Areas were designated Industrial-Exclusive 

and the 400 Area was designated Industrial. Hazardous waste storage activities, as described in this 

Mercury Storage EIS, are consistent with the Industrial-Exclusive land use designation selected for the 

200 Areas in the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS.

Supplement Analysis, Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement

(DOE/EIS-0222-SA-01) (DOE 2008). DOE completed a supplement analysis (SA) to help determine 

whether the existing Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS (DOE 1999) remains adequate, or 

whether a new EIS or a supplement to the existing EIS should be prepared. In the SA, DOE did not 

identify significant changes in circumstances or substantial new information that has evolved 

since 1999 that would affect the basis for its decision as documented in the Hanford Comprehensive 

Land-Use Plan EIS ROD. DOE does not plan to prepare a new EIS or a supplement to the existing EIS at 

this time. 

Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact 

Statement, Richland, Washington (HSW EIS) (DOE/EIS-0286F) (DOE 2004b). The scope of the HSW 

EIS covers management of LLW, MLLW, and post-1970 TRU waste at Hanford. Although hazardous 

waste was not within the scope of the HSW EIS, a new mercury storage building could be constructed in 

proximity to the existing radioactive waste storage buildings in the Central Waste Complex. Therefore, 

the HSW EIS provides environmental information on the Central Waste Complex, and analyses of 

operation of the radioactive waste storage buildings provide information related to land disturbance and 

ecological and cultural resource impacts to inform the decision on storage of mercury at Hanford. 

DOE, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Washington State Attorney General’s Office 

signed a Settlement Agreement ending the NEPA litigation related to the HSW EIS (State of Washington 

v. Bodman, Civil No. 2:03-cv-0518-AAM) on January 6, 2006. The agreement was intended to resolve 

the Department of Ecology’s concerns about HSW EIS groundwater analyses and to address other 

concerns about the HSW EIS. The agreement called for an expansion of the “Environmental Impact 

Statement for Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of Single-Shell Tanks at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington” (DOE/EIS-0356), which had been under development since the 

issuance of an NOI in January 2003 (68 FR 1052). In fulfillment of the agreement, a new analysis, the 

Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington (TC & WM EIS) was prepared to provide a single, integrated set of analyses that includes all 

waste types that were analyzed in the HSW EIS. The TC & WM EIS is discussed in more detail in the 

next section. 

Pending finalization of the TC & WM EIS, the HSW EIS remains in effect to support ongoing waste 

management activities at Hanford in combination with other applicable Hanford NEPA and CERCLA 

documents, permits, and approvals. However, DOE will not rely on the groundwater analyses in the 

HSW EIS for decisionmaking. 

Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, 

Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS) (DOE/EIS-0391) (DOE 2009b). The TC & WM EIS analyzes 

the potential health and environmental impacts of storing, retrieving, treating, and disposing of waste 

generated during defense production years and stored in underground tanks at Hanford. This EIS also 

evaluates the potential health and environmental impacts of ongoing solid waste management operations 

at Hanford and the final disposition of the Fast Flux Test Facility. The Draft TC & WM EIS was issued 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–19

for public comment on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56194). The TC & WM EIS analyzes mercury as a 

constituent of concern but the specifics of a mercury storage facility(ies) are not analyzed. The 

TC & WM EIS analyzes environmental impacts of the Radioactive Waste Management Program at 

Hanford, and it is anticipated that many of the characteristics such as building size, resource use, and 

labor hours related to construction and operation of a mercury storage facility(ies) would be similar to 

facilities used to store radioactive waste. 

The Settlement Agreement (as amended on June 5, 2008) also stipulates that, when complete, the 

TC & WM EIS will supersede the HSW EIS. Until that time, DOE will not import offsite LLW, MLLW, 

or TRU waste to Hanford for disposal, apart from certain limited exemptions as specified in the 

agreement. 

Based on a recent draft consent decree (DOE 2009c), the TC & WM EIS Preferred Alternative also 

includes limitations and exemptions on offsite waste importation to Hanford, at least until the Waste 

Treatment Plant is operational, as those limitations and exemptions are defined in DOE’s January 6, 2006, 

Settlement Agreement with the State of Washington (as amended on June 5, 2008) regarding State of

Washington v. Bodman (Civil No. 2:03-cv-0518-AAM). This prohibition against importation of certain 

offsite wastes does not apply to the storage of hazardous materials and waste at Hanford. 

1.7.3 Hawthorne Army Depot 

Final Mercury Management Environmental Impact Statement (MM EIS) (DLA 2004). DLA prepared 

the MM EIS to help determine how to manage the Defense National Stockpile Center’s (DNSC’s) 

4,436 metric tons (4,890 tons) of surplus mercury because it was no longer needed for national defense. 

The MM EIS evaluated three alternatives to manage DNSC mercury over the long term. It described the 

potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic effects of each alternative. The alternatives 

evaluated were (1) No Action, in which mercury would continue to be stored at then-current locations; (2) 

consolidation and storage of mercury at one site; and (3) sale of the mercury. The MM EIS concluded 

that most of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of alternatives for mercury management 

would be small (referred to as “negligible” to “minor” in the analysis) under each of the three alternatives 

and that differences among them would not be sufficient in themselves to support selection of one 

alternative over the others. In the ROD (69 FR 23733), DNSC selected consolidation and storage of 

mercury at one site. Later, DNSC announced that mercury would be consolidated for storage at the 

Hawthorne Army Depot in Hawthorne, Nevada. Consolidating the 4,436 metric tons (4,890 tons) of 

excess DNSC mercury at one site was not predicted to result in significant environmental impacts at that 

site. The MM EIS is relevant because it examines long-term mercury storage at the Hawthorne Army 

Depot. 

1.7.4 Idaho National Laboratory 

Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (SNF PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0203) (DOE 1995a). In April 1995, DOE and 

the U.S. Department of the Navy, acting as a cooperating agency, issued the SNF PEIS. Volume 1 

analyzed alternatives for managing existing and reasonably foreseeable inventories of DOE’s spent 

nuclear fuel through the year 2035. Volume 2 presented a detailed analysis of environmental restoration 

and waste management activities at INL [formerly known as Idaho National Engineering Laboratory], 

including activities related to hazardous waste. The analysis supported facility-specific decisions 

regarding new, continued, or discontinued environmental restoration and waste management operations 

through the year 2005. The term “1995 EIS” refers to only Volume 2 of the 1995 EIS unless specifically 

noted. The SNF PEIS is relevant because it evaluates the environmental impacts of management of 

hazardous waste at INL. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–20

DOE issued an SA in November 2002 (2002 SA). A second SA (2005 SA) (DOE 2005a) examined the 

changes in activities at INL since the 2002 SA. The 2005 SA concluded that the 1995 EIS is still 

adequate for informing DOE decisionmakers and the public of the environmental risks and impacts of 

actions taken within the scope of the 1995 EIS and for existing environmental restoration and waste 

management operations at INL. 

1.7.5 Kansas City Plant 

Environmental Assessment for the Modernization of Facilities and Infrastructure for the Non-nuclear 

Production Activities Conducted at the Kansas City Plant (DOE/EA-1592) (GSA and NNSA 2008). 

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), as the lead agency, and National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA), as a cooperating agency, issued this final environmental assessment (EA) on 

April 21, 2008, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on April 29, 2008 (73 FR 23244), on 

their proposal to construct a new facility to house NNSA’s operations concerning nonnuclear 

components. Under the selected alternative, GSA would lease a new facility from a private developer on 

NNSA’s behalf, and NNSA would relocate its operations from the existing Bannister Federal Complex in 

Kansas City, Missouri, to the new facility. The new facility would reduce the environmental footprint of 

KCP operations, including improved energy efficiency, lower emissions, and a reduction in waste 

generation. Because no significant environmental impacts were identified in this EA, NNSA and GSA 

issued a FONSI and are moving forward with this project. This EA is relevant because it provides recent, 

relevant environmental information and supported a FONSI in which DOE decided to move NNSA 

operations to a new location away from the Bannister Federal Complex. 

1.7.6 Savannah River Site 

Savannah River Site Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (SRS WM EIS) 

(DOE/EIS-0217) (DOE 1995b). DOE issued the SRS WM EIS to provide a basis for selection of a 

sitewide approach to managing present and future (through 2024) wastes generated at SRS, including 

hazardous waste. These wastes come from ongoing operations and potential actions, new missions, 

environmental restoration, and decontamination and decommissioning programs. The SRS WM EIS is 

relevant because it evaluates the environmental impacts of management of hazardous waste at SRS. 

1.7.7 Waste Control Specialists, LLC 

Supplement Analysis for Transportation, Storage, Characterization, and Disposal of Transuranic 

Waste Currently Stored at the Battelle West Jefferson Site near Columbus, Ohio 

(DOE/EIS-0200-SA-02) (DOE 2005b). This SA analyses shipment of TRU (radioactive) waste to WCS 

for storage before characterization and shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico for 

disposal. 

West Valley Demonstration Project, Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement Supplement 

Analysis (DOE/EIS-0337-SA-01) (DOE 2006). This SA evaluates shipping LLW from the West Valley 

Demonstration Project in New York State to WCS for disposal. 

These SAs are relevant because they analyze shipment of wastes to WCS. 

1.7.8 Y–12 National Security Complex 

Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y–12 National Security Complex 

(DOE/EIS-0309) (DOE 2001). This EIS documents a baseline for Y–12 mission operations and 

evaluates the reasonable alternatives for implementing the programmatic decisions previously announced 

in the RODs for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and 

Management (61 FR 68014) and the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–21

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (63 FR 43386). In these RODs, DOE determined that 

the current NNSA missions would remain at Y–12. This EIS is relevant because it includes management 

of the 1,200 metric tons (1,300 tons) of mercury currently stored at Y–12. 

Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y–12 National Security Complex

(DOE/EIS-0387) (NNSA 2009). The new draft Y–12 sitewide EIS was issued in October 2009. This 

EIS evaluates alternatives for the continued operation of Y–12 and considers the continued storage of 

1,200 metric tons (1,300 tons) of mercury at Y–12. 

1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THIS MERCURY STORAGE EIS 

This Mercury Storage EIS consists of the main volume and a standalone summary. A brief description of 

Chapters 1 through 9 of the main volume is provided below: 

Chapter 1, “Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action,” outlines the proposed action and 

provides background information on the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 and the Nation’s 

mercury inventory. It also describes the scope of this EIS and other relevant NEPA documents.

Chapter 2, “Facility Descriptions, Alternatives, and Comparison of Environmental Consequences,” 

describes the existing and new mercury storage buildings analyzed in this EIS, the alternatives for 

management of the mercury, how the alternatives were developed, the activities that would take 

place under each alternative, and alternatives that initially were considered and subsequently 

eliminated from detailed study in this EIS. This chapter also provides a summary of impacts of 

the alternatives and a description of DOE’s Preferred Alternative. 

Chapter 3, “Affected Environment,” describes the potentially affected environments at the candidate 

sites and the approach taken in describing these affected environments. The level of detail 

presented for each resource (e.g., air quality, water resources) depends on the likelihood that the 

resource would be affected by mercury management activities. 

Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” describes the potential impacts on the affected 

environments of the proposed mercury management alternatives, including cumulative impacts 

and unavoidable adverse impacts. It also discusses potential future closure activities, irreversible 

and irretrievable commitments of resources, the relationship between short-term uses of the 

environment and long-term productivity, and mitigation. 

Chapter 5, “Environmental Laws, Regulations, Permits, and Other Potentially Applicable 

Requirements,” describes the environmental and health and safety compliance requirements 

governing implementation of the alternatives, a summary of permit requirements, and the status 

of consultations with Federal and state agencies and American Indian tribal governments. 

Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the “Glossary,” “List of Preparers,” “Distribution List,” and “Index,” 

respectively.

The appendices include descriptions of methods used to estimate environmental impacts of the 

alternatives and the detailed information to support the impact analyses. The appendices are as follows: 

 Appendix A – “The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, Federal Register Notices, and Other 

Public Notices” 

 Appendix B – “Impact Assessment Methodology” 

 Appendix C – “Storage Facility Construction and Operations Data” 

 Appendix D – “Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Analysis” 

 Appendix E – “Common and Scientific Names of Plant and Animal Species” 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–22

 Appendix F – “Cooperating Agency Agreements” 

 Appendix G – “Contractor and Subcontractor National Environmental Policy Act Disclosure 

Statements” 

1.9 REFERENCES 

DLA (Defense Logistics Agency), 2004, Final Mercury Management Environmental Impact Statement, 

Defense National Stockpile Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, March. 

DNSC (Defense National Stockpile Center), 2006, “Defense Stockpile Announces the Selection of the 

Mercury Consolidation Storage Location,” News Release, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, February 2. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1986, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Remedial Actions at 

the Former Climax Uranium Company Uranium Mill Site, Grand Junction, Mesa County, Colorado, 

DOE/EIS-126-F, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

December. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1988, Record of Decision for Remedial Actions at the Former Climax 

Uranium Company Uranium Mill Site, Grand Junction, Colorado, Office of Assistant Secretary for 

Nuclear Energy, August 4. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995a, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste 

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0203-F, Office of 

Environmental Management, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, April. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995b, Savannah River Site Waste Management Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0217, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina, July. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997, Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste,

DOE/EIS-0200-F, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., May. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1999, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental 

Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0222-F, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2001, Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Y–12 National Security Complex, DOE/EIS-0309, Oak Ridge Y–12 Area Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2004a, Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental 

Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, Second Edition, Office of NEPA Policy and 

Compliance, December. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2004b, Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste 

Program Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, Washington, DOE/EIS-0286F, Richland Operations 

Office, Richland, Washington, January. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005a, 2005 Supplement Analysis of the INL Site Portion of the 

April 1995 “Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement,” DOE/EIS-0203F-SA-02, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, June. 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–23

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2005b, Supplement Analysis for Transportation, Storage, 

Characterization, and Disposal of Transuranic Waste Currently Stored at the Battelle West Jefferson Site 

near Columbus, Ohio, DOE/EIS-0200-SA-02, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., 

October. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2006, West Valley Demonstration Project, Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement Supplement Analysis, DOE/EIS-0337-SA-01, West Valley 

Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York, June 7. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2008, Supplement Analysis, Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0222-SA-01, Richland Operations Office, Richland, 

Washington, June. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009a, U.S. Department of Energy Interim Guidance on Packaging, 

Transportation, Receipt, Management, and Long-Term Storage of Elemental Mercury, November 13. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009b, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EIS-0391, Office of River 

Protection, Richland, Washington, October. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009c, “Energy Secretary Chu, EPA Administrator Jackson, 

Washington State Governor Gregoire and Oregon Governor Kulongoski Join Elected Officials in 

Announcing Agreement on New Commitments for Hanford Cleanup,” Richland, Washington, August 11. 

DOE and Mesa County (U.S. Department of Energy and Mesa County), 1996, Memorandum of 

Understanding Between the United States Department of Energy and The Mesa County Board of 

Commissioners, April 22. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1997, Mercury Study Report to Congress, Vol. III, Fate 

and Transport of Mercury in the Environment, EPA-452/R-97-005, Office of Air Quality Planning & 

Standards and Office of Research and Development, December. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2000, Mercury Research Strategy, EPA/600/R-00/073, 

Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., September. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2007, Mercury Storage Cost Estimates, Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., 

November. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009, Report to Congress, Potential Export of Mercury 

Compounds from the United States for Conversion to Elemental Mercury, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C., October 14. 

Fed Biz Opps (Federal Business Opportunities), 2009, Request for Expressions of Interest Long-Term 

Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury, Solicitation No. DE-SOL-0000415, U.S. Department of 

Energy, March 17. 

GSA and NNSA (U.S. General Services Administration and National Nuclear Security Administration), 

2008, Environmental Assessment for the Modernization of Facilities and Infrastructure for the 

Non-nuclear Production Activities Conducted at the Kansas City Plant, DOE/EA-1592, Kansas City, 

Missouri, April 21. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

1–24

NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration), 2009, Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Y–12 National Security Complex, DOE/EIS-0387, Y–12 Site Office, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee. 

Triay, I.R., 2009, Assistance Required to Identify a Storage Facility for Elemental Mercury, Washington, 

D.C., March 30. 

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2002, Draft UNEP Chemicals Global Mercury 

Assessment, Geneva, Switzerland, April 25. 

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2009, Draft Technical Guidelines on the 

Environmentally Sound Management of Mercury Wastes, 4th Draft, Geneva, Switzerland, April. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2000, Mercury in the Environment, Fact Sheet 146-000, accessed 

through http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/, October. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2009, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2009, Reston, Virginia, 

January 29. 

Utah (Utah Department of Environmental Quality), 2009, Atmospheric Transport of Mercury, accessed 

through http://www.mercury.utah.gov/atmospheric_transport.htm, August 11. 

Code of Federal Regulations

10 CFR 1021, U.S. Department of Energy, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing 

Procedures.” 

40 CFR 1500–1508, Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

40 CFR 1501.7, Council on Environmental Quality, NEPA and Agency Planning: Scoping. 

40 CFR 1502.2, Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Impact Statement: Implementation. 

40 CFR 1506.10, Council on Environmental Quality, Other Requirements of NEPA: Timing of Agency 

Action. 

49 CFR 171–178, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Regulations Relating to Hazardous Materials Transport; Shipments and Packagings; 

Carriage by Rail, Aircraft, Vessel, and Highway; and Packaging Specifications.” 

Federal Register

61 FR 68014, U.S. Department of Energy, 1996, “Record of Decision Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management,” December 26. 

63 FR 41810, U.S. Department of Energy, 1998, “Record of Decision for the Department of Energy’s 

Waste Management Program: Treatment of Non-wastewater Hazardous Waste,” August 5. 

63 FR 43386, U.S. Department of Energy, 1998, Notice of an Amended Record of Decision, “Storage and 

Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials,” August 13. 

64 FR 61615, U.S. Department of Energy, 1999, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use 

Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS),” November 12. 
Introduction and Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

1–25

68 FR 1052, U.S. Department of Energy, 2003, “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of Single-Shell Tanks at the 

Hanford Site, Richland, WA,” January 8. 

69 FR 23733, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense National Stockpile Center, 2004, “Record of Decision 

for the Final Mercury Management Environmental Impact Statement,” April 30. 

73 FR 23244, U.S. General Services Administration and U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear 

Security Administration, 2008, “Finding of No Significant Impact; Modernization of Facilities and 

Infrastructure for the Non-nuclear Production Activities Conducted at the National Nuclear Security 

Administration’s Kansas City Plant Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-1592),” April 29. 

74 FR 11923, U.S. Department of Energy, 2009, “Request for Expressions of Interest in Hosting a 

Facility or Facilities for the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury,” March 20. 

74 FR 31723, U.S. Department of Energy, 2009, “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury,” July 2. 

74 FR 56194, U.S. Department of Energy, 2009, “Notice of Availability of the Tank Closure and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, WA,” October 30. 

United States Code

33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, as amended (Clean Water Act). 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 

42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 

42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended. 

U.S. Public Laws

P.L. 107-107, National Defense Authorization Act. 

P.L. 110-414, Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008.