Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 95189 

1 DOE has further analyzed the meaning of 

‘‘facility or facilities of the [DOE]’’ in a memo 

entitled The Meaning of ‘‘Facility or Facilities of the 

Department of Energy’’ in the Mercury Export Ban 

Act of 2008, in the Administrative Record. 

improve the consistency of performance 

data reported by States. 

Dated: November 26, 2024. 

Juliana Pearson, 

PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and 

Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division, 

Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of 

Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28204 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision for the Long-Term 

Management and Storage of Elemental 

Mercury and Designation of a LongTerm Management and Storage Facility 

AGENCY: Office of Environmental 

Management, U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Record of decision and facility 

designation. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the long-term 

management and storage of elemental 

mercury to meet the purpose and need 

for agency action, which is to fulfill 

DOE’s statutory responsibility for longterm management and storage of 

elemental mercury generated within the 

United States as required by the 

Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 and the 

Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for 

the 21st Century Act (together referred 

to herein as MEBA). 

ADDRESSES: For copies of this ROD/ 

MEBA Designation or the Mercury 

Storage SEIS–II, please contact Timothy 

Herald at U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Environmental Management, 

Office of Waste and Materials 

Management (EM–4.2), 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20585 or via email, 

Timothy.Herald@em.doe.gov. Electronic 

files can be accessed at https://

www.energy.gov/nepa/listings/recordsdecision-rod. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the management 

and storage of elemental mercury, 

please contact Timothy Herald at 

Timothy.Herald@em.doe.gov or visit 

https://www.energy.gov/em/long-termmanagement-and-storage-elementalmercury; by telephone: 240–243–8753. 

For general information on the Office of 

Environmental Management’s National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) process, please contact Bill 

Ostrum, NEPA Compliance Officer for 

the Office of Environmental 

Management, via email 

William.Ostrum@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ROD 

is issued for the Long-Term 

Management and Storage of Elemental 

Mercury Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (DOE/EIS–0423–S2) 

(Mercury Storage SEIS–II), which 

evaluates the storage of up to 7,000 

metric tons (7,700 tons) of elemental 

mercury in one or more existing 

facilities at alternative locations 

including a government facility at the 

Hawthorne Army Depot near 

Hawthorne, Nevada, and seven 

commercial candidate locations: Waste 

Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) near 

Andrews, Texas; Bethlehem Apparatus 

Company in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; 

Perma-Fix Diversified Scientific 

Services, Inc., in Kingston, Tennessee; 

Veolia Environmental Services in Gum 

Springs, Arkansas; and Clean Harbors 

Environmental Services, with three 

alternative facilities in Pecatonica, 

Illinois; Greenbrier, Tennessee; and 

Tooele, Utah. This ROD announces 

DOE’s decision to select WCS from its 

preferred alternative of selecting one or 

more of the existing commercial 

facilities evaluated in the SEIS–II. DOE 

is also issuing this document to 

designate a facility of the DOE for the 

long-term management and storage of 

elemental mercury generated within the 

United States in accordance with 

MEBA. In addition to the analysis in the 

Mercury Storage SEIS–II, DOE based its 

MEBA facility designation decision on a 

combination of factors including 

schedule, permitting, policy and 

technical considerations, as well as cost 

information (including information 

gained during an independent and 

competitive procurement process). DOE 

designates WCS as that facility in 

accordance with MEBA. 

A. Background 

The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 

(Pub. L. 110–414) and the 2016 Frank R. 

Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st 

Century Act (Pub. L. 114–182) (together 

referred to herein as MEBA), address, 

among other things, the export and longterm management and storage of 

elemental mercury. MEBA prohibits the 

export of elemental mercury from the 

United States (U.S.) (with certain 

essential use exemptions). MEBA also 

directs the Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) to 

designate a facility or facilities of DOE 

for the long-term management and 

storage of elemental mercury generated 

within the U.S. (42 U.S.C. 6939f(a)(1)). 

MEBA further provides the Secretary of 

Energy with the authority to establish 

such terms, conditions, and procedures 

as are necessary to carry out this longterm management and storage function 

(42 U.S.C. 6939f(f)). Consistent with 

these statutory provisions, and based on 

longstanding authorities and practice, 

DOE construes the term ‘‘facility of 

DOE’’ to include a facility leased from 

a commercial entity or another Federal 

agency over which DOE provides an 

appropriate level of responsibility and 

control.1

The primary sources of elemental 

mercury in the United States include 

mercury generated as a byproduct of the 

gold-mining process and mercury 

reclaimed from recycling and wasterecovery activities. In addition, the DOE 

National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) stores at the 

Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee 

approximately 1,200 metric tons (1,300 

tons) of elemental mercury that was 

acquired in support of NNSA’s mission. 

As identified in the Mercury Storage 

SEIS–II, this NNSA elemental mercury 

is included in the SEIS–II (for analytical 

purposes), even though it is currently 

designated as a commodity and not 

waste. 

In 2011, DOE prepared the Final 

Long-Term Management and Storage of 

Elemental Mercury Environmental 

Impact Statement (DOE/EIS–0423) 

(2011 Mercury Storage EIS) to evaluate 

seven candidate locations for a facility 

for management and storage of 

elemental mercury, as well as a NoAction Alternative. The locations 

included use of existing facilities, new 

facility construction, or both. The 

candidate locations evaluated in 2011 

were the DOE Grand Junction Disposal 

site near Grand Junction, Colorado (new 

construction); DOE Hanford Site near 

Richland, Washington (new 

construction); Hawthorne Army Depot 

(HWAD) near Hawthorne, Nevada 

(modification of existing facilities); DOE 

Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho 

Falls, Idaho (new construction and 

modification of an existing facility); 

Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, 

Missouri (existing facility); DOE 

Savannah River Site near Aiken, South 

Carolina (new construction); and the 

Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS) 

site near Andrews, Texas (new 

construction and an existing facility). 

In 2013, DOE prepared the Final 

Long-Term Management and Storage of 

Elemental Mercury Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/ 

EIS–0423–S1) (2013 Mercury Storage 

SEIS) to evaluate three additional 

alternative locations, all in the vicinity 

of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
95190 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 

Carlsbad, New Mexico (all new 

construction). The 2013 Mercury 

Storage SEIS also updated some of the 

relevant analyses for alternatives 

presented in the 2011 Mercury Storage 

EIS. 

For the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS and 

the 2013 Mercury Storage SEIS, DOE 

estimated that up to approximately 

10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of 

elemental mercury would need to be 

managed and stored at the DOEdesignated facility during a 40-year 

period assumed for analysis purposes. 

In the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS and the 

2013 Mercury Storage SEIS, DOE 

identified WCS as the preferred 

alternative. 

On December 6, 2019, DOE issued a 

Record of Decision (ROD) to document 

its designation of the WCS site near 

Andrews, Texas, for the management 

and storage of up to 6,800 metric tons 

(7,480 tons) of elemental mercury in 

leased portions of existing buildings at 

the WCS site (84 FR 66890). The ROD 

was supported by DOE’s Supplement 

Analysis of the Final Long-Term 

Management and Storage of Elemental 

Mercury Environmental Impact 

Statement (DOE/EIS–0423–SA–1), 

which evaluated changes in 

environmental conditions at WCS that 

had occurred since the initial analyses 

were completed in 2011 and 2013 and 

determined that the long-term 

management and storage of up to 6,800 

metric tons of elemental mercury in 

existing buildings at the WCS site 

would not constitute a substantial 

change from the proposal evaluated in 

the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS and 

updated in the 2013 Mercury Storage 

SEIS. On December 23, 2019, DOE 

published a rule adding 10 CFR part 

955, which established the fee for longterm management and storage of 

elemental mercury (84 FR 70402) (Fee 

Rule). 

Two domestic generators of elemental 

mercury subsequently filed complaints 

in U.S. District Court challenging, 

among other things, the validity of the 

Fee Rule and the designation of WCS 

(Coeur Rochester, Inc. v. Brouillette et 

al., Case No. 1:19–cv–03860–RJL [D.D.C. 

filed December 31, 2019] and Nevada 

Gold Mines LLC v. Brouillette et al., Case 

No. 1:20–cv–00141–RJL [D.D.C filed 

January 17, 2020]). As part of a 

settlement agreement, DOE withdrew 

the designation of WCS in an amended 

ROD on October 6, 2020 (85 FR 63105) 

and subsequently removed Part 955 (89 

FR 33203). 

On May 24, 2021, DOE issued a 

Notice of Intent in the Federal Register 

(86 FR 27838) notifying the public of 

DOE’s intent to prepare a second LongTerm Management and Storage of 

Elemental Mercury Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/ 

EIS–0423–S2) (Mercury Storage SEIS– 

II). 

On July 8, 2022, DOE published a 

Notice of Availability (NOA) in the 

Federal Register (87 FR 40830) of the 

Draft Mercury Storage SEIS–II, inviting 

public comment during the 45-day 

public comment period and announcing 

two virtual public hearings. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published an NOA in the Federal 

Register on the same day, which 

officially began the 45-day comment 

period on the Draft Mercury Storage 

SEIS–II (87 FR 40838). In response to a 

request from the public, DOE extended 

the public comment period on the Draft 

Mercury Storage SEIS–II and issued a 

Federal Register notice on August 12, 

2022 (87 FR 49817), announcing a 15- 

day extension. The public comment 

period ended on September 6, 2022. 

The Draft Mercury Storage SEIS–II 

evaluated the management and storage 

of up to 7,000 metric tons (7,700 tons) 

of elemental mercury in one or more 

permitted, existing facilities at 

alternative locations including HWAD, a 

government facility near Hawthorne, 

Nevada, and seven commercial 

candidate locations: WCS; Bethlehem 

Apparatus Company in Bethlehem, 

Pennsylvania; Perma-Fix Diversified 

Scientific Services, Inc., in Kingston, 

Tennessee; Veolia Environmental 

Services in Gum Springs, Arkansas; and 

Clean Harbors Environmental Services, 

with three alternative facilities in 

Pecatonica, Illinois; Greenbrier, 

Tennessee; and Tooele, Utah. In the 

Draft Mercury Storage SEIS–II, DOE 

identified its preferred alternative to 

select one or more of the existing 

commercial facilities for long-term 

management and storage of elemental 

mercury. 

On February 9, 2024, EPA published 

in the Federal Register an NOA for the 

Final Mercury Storage SEIS–II (89 FR 

9147). The Final Mercury Storage SEIS– 

II addressed comments received on the 

Draft Mercury Storage SEIS–II. 

Consistent with the Draft Mercury 

Storage SEIS–II, DOE identified its 

preferred alternative to select one or 

more of the existing commercial 

facilities for future designation as the 

long-term elemental mercury 

management and storage facility. 

In parallel with the NEPA process, 

DOE conducted a competitive 

procurement action to identify a 

company that could provide (1) leased 

space for the long-term management and 

storage of elemental mercury generated 

in the United States and (2) the 

associated services necessary for the 

long-term management and storage of 

elemental mercury. Information gained 

during the procurement action has 

informed the MEBA designation of the 

long-term elemental mercury 

management and storage facility. 

B. Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

MEBA prohibits the export of 

elemental mercury from the United 

States (subject to certain essential use 

exemptions) and, as of October 14, 2008, 

prohibits a Federal agency from 

conveying, selling, or distributing to any 

other Federal agency, any state or local 

government agency, or any private 

individual or entity any elemental 

mercury under the control or 

jurisdiction of the Federal agency (with 

certain limited exceptions). 

Section 5 of MEBA (42 U.S.C. 

6939f(a)(1)) directs the Secretary of 

Energy to designate a facility or facilities 

of the DOE for the purpose of long-term 

management and storage of elemental 

mercury generated within the United 

States. In the Mercury Storage SEIS–II 

(Section 2.1.2), DOE estimated the 

storage capacity needed for the 40-year 

period used for analysis to be up to 

7,000 metric tons (7,700 tons) of 

elemental mercury. Because the 

statutory milestone date for the 

designated facility to become 

operational (January 1, 2019, see 42 

U.S.C. 6939f(a)(2)) has passed, DOE also 

identified a need to designate a facility 

and begin accepting elemental mercury 

as soon as practicable. 

C. Proposed Action 

As identified in the Mercury Storage 

SEIS–II, DOE proposed to designate one 

or more facilities for the long-term 

management and storage of elemental 

mercury in accordance with MEBA. 

D. Alternatives 

As described in Section 2.8 of the 

Mercury Storage SEIS–II, DOE 

considered but dismissed the following 

from detailed analysis: 

• Storage-related alternatives and 

certain transportation methods 

eliminated in the 2011 Mercury Storage 

SEIS, 

• Treatment and disposal options, 

• Commercial facilities described in 

Section 2.2 of the Mercury Storage 

SEIS–II, 

• Sites within the DOE complex that 

met its objective criteria for 

consideration as a reasonable 

alternative, but as described in Section 

2.2.4 of the Mercury Storage SEIS–II, no 

reasonable alternatives were identified, 

and 

• Construction of a new facility. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 95191 

2Elemental Mercury Long-Term Management and 

Storage Request for Proposal 89303320REM000081 

(March 24, 2022), as amended (Request for 

Proposal). 

While previously addressed in the 

2011 EIS and 2013 SEIS, new facility 

construction was an alternative that was 

considered but dismissed from further 

analysis in the Mercury Storage SEIS–II 

based on intervening developments. The 

primary reasons that new construction 

was not considered to be a reasonable 

alternative in the SEIS–II include: 

(1) Construction of a new facility 

generally would not meet the purpose 

and need for agency action because 

schedule delays associated with new 

construction would further exacerbate 

the missed statutory deadline for the 

DOE-designated management and 

storage facility to be operational by 

January 1, 2019. When compared to 

using existing facilities, DOE estimates 

that construction of a new facility 

would add at least five years to the time 

needed for the facility to be ready for 

the long-term management and storage 

of elemental mercury, delaying DOE’s 

receipt of elemental mercury even 

further beyond the deadline prescribed 

by Congress and subjecting DOE to 

additional financial liabilities under 42 

U.S.C. 6939f(b)(1)(B)(iv), and 

(2) In 2020, a petition was filed with 

EPA for a site-specific Determination of 

Equivalent Treatment that would 

convert elemental mercury to a 

stabilized mercury compound for land 

disposal at a permitted disposal facility 

in Beatty, Nevada. If approved, this 

approach could offer a permanent 

disposal solution for elemental mercury 

in the U.S. EPA’s review of the petition 

was ongoing during preparation of the 

Mercury Storage SEIS–II and no 

decision on the petition has been 

issued. However, DOE believes there is 

a realistic possibility that an approved 

treatment and disposal method for 

elemental mercury will be available 

within 10 years. If such a treatment and 

disposal method were to become 

available, it would likely decrease both 

the length of time the designated MEBA 

facility would need to store elemental 

mercury and the quantity of mercury to 

be stored there at any given time. Use 

of an existing facility allows for greater 

managerial flexibility to accommodate a 

shorter storage duration and associated 

lower projected inventory of elemental 

mercury. 

In addition to the No-Action 

Alternative, the Mercury Storage SEIS– 

II identified and evaluated the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

implementation of the Proposed Action 

in existing facilities at the following 

reasonable alternative locations: 

• Hawthorne Army Depot in 

Hawthorne, Nevada; 

• WCS in Andrews County, Texas; 

• Bethlehem Apparatus in 

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; 

• Perma-Fix Diversified Scientific 

Services, Inc., in Kingston, Tennessee; 

• Veolia Environmental Services in 

Gum Springs, Arkansas; and 

• Clean Harbors Environmental 

Services (facilities in Pecatonica, 

Illinois; Greenbrier, Tennessee; and 

Tooele, Utah). 

In 2022, DOE issued a Request for 

Proposals which initiated a competitive 

procurement process soliciting bids 

from commercial facilities for long-term 

management and storage of elemental 

mercury.2 DOE received two proposals. 

One of the proposals was subsequently 

withdrawn by the submitting entity. 

While DOE, in the Mercury Storage 

SEIS–II, analyzed all of the existing 

facilities listed above, after the 

solicitation, there were only two viable 

action alternatives—one commercial 

option—WCS and one non-commercial 

option—HWAD. 

Section E describes, generally, the 

potential environmental impacts of all 

of the action alternatives. As reflected in 

the Mercury Storage SEIS–II, the 

impacts for the facilities are generally 

comparable. Where differences are 

notable, these are noted in Section E. 

Section E also includes additional 

information for WCS, as the selected 

alternative, to provide further 

comparative context. 

E. Potential Environmental Impacts 

As noted in the Mercury Storage 

SEIS–II, quantitative evaluation of 

potential environmental consequences 

under the No-Action Alternative would 

be highly speculative. The SEIS–II 

qualitatively evaluates the potential 

environmental consequences of the 

various options that are available to 

entities under the No-Action Alternative 

(e.g., continued accumulation, storage at 

a permitted facility, or treatment and 

disposal in Canada). It is possible that 

some land, or land with more- or lesssensitive resources than those analyzed 

under the action alternatives, could be 

affected. Environmental consequences 

to land use and ownership, visual, 

geology, soils, ecological, and cultural 

and paleontological resource areas are 

dependent on the affected environment 

disturbed and amount of land 

disturbance that might occur. Potential 

environmental consequences to water 

resources would depend on the specific 

location and proximity to surface 

waterbodies and groundwater aquifers 

and the current use of these water 

resources. If elemental mercury were 

transported to a RCRA-permitted storage 

facility or to a treatment facility, the 

potential transportation-related 

consequences would not be markedly 

different than those predicted for the 

action alternatives. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

management and storage of elemental 

mercury may or may not be conducted 

in accordance with RCRA regulations. 

For example, long-term accumulation at 

ore processor sites has not necessarily 

been permitted for long-term storage. As 

such, there could be a heightened risk 

of facility accidents and inconsistent 

management and storage of elemental 

mercury containers. This could lead to 

potentially greater environmental 

consequences associated with air 

quality, occupational and public health 

and safety, and ecological resources. In 

contrast, if much of the excess elemental 

mercury remained at the generating 

facilities and was not transferred to a 

DOE long-term storage facility, it is 

reasonable to expect that environmental 

consequences associated with 

transportation would be somewhat less 

than those predicted to occur under the 

action alternatives. Although, these 

transportation consequences would 

eventually be realized if the 

accumulated elemental mercury were 

eventually shipped offsite for storage, 

treatment, or disposal. If elemental 

mercury was transported to a RCRApermitted treatment facility and then on 

to Canada for land disposal, 

transportation impacts would be similar 

to those predicted under the action 

alternatives. There would be no 

environmental consequences under the 

No-Action Alternative related to DOE 

storage at any of the candidate sites 

because a DOE elemental mercury 

storage facility(ies) would not be 

operated. 

For the Proposed Action, the Mercury 

Storage SEIS–II evaluated the use of 

existing facilities at each of the 

alternative site locations for long-term 

management and storage of elemental 

mercury. In addition to operations of the 

facilities for long-term management and 

storage of elemental mercury, the 

analysis also included the assessment of 

potential impacts from the 

transportation of the elemental mercury 

from its origin sites to the long-term 

management and storage locations via 

truck. The analysis of potential 

environmental impacts included an 

evaluation of the following 

environmental resource areas: land use 

and ownership, and visual resources; 

geology and soils; water resources; air 

quality and noise; ecological resources; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
95192 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 

3The Mercury Storage SEIS–II evaluates 

transportation related impacts if elemental mercury 

is transported for pre-storage treatment and then 

transported to the designated management and 

storage facility, as well as impacts if the elemental 

mercury is only transported to the designated 

facility. 

4The consultation process under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act can be found 

at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapterVIII/part-800/subpart-B. 

cultural resources; site infrastructure; 

waste management; occupational and 

public health and safety; ecological risk; 

socioeconomics; and environmental 

justice. 

Land use and ownership, and visual 

resources. No impacts on land use or 

visual resources would be expected for 

any of the alternative sites. If DOE were 

to designate an action alternative(s), it 

would obtain a leasehold interest or 

other form of property interest in that 

facility and would ensure that any such 

interest would afford DOE an 

appropriate level of responsibility and 

control over the facility. Such 

responsibility and control would 

include exercising the authority 

necessary to ensure that the facility is 

managed and operated in compliance 

with MEBA and other applicable legal 

requirements and through contractual 

provisions. 

Additional time would be required to 

implement the HWAD alternative 

because of preparatory activities that 

would be required, including 

modifications or upgrades of multiple 

buildings, real estate transactions, and 

regulatory permitting that would not be 

required for the existing, permitted 

commercial facilities. DOE estimates the 

time required to complete the activities 

to allow receipt of elemental mercury at 

HWAD for long-term management and 

storage would be at least five years from 

the date that DOE designated HWAD for 

such use. Whereas, WCS would be 

capable of expeditiously accepting 

elemental mercury for long-term 

management and storage. 

Geology, soils, and geologic hazards. 

Except for the HWAD site, no impacts 

to geology and soils are expected 

because no new construction or soil 

disturbance would be required. At 

HWAD, external modifications would 

require trenching for installation of 

needed utilities and other systems and 

services, resulting in negligible-to-minor 

impacts to previously disturbed, 

surrounding soils. This would also 

include the upgrade or addition of 

access roads to the modified buildings 

at HWAD. The area surrounding HWAD 

is one of high seismic activity. As 

discussed in the 2011 Mercury Storage 

EIS, while the Hawthorne, Nevada, area 

has historically experienced numerous 

earthquakes and significant ground 

shaking, no depot facilities have 

suffered damage due to earthquakes 

over the 60-plus years of operations. 

Updated USGS earthquake hazard data 

recharacterize the PGA at HWAD as 0.62 

g (USGS 2021b). This is the upper end 

of the range for the sites evaluated in the 

Mercury Storage SEIS–II (0.05–0.62 g). 

There would be no new construction at 

the WCS site and no additional impacts 

to geology and soils. The seismicity of 

the WCS region is on the lower end of 

the range of the alternative sites 

evaluated in the Mercury Storage SEIS– 

II. 

Water resources. Storage of elemental 

mercury at any of the alternative sites 

would increase water use for sanitary 

purposes by up to 16,000 gallons per 

year. The increased water use would 

directly correlate to the number of 

additional personnel required during 

operations. No impacts to groundwater 

or surface water would be expected. 

None of the alternative sites are located 

within a designated 100-year regulated 

floodplain. The use of structural 

controls at the WCS Container Storage 

Building, such as concrete sealed floors 

and containment berms inside the 

building, would prevent release of 

mercury outside of the building and 

thus protect surface water and 

groundwater from potential impacts. 

Air quality and noise. Impacts to air 

quality at each alternative site would be 

negligible. The transportation of 

elemental mercury from existing storage 

sites and generators over a 40-year 

period would release relatively small 

quantities of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Mercury 

Storage SEIS–II also evaluated the social 

cost associated with these GHG 

emissions. An average of 13 truck trips 

per year would be required to transport 

the 7,000 metric tons of elemental 

mercury to a storage location(s). Total 

GHG emissions in carbon dioxide 

equivalent for the 40-year analysis 

period would be between 592 tons and 

4,312 tons dependent on the facility 

location and whether or not pre-storage 

treatment 3 is undertaken. The GHGs 

associated with WCS would be between 

1,161 tons and 3,477 tons. Noise created 

by mercury storage operations, 

including transportation, would be 

indiscernible from existing noise levels. 

Ecological resources. No impacts on 

terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, 

wetlands, and threatened or endangered 

and other protected species would be 

expected for any of the alternative sites 

because of the use of existing buildings, 

which would require minimal-to-no 

external modifications. Because no 

external modifications would be 

expected at WCS, there would be no 

impacts to terrestrial, aquatic, or 

threatened or endangered species. 

Cultural resources. Except for HWAD, 

there are no known prehistoric or 

historic cultural resources at any of the 

alternative site locations, and any 

potential unknown sites would not be 

impacted since elemental mercury 

storage would occur within existing 

structures with no new construction or 

surface disturbance planned. At HWAD, 

the Group 110 design storehouses that 

are proposed for elemental mercury 

storage are historic architectural 

properties that are part of a larger 

historic district, as are many of the 

structures at HWAD. None of the Group 

110 structures would be impacted under 

the Proposed Action other than by 

proposed building modifications. These 

modifications would be coordinated 

with the Nevada State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO). If HWAD 

were considered for designation, DOE 

would further consult with the Nevada 

SHPO on the proposed storage building 

modifications to determine the potential 

impacts on those structures eligible for 

listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places and potential mitigation 

measures, as appropriate. The 

consultation process would need to be 

completed prior to construction 

activities involving the facilities at 

HWAD.4 Therefore, the key activities 

related to cultural resources that would 

need to be completed prior to any 

construction activities at HWAD would 

include: (1) designation of HWAD for 

long-term management and storage of 

elemental mercury, (2) detailed design 

of all modifications to specific HWAD 

buildings and infrastructure, and (3) 

closure of the consultation process with 

the Nevada SHPO. Because WCS would 

use an existing, permitted building and 

not require any external modifications, 

there would be no impacts to cultural 

resources. 

Site infrastructure. The frequency of 

elemental mercury shipments is 

projected to be small (average of 13 per 

year) compared with baseline truck 

traffic; therefore, existing road systems 

would be adequate for supporting the 

transfer of elemental mercury. All of the 

alternative sites have sufficient utility 

capacity to support elemental mercury 

storage. Because most of the sites are 

existing, permitted, operating facilities, 

the incremental increase in utility 

requirements would be small. At 

HWAD, additional utility services 

would have to be extended to the 

designated storage buildings, as needed, 

including electricity, heating, water, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 95193 

communications even though the 

service capacity on site is sufficient. 

Additionally, access roads would have 

to be upgraded and/or constructed, as 

appropriate. The average of 

approximately 13 shipments per year of 

elemental mercury would represent an 

increase of about 0.5 percent to current 

shipments to the WCS site and there 

would be no appreciable increase in 

utility use at WCS. 

Waste management. The operation of 

an elemental mercury storage facility 

would be expected to generate a 

quantity of hazardous waste that is 

commensurate with the amount of 

elemental mercury stored at the facility. 

The estimate of hazardous waste 

generation was based on the analysis in 

the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS, which 

assumed some degree of repackaging of 

potential leaking containers as well as a 

larger amount (10,000 MT) of elemental 

mercury. This is an extremely 

conservative estimate and is bounding 

for any of the alternative sites because 

the elemental mercury containers would 

not be routinely opened at the storage 

facility, leaking containers are expected 

to be a rare event, and the projected 

maximum storage capacity is now 7,000 

MT. Assuming a capacity of 7,000 

metric tons of elemental mercury, the 

Mercury Storage SEIS–II conservatively 

estimated that up to 637, 55-gallon 

drums of hazardous waste could be 

generated over the 40-year analytical 

period (about 16, 55-gallon drums per 

year). Approximately 16,000 gallons of 

sanitary wastewater would be expected 

to be generated per year from elemental 

mercury management and storage 

operations. Considering that WCS likely 

would not increase staff to support this 

effort, there would be no, or limited, 

increase in sanitary wastewater impacts 

for the Proposed Action. 

Occupational and public health and 

safety. The Mercury Storage SEIS–II 

presented potential impacts for normal 

operations, facility accidents, and 

transportation. Normal operations 

would involve the receipt and long-term 

management and storage of elemental 

mercury. Exposures could arise during 

normal operating conditions from small 

amounts of mercury vapor accumulating 

in the storage areas. The estimated 

consequences to involved workers, 

noninvolved workers, or members of the 

public are anticipated to be negligible. 

Facility accidents could include 

elemental mercury spills inside or 

outside the storage building. The SEIS– 

II concluded that the potential risks 

(considering accident probability and 

potential consequences) to workers and 

the offsite public would range between 

negligible and low for these spills. The 

highest potential consequences would 

be associated with the beyond-designbasis earthquake that, theoretically, 

could cause a total building collapse. In 

this extremely unlikely event, members 

of the public around the Bethlehem 

Apparatus and Clean Harbors 

Greenbrier sites could be within 330 feet 

of the storage buildings and could be 

exposed to potentially lethal 

concentrations. However, the 

probability of a beyond-design-basis 

earthquake in these areas is extremely 

unlikely, as the peak ground 

acceleration (g) for Bethlehem, 

Pennsylvania, and Greenbrier, 

Tennessee, is only 0.10 g and 0.14 g, 

respectively, indicating areas of 

relatively low seismic activity. 

Additionally, these members of the 

public likely would evacuate from the 

area immediately, resulting in a 

reduction of the potential severity level 

to the low range. Residents and other 

members of the public at other 

alternative sites would be farther away 

from the facilities and not subject to the 

higher potential consequences of a 

beyond-design-basis earthquake. As 

mentioned above for geology and soils, 

the seismicity of the region around WCS 

is even lower (0.08 g) and a beyonddesign-basis earthquake that resulted in 

the collapse of the Container Storage 

Building is even more unlikely. 

Additionally, the closest public access 

to the WCS site is about 0.62 miles and 

accident risks to members of the public 

would be negligible-to-low. 

For transportation health and safety, 

the transportation risks under all 

alternative sites are a function of the 

number of miles driven and the nature 

of the accident (fire or no fire). The 

various potential accident scenarios 

evaluated in the Mercury Storage SEIS– 

II would result in risks that range from 

negligible to low. Transportation of 

7,000 MT of elemental mercury over 40 

years to WCS would require about 

627,000 miles of truck shipments. 

Compared to other alternatives, this is 

near the middle of the range (315,118 to 

1,079,301 miles). 

Ecological risks. Consequences, and 

hence risks, would be negligible to all 

ecological receptors except if there were 

a fire that accompanied an accident. 

Without fire, the primary risk is 

inhalation of mercury vapor, which is 

an insignificant pathway for exposure to 

ecological receptors. Some ecological 

receptors (e.g., sediment-dwelling biota, 

soil invertebrates, American robin, river 

otter, and plants) could have low risks 

under some specific accident scenarios 

with a fire. Under a very specific 

scenario involving a fire, coincident 

with rain, sediment-dwelling biota 

could be subject to moderate risks. 

These risks are a function of the total 

shipment miles and therefore, the 

ecological risks from transportation of 

elemental mercury to WCS would be 

mid-range for all alternatives evaluated 

in the Mercury Storage SEIS–II. 

Socioeconomics. There would be 

negligible impacts on socioeconomic 

conditions, including overall 

employment population trends, 

available housing, and other community 

services in the regions of influence 

associated with all alternative sites, 

including WCS. 

Environmental justice. While there 

may be individual minority or lowincome families living relatively near 

some of the alternative site locations, 

the sites are (or would be, in the case 

of HWAD) permitted by their respective 

states under RCRA for the storage of 

hazardous waste. The Proposed Action 

would not increase the human health 

risk beyond that approved as part of the 

RCRA permitting process. Implementing 

the Proposed Action would result in 

negligible offsite human health and 

ecological risks from mercury emissions 

during normal operations and most 

accidents. Potentially high mercury 

concentrations could occur in the event 

of a beyond-design-basis earthquake for 

some sites (Bethlehem Apparatus and 

Clean Harbors Greenbrier). Considering 

the probability of such an event, the 

potential risks associated with this 

extremely unlikely scenario are 

considered low. Implementing the 

Proposed Action at WCS would result in 

negligible offsite human health and 

ecological risks to both individuals and 

communities from mercury emissions 

during normal operations and accidents. 

Therefore, there would be no 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns under the Proposed Action at 

WCS. 

Cumulative impacts. Considering the 

negligible-to-low potential impacts of 

the Proposed Action, the potential 

contribution of the Proposed Action to 

the cumulative impacts to the region of 

each alternative site was shown to be 

negligible, including WCS. Cumulative 

impacts for the WCS Region of 

Influence, including potential interim 

storage of up to 40,000 MTUs (metric 

tons of uranium) of commercial spent 

nuclear fuel, were determined to be 

either small or moderate for the 

following resource areas: land use, 

geology and soils, groundwater, air 

quality, noise, and visual resources. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
95194 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 

5These criteria included that the facility: must 

not create a significant conflict with any existing 

DOE site mission and not interfere with future 

mission compatibility; must be suitable for mercury 

storage with the capability and flexibility for 

operational expansion, if necessary; must be 

capable of complying with RCRA permitting 

requirements, including siting requirements; must 

have supporting infrastructure and a capability or 

potential capability for flooring that would support 

mercury loadings; must be compatible with local 

F. Environmentally Preferable 

Alternative 

Under the Proposed Action, the 

potential impacts of continuing to 

operate the existing, permitted, 

commercial storage facilities would be 

similar regardless of the location. 

Transportation of mercury to any of the 

existing facilities would be comparable, 

resulting in negligible-to-low human 

health risks from transportation 

accidents. Greenhouse gas emissions 

from transportation of mercury would 

be relatively low for all of the 

alternatives. However, the emissions are 

lower for HWAD than most of the 

commercial alternatives, if no prestorage treatment is assumed. If there 

were pre-storage treatment, then the 

emissions for HWAD are larger than 

most of the commercial alternatives. For 

HWAD, required modifications to the 

Group 110 design storehouses and the 

new or upgraded infrastructure at the 

site would result in higher potential 

impacts than at existing, permitted, 

commercial storage facilities. These 

modifications would also require 

consultation with the Nevada SHPO 

prior to any construction actions 

because the proposed buildings are 

potentially eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Therefore, management and storage of 

elemental mercury at an existing, 

permitted, commercial storage facility 

would be the environmentally 

preferable alternative. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

DOE would not consolidate, manage, 

and store elemental mercury. However, 

the No-Action Alternative could include 

transportation to and from various 

locations, as described in Section 4.2.9.4 

of the Mercury Storage SEIS–II, and 

therefore would not be significantly 

different than the transportation impacts 

under the action alternatives. Under the 

No-Action Alternative, mercury could 

be stored indefinitely at multiple nonDOE locations (some of which are 

currently not permitted); therefore, an 

impact of the No-Action Alternative, 

other than DOE being non-compliant 

with Federal statutes, would be widely 

dispersed storage of mercury in 

uncertain conditions. Taking this into 

consideration, the No-Action 

Alternative would not be the 

environmentally preferable alternative. 

G. Comments Received on the Final 

Mercury Storage SEIS–II 

During the development of the Final 

SEIS–II, DOE considered the 

alternatives, information, analyses, and 

objections submitted by Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local governments and 

public commenters. 

DOE received comment letters from 

Coeur and from the Environmental 

Protection Agency after publishing the 

Final Mercury Storage SEIS–II. DOE 

considered these comments in 

preparation of this ROD. 

H. NEPA Decision 

This NEPA decision is consistent with 

the preferred alternative, which is to 

designate one or more of the existing 

commercial facilities evaluated in the 

Final Mercury Storage SEIS–II. As 

identified in Section E, Potential 

Environmental Impacts, the impacts 

presented in the Mercury Storage SEIS– 

II for the WCS site were the same or 

lower than most of the other existing, 

permitted, commercial storage facility 

sites analyzed in the SEIS–II. The 

environmental impacts are generally 

expected to be less than those at the 

HWAD site, and designation of the WCS 

site is expected to allow for the longterm management and storage of 

elemental mercury years earlier than if 

HWAD were utilized. The No Action 

Alternative would not fulfill DOE’s 

statutory obligations. 

Based on consideration of the analysis 

in the Mercury Storage SEIS–II as well 

as other considerations detailed below 

in Section J, DOE has decided to select 

WCS for designation as the facility for 

long-term management and storage of 

elemental mercury. The additional basis 

for the MEBA designation decision is 

included in Section J, below. 

I. Mitigation 

The Mercury Storage SEIS–II 

determined that potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

DOE’s long-term management and 

storage of 7,000 metric tons (7,700 tons) 

of elemental mercury would generally 

be negligible-to-low and that the storage 

and management of elemental mercury 

would be subject to regulatory oversight 

by permitting agencies, including 

compliance with RCRA. Many features 

of WCS are designed to meet applicable 

permitting standards or to otherwise 

avoid harm to the environment. The 

WCS storage facility is located on a 

13,500-acre tract of private land with no 

human residents within 3.4 miles. 

SEIS–II (Sections 3.3.1.1, 3.3.11). The 

facility design includes concrete sealed 

floors with a reinforced concrete 

foundation, and bermed container 

storage areas that provide protection 

from the external environment and 

isolation from other storage areas in the 

event of a leaking source. SEIS–II 

(Sections 4.4.3.1, 2.3.2). WCS also 

features numerous safety and accident 

response systems, including a fire 

suppression system, an exhaust-fanventilated storage area, a mercury vapor 

monitor, and a full emergency response 

organization that includes capabilities 

for radiological, hazardous materials, 

fire, and medical incidents. SEIS–II 

(Sections 2.3.2; 3.3.9.2). Based upon the 

limited potential for adverse 

environmental impacts identified in the 

SEIS–II, the robust design and accident 

response features of WCS, terms and 

conditions of the proposed contract (see 

Section J), and applicable regulatory and 

statutory requirements, the selected 

alternative incorporates all practicable 

means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm. 

J. Designation Decision Under MEBA 

As explained in more detail above, 

the alternatives analyzed in detail in the 

SEIS–II included an existing Federal 

facility (HWAD) and commercial 

facilities at various locations (WCS; 

Bethlehem Apparatus; Perma-Fix 

Diversified Scientific Services; Veolia 

Environmental Services; and Clean 

Harbors Environmental Services). 

During the NEPA process, DOE also 

considered and dismissed numerous 

other alternatives. The alternative of 

constructing a new facility was 

dismissed from detailed analysis in the 

SEIS–II because it would add at least 

five years to the timeline for DOE’s 

designated MEBA facility to become 

operational and ready to receive 

elemental mercury, when compared to 

the designation of an existing, permitted 

facility. New construction would also 

introduce uncertainty in the timeline for 

having a fully operational MEBA 

facility, as schedule delays in the 

construction and/or RCRA permitting 

process or other issues outside DOE’s 

control might prevent a newly 

constructed facility from becoming 

operational for significantly more than 

five years. A newly constructed facility 

would therefore not meet DOE’s need to 

begin accepting elemental mercury as 

soon as practicable. DOE also 

considered the possibility of 

repurposing an existing facility on DOE 

property. However, DOE was unable to 

identify any such facility that met 

certain minimum criteria for future use 

as the designated MEBA facility.5


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 95195 

and regional land use plans if used for mercury 

storage, and new construction would be feasible, as 

may be required; must be accessible to major 

transportation routes; and must have sufficient 

information on hand to adequately characterize the 

site. SEIS–II (Section 2.2.4). 

6Because the LTEMSF was not operational by 

January 1, 2019, MEBA compels DOE to subtract the 

costs to mercury generators of temporarily 

accumulating certain elemental mercury after that 

date from DOE’s future fee assessments to those 

generators. 42 U.S.C. 6939f(b)(1)(B)(iv). The more 

time that passes after January 1, 2019, and before 

the LTEMSF is operational and accepts custody of 

elemental mercury, the greater the amount DOE will 

need to subtract from its future fee assessments to 

mercury generators, resulting in correspondingly 

greater costs to the United States. 

In parallel with the most recent NEPA 

evaluation, DOE conducted an 

independent and competitive 

procurement process to evaluate a 

contractor(s) that could provide DOE 

both a leasehold interest in, and the 

services associated with, a long-term 

elemental mercury management and 

storage facility (LTEMSF) meeting DOE 

specifications and subject to DOE’s 

technical direction. As part of that 

process, a Request for Information/ 

Sources Sought notice was published on 

October 14, 2020, a synopsis was posted 

September 21, 2021, and the Request for 

Proposals (RFP) was issued March 24, 

2022. Two timely proposals were 

received by the due date of June 1, 2022. 

One of the proposals was later 

withdrawn, but through this 

procurement process, DOE identified 

one commercial facility that responded 

to the RFP. DOE evaluated its response 

and determined that it met the lowest 

evaluated price and met or exceeded the 

acceptability standards for non-cost 

factors in accordance with 48 CFR 

15.101–2. The facility was WCS. The 

owners of the other facilities analyzed 

as commercial alternatives in the SEIS– 

II did not compete in the procurement 

process. 

DOE hereby designates as the 

LTEMSF pursuant to MEBA, WCS in 

Andrews County, Texas. In addition to 

the reasons discussed previously under 

Section H, NEPA Decision, the decision 

to designate WCS as the LTEMSF is 

based on the following considerations. 

First, of the alternatives evaluated, the 

designation of WCS allows for the most 

expeditious and certain timeline for 

DOE to have an LTEMSF operational 

and ready to accept elemental mercury, 

consistent with MEBA’s fundamental 

objective of providing a safe option for 

storing domestic elemental mercury at a 

facility or facilities of the DOE. Congress 

initially charged DOE to designate a 

LTEMSF that would be operational by 

January 1, 2013, and later extended that 

deadline to January 1, 2019. Public Law 

110–414, 122 Stat. 4344 (Oct. 14, 2008); 

Public Law 114–182, 130 Stat. 478 (June 

22, 2016). Although those milestone 

dates have passed, Congress has not 

extended the date by which the 

LTEMSF must be operational. DOE 

therefore identified a need to designate 

an LTEMSF facility and begin accepting 

elemental mercury as soon as 

practicable. WCS is an established, 

existing, permitted waste facility 

capable of expeditiously accepting 

elemental mercury for long-term 

management and storage. In contrast, 

selecting HWAD, a facility that requires 

significant modifications and 

development processes, time-consuming 

real estate transactions, and a waste 

permit, or constructing a new facility, 

would both (1) extend the timeline for 

having an operational storage facility, 

and (2) create additional uncertainty in 

that timeline. In a best-case scenario, 

selecting HWAD or constructing a new 

facility would likely result in elemental 

mercury continuing to be stored for at 

least five years longer in widely 

dispersed storage locations in uncertain 

conditions instead of in a DOEcontrolled LTEMSF. 

Furthermore, issues outside DOE’s 

control could arise during the planning, 

budgeting, construction, and/or 

permitting processes that prevent 

HWAD or a new facility from becoming 

fully operational for much longer than 

five years. For example, due to statutory 

prohibitions on the use of Department of 

Defense (‘‘DoD’’) installations for the 

storage of toxic or hazardous materials 

not owned by the DoD, 10 U.S.C. 2692, 

the relevant portion of HWAD would 

likely need to be purchased by or 

otherwise transferred to DOE before 

non-DoD elemental mercury could be 

stored at the facility. An acquisition or 

administrative transfer process would 

require actions by multiple Federal 

agencies, including the Department of 

the Army and the General Services 

Administration, and the timing and 

decision making of those agencies is 

outside DOE’s control. The additional 

time required to build a new facility or 

modify an existing facility like HWAD 

would cause DOE to fall significantly 

further behind the statutory deadline for 

a DOE-designated LTEMSF to be 

operational. MEBA imposed financial 

consequences on DOE for missing the 

January 1, 2019, deadline, such that the 

longer it takes for DOE to have an 

operational LTEMSF, the greater the 

amount of private mercury storage costs 

that are borne by DOE, and indirectly, 

by the United States.6 Selecting WCS as 

the designated LTEMSF brings DOE into 

compliance with MEBA’s directives as 

soon as practicable, avoids introducing 

uncertainty in the timeline for when the 

LTEMSF will become operational and 

capable of accepting elemental mercury, 

and minimizes DOE’s financial 

responsibility for the ongoing storage of 

elemental mercury by generators 

pending the availability of the LTEMSF. 

Second, leasing space for management 

and storage at WCS provides DOE 

managerial flexibility to adjust to 

evolving circumstances as it conducts 

its management and storage obligations 

pursuant to MEBA. Based on currently 

available information, DOE believes 

there is a realistic possibility that an 

approved treatment and disposal 

method for elemental mercury in the 

United States will be available within 

10 years. An approved treatment and 

disposal method would likely decrease 

both the length of time the designated 

MEBA facility would need to store 

elemental mercury and the quantity of 

elemental mercury to be stored. Given 

the uncertainty in how long the 

LTEMSF will be needed, designating 

WCS enables DOE to evaluate the 

impact of any forthcoming treatment 

and disposal option or other statutory or 

regulatory changes that may affect the 

expected storage duration or capacity, 

without making the larger commitments 

of capital and administrative resources 

necessary to purchase, construct, or 

significantly modify a federally owned 

facility. 

Additionally, because there is a 

realistic possibility that a treatment and 

disposal method for domestic elemental 

mercury will be available within 10 

years, and because it will take at least 

5 years after designation for HWAD or 

a newly constructed facility to be ready 

to receive elemental mercury, investing 

resources to modify or construct a 

facility that may only be used for 5 years 

is not cost effective or a prudent 

investment of resources. DOE has 

prepared a relative cost comparison 

workbook based on a 2007 EPA report 

that demonstrates that, in the short-term 

(e.g., about 10 years), management and 

storage of elemental mercury at an 

existing, permitted, commercial facility 

like WCS is likely to be less expensive 

than any of the previously evaluated 

alternatives requiring capital 

improvements (DOE-New, DOEExisting/Retrofit, and Hawthorne/ 

Retrofit). Other factors not reflected in 

DOE’s cost comparison workbook also 

weigh in favor of selecting WCS. The 

workbook does not include 

administrative burdens associated with 

a federally funded project and DOE’s 

acquisition of real property, which 

would likely be required to establish an 

LTEMSF at HWAD (see 10 U.S.C. 2692) 

or for construction of a new facility. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
95196 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 

7Request for Proposals, Section J.5. 

8The selection of WCS is also consistent with the 

Federal Government’s general policy of using 

commercial services and capabilities when they are 

sufficient to meet the mission needs. See, e.g. FAR 

Part 12. 

Selecting WCS avoids these costs to 

DOE and other Federal agencies. The 

cost comparison workbook also does not 

reflect the fact that MEBA, as amended, 

makes DOE indirectly financially 

responsible for the costs of storing 

certain elemental mercury accumulated 

by mercury generators after January 1, 

2019, by requiring DOE to subtract these 

costs from its future MEBA fee 

assessments to these generators. 42 

U.S.C. 6939f(b)(1)(B)(iv). These indirect 

costs to DOE, in the form of foregone 

future fee assessments, increase the 

longer it takes DOE’s designated 

LTEMSF to become operational. 

Selecting an existing, permitted facility 

like WCS minimizes these costs. 

Third, DOE’s selection of WCS as the 

Secretary’s designated LTEMSF satisfies 

the requirement of MEBA that ‘‘the 

Secretary of Energy shall 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.’’ MEBA section 5(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 

6939f(a)(1)). MEBA does not define the 

phrase, ‘‘facility or facilities of the 

Department of Energy[,]’’ but it does 

state that ‘‘[t]he Secretary is authorized 

to establish such terms, conditions, and 

procedures as are necessary to carry out 

this section.’’ DOE construes the phrase 

‘‘facility or facilities of the Department 

of Energy’’ to include a facility leased 

from a commercial entity or another 

Federal agency, over which DOE 

provides an appropriate level of 

responsibility and control. This 

construction is consistent with MEBA’s 

plain language and DOE’s operational 

history. Certain comments on the Draft 

SEIS–II asserted that ‘‘facility or 

facilities of the Department of Energy’’ 

could only mean one or more facilities 

owned by DOE or owned and operated 

by DOE. However, MEBA does not 

expressly require the designated facility 

to be owned by DOE or even by the U.S. 

government. Similarly, MEBA does not 

mandate that DOE employees operate 

the designated facility and does not 

prohibit DOE from using qualified 

contractors in connection with the 

facility. The phrase ‘‘facility or facilities 

of the Department of Energy’’ 

encompasses facilities leased by DOE 

and subject to an appropriate level of 

DOE responsibility and control. This 

structure provides DOE flexibility to 

select a facility that best serves the 

various requirements and purposes of 

MEBA and the fiscal and mission 

responsibilities of DOE, regardless of 

ownership. 

DOE has determined that the lease 

and contract with WCS, developed 

through DOE’s competitive procurement 

process, will provide DOE a leasehold 

interest in WCS property and an 

appropriate level of responsibility and 

control over the property such that it 

will become a ‘‘facility or facilities of 

the Department of Energy’’ within the 

meaning of MEBA Section 5(a)(1). By 

entering into the lease and contract DOE 

can ensure that the LTEMSF is managed 

and operated in compliance with MEBA 

and other applicable legal requirements, 

including those addressing the 

protection of human health and the 

environment. For example, as set forth 

in the RFP, among other control 

measures, DOE will ensure that the 

designated facility: (1) complies with all 

applicable local, state, and Federal 

regulations including all applicable 

RCRA requirements; (2) employs a fully 

enclosed, weather-protected structure 

that complies with all applicable 

building, fire, and life safety codes and 

standards; (3) meets RCRA and 

Department of Transportation-compliant 

performance measures covering, among 

other things, receiving, handling, 

container storage, and security; (4) 

satisfies applicable local, state, and 

Federal regulatory requirements for 

recordkeeping and reporting; and (5) 

submits operating records, inventories, 

and other reports to DOE for periodic 

review. In addition to contractually 

imposed oversight, the arrangement 

between DOE and WCS will involve 

DOE entering into a lease agreement 

covering the premises where the 

operations will occur. The lease will 

require, among other things, the 

premises to be used exclusively for DOE 

elemental mercury management and 

storage, consistent with contract 

provisions governing operations at the 

premises, and will grant DOE access to 

the premises.7 Awarding the contract to 

WCS will formally conclude DOE’s 

independent and competitive 

procurement process, which was 

conducted in compliance with 

applicable Federal Acquisition 

Regulations.8

Therefore, DOE has selected WCS for 

designation as the LTEMSF under 

MEBA. As identified in Section E, 

Potential Environmental Impacts, the 

impacts presented in the Mercury 

Storage SEIS–II for the WCS site were 

comparable to the other action 

alternatives. This MEBA decision is 

consistent with the preferred alternative 

in the Final Mercury Storage SEIS–II 

and the NEPA decision in this ROD. 

Although this document satisfies 

DOE’s obligation to designate a facility 

or facilities of the DOE for the purpose 

of long-term management and storage of 

elemental mercury generated within the 

United States, MEBA Section 5(b) (42 

U.S.C. 6939f(b)) also requires DOE to 

assess and collect a fee at the time that 

elemental mercury is delivered to the 

designated facility. As explained in 

responses to comments on the Draft 

SEIS–II, after publication of this 

document, DOE intends to focus on 

issuing a rule to establish the fee. At this 

time, however, DOE remains unable to 

accept elemental mercury from 

generators at a facility of the Department 

of Energy for long-term management 

and storage. DOE acknowledges that the 

temporary storage provisions of MEBA 

Section 5(g)(2) (42 U.S.C. 6939f(g)(2)) 

remain in effect until DOE is able to 

accept elemental mercury shipments at 

the designated facility or facilities, 

which will generally require applying 

DOE’s future fee rule to assess a fee 

pursuant to MEBA Section 5(b). 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on November 21, 

2024, by Candice Trummell, Senior 

Advisor for Environmental 

Management, pursuant to delegated 

authority from the Secretary of Energy. 

The document with the original 

signature and date is maintained by 

DOE. For administrative purposes only, 

and in compliance with requirements of 

the Office of the Federal Register, the 

undersigned DOE Federal Register 

Liaison Officer has been authorized to 

sign and submit the document in 

electronic format for publication, as an 

official document of the Department of 

Energy. This administrative process in 

no way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on November 

22, 2024. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27859 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of a modified system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: As required by the Privacy 

Act of 1974 and the Office of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1