3624 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision for the Department

of Energy’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Disposal Phase

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE or Department) is issuing this

record of its decision to dispose of

transuranic (TRU) waste at the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a mined

repository located 2,100 feet below the

surface in an ancient salt deposit near

Carlsbad, New Mexico. Under this

decision, DOE will dispose of up to

175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic

feet) of TRU waste generated by defense

activities at WIPP after preparation (i.e.,

treatment, as necessary, including

packaging) to meet WIPP’s waste

acceptance criteria. This waste includes

TRU waste accumulated in aboveground

storage since 1970 and TRU waste to be

generated over approximately the next

35 years. This waste does not include

TRU waste commingled with

polychlorinated biphenyls in

concentrations greater than or equal to

50 parts per million. Transportation of

waste to WIPP will initially be by truck,

although the Department reserves the

option to use commercial rail

transportation in the future. DOE will

comply with the requirements and

waste limits in the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act, as amended, and the

Consultation and Cooperation

Agreement between New Mexico and

the Department of Energy. DOE has

applied for a permit from the New

Mexico Environment Department under

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act concerning mixed TRU

waste (TRU waste containing

radioactive and hazardous constituents);

such a permit is not needed for disposal

of other TRU waste at WIPP.

Implementation of this decision is

contingent upon obtaining a

Compliance Certification from the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA). EPA recently proposed to

certify that WIPP complies with

applicable EPA requirements for TRU

waste disposal (62 FR 58792, October

30, 1997).

This Record of Decision documents

the Department’s decision to implement

the Preferred Alternative, as analyzed in

the ‘‘Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal

Phase Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement’’

(DOE/EIS–0026–FS2, September 1997)

(SEIS–II). This Record of Decision is

being issued in coordination with the

preparation of the Record of Decision on

the treatment and storage of TRU waste,

which is based on the ‘‘Waste

Management Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement’’

(DOE/EIS–0200, May 1997) (WM PEIS).

The WM PEIS Record of Decision will

specify the DOE sites at which TRU

waste will be prepared and stored before

disposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information regarding

WIPP SEIS–II and transuranic waste

contact: Harold Johnson, SEIS–II

Document Manager, Mail Stop 535, U.S.

Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area

Office, Post Office Box 3090, Carlsbad,

NM 88221, Telephone (505) 234–7349,

E–Mail:

Johnsoh@WIPP.carlsbad.NM.US.

For further information on the DOE

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) process, contact: Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance (EH–42), U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone:

202–586–4600 or leave a message at 1–

800–472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Since the mid-1940s, DOE’s research

and development, nuclear weapons

production, and nuclear fuel

reprocessing activities have produced

transuranic (TRU) waste. TRU waste is

waste that contains alpha particleemitting radionuclides with atomic

numbers greater than that of uranium

(92) and half-lives greater than 20 years

in concentrations greater than 100

nanocuries per gram of waste.

TRU waste is classified according to

the radiation dose rate at a package

surface. Contact-handled (CH) TRU

waste has a radiation dose rate at a

package surface of 200 millirem per

hour or less; this waste can safely be

handled directly by personnel. Remotehandled (RH) TRU waste has a radiation

dose rate at a package surface greater

than 200 millirem per hour, and must be

handled remotely (e.g., with machinery

designed to shield workers from

radiation).

TRU waste that has both radioactive

and hazardous constituents is known as

mixed TRU waste. The hazardous

component of mixed TRU waste is

regulated under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

DOE estimates that approximately 60

percent of TRU waste is mixed TRU

waste. In addition, some TRU waste is

commingled with polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) in concentrations

greater than or equal to 50 parts per

million and is known as PCB

commingled TRU waste. Disposal of

PCBs is regulated under the Toxic

Substances Control Act.

Before 1970, TRU waste was disposed

of in shallow land burial sites. Since

1970, TRU waste has been retrievably

stored in aboveground facilities at DOE

sites. Plutonium stabilization and

management activities, environmental

restoration (which could include

remediation of sites where TRU waste

was buried before 1970),

decontamination and decommissioning,

waste management, and defense testing

and research are expected to generate

additional TRU waste.

The Department began examining the

environmental impacts of TRU waste

disposal under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the

late 1970s. After issuing the ‘‘Final

Environmental Impact Statement for the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’’ (DOE/EIS–

0026, October 1980), the Department

decided in a 1981 Record of Decision to

begin phased development of WIPP to

demonstrate the safe disposal of TRU

waste in bedded salt. Consequently, the

Department has, since 1981, been

preparing to dispose of and isolate TRU

waste by emplacing it in the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a mined

repository located 2,100 feet below the

surface in an ancient salt deposit near

Carlsbad, New Mexico. The major

construction activities at WIPP have

been completed. WIPP consists of the

Waste Handling Building where waste

would be received and inspected, an

underground disposal area, and a waste

handling shaft for transfer of waste from

the surface to the disposal area. WIPP

was designed for a total capacity of

175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic

feet) of TRU waste.

In 1990, after issuing the ‘‘Final

Supplement Environmental Impact

Statement for the Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant’’ (DOE/EIS–0026–FS, January

1990), DOE issued a Record of Decision

that continued the phased development

of WIPP by instituting an experimental

program to further examine WIPP’s

suitability as a TRU waste repository. In

September 1997, DOE issued the ‘‘Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase

Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement’’ (DOE/EIS–0026–

FS2) (SEIS–II), which analyzes the

environmental impacts of proposed

disposal operations at WIPP. The

Department has prepared this Record of

Decision pursuant to the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations for

implementing the provisions of NEPA

(40 CFR parts 1500–1508) and the

Department of Energy regulations

implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 1021).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices 3625

While SEIS–II was prepared to inform

DOE’s decision on whether to open

WIPP for the disposal of TRU waste, the

‘‘Waste Management Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement’’

(DOE/EIS–0200, May 1997) (WM PEIS)

was prepared to inform DOE’s decision

on where to treat (which includes

packaging) and store TRU waste prior to

disposal. In the WM PEIS, DOE

examined several TRU waste treatment

and storage site consolidation strategies

(i.e., whether to treat and store TRU

waste at the DOE sites where it is

generated, at a few regional DOE sites,

or at a centralized DOE site). In

coordination with this WIPP Record of

Decision, DOE is separately preparing a

Record of Decision, supported by the

WM PEIS, that specifies whether, and if

so, where, to consolidate TRU waste for

preparation and storage pending

disposal.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

The Department needs to safely

dispose of the TRU waste that has

accumulated at DOE sites and to

provide for the disposal of additional

TRU waste to be generated over

approximately the next 35 years

(through approximately 2033) in a

manner that protects public health and

the environment. DOE prepared SEIS-II

in order to help DOE make the following

decisions:

• Whether to open and operate WIPP

for the disposal of TRU waste, and, if so,

• Which portions of the TRU waste

inventory would be disposed of,

• To what minimum level TRU waste

must be treated for disposal, and

• What mode of transportation would

be used to transport TRU waste to WIPP.

WIPP Operation

With respect to the decision on

whether to open WIPP, SEIS-II examines

the environmental impacts of four

alternatives that involve operating the

facility (the Proposed Action and other

Action Alternatives) and the impacts of

two alternatives that involve

dismantling and closing WIPP and

continuing storage of TRU waste at the

generating sites (the No Action

Alternatives).

Waste Inventories

SEIS–II uses the most recent

inventory data available for its analysis,

including data from ‘‘The National

Transuranic Waste Management Plan,’’

(DOE/NTP–96–1204, Revision 0,

September 1996)(TRU Waste

Management Plan). Using these data,

SEIS–II examines the environmental

impacts of disposing of different

inventories of TRU waste. For purposes

of analysis in SEIS–II, the DOE TRU

waste inventory is divided into a Basic

Inventory and an Additional Inventory.

The Basic Inventory consists of (1) TRU

waste generated by defense activities

(defense waste) that has been placed in

retrievable storage since 1970 and (2)

defense TRU waste that would continue

to be generated over approximately the

next 35 years as a result of plutonium

stabilization and management activities,

environmental restoration (including

remediation of some sites where defense

TRU waste was buried before 1970),

decontamination and decommissioning,

waste management, and defense testing

and research. The Basic Inventory

volume (per recent estimates analyzed

in SEIS–II) is approximately 170,000

cubic meters (6 million cubic feet). The

Additional Inventory consists of

commercial and non-defense waste

(waste for which DOE has responsibility

and which was generated by activities

other than defense activities), PCB

commingled TRU waste, and waste that

was buried before 1970 that is not

included in the Basic Inventory

(because, for example, DOE does not

expect remediation activities to occur

within approximately the next 35 years,

or because the extent of remediation has

not been determined). The Additional

Inventory also includes non-defense and

commercial waste that DOE believes

could be generated over approximately

the next 35 years. The Additional

Inventory volume (per recent estimates

analyzed in SEIS–II) is approximately

142,500 cubic meters (5 million cubic

feet).

The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as

amended in 1996, limits the capacity of

WIPP to 175,600 cubic meters (6.2

million cubic feet). The Act also

specifies that only defense TRU waste

may be disposed of at WIPP. In

addition, the Consultation and

Cooperation (C&C) Agreement between

DOE and the State of New Mexico limits

the volume of RH–TRU waste to 7,080

cubic meters (250,000 cubic feet). Using

the volume estimates analyzed in SEIS–

II, disposal of the Basic Inventory would

be within these limits, and disposal of

the Basic Inventory and all of the

Additional Inventory would exceed

these limits.

Waste Treatment Levels

SEIS–II examines treatment of TRU

waste to three different levels before

disposal: treatment to meet the planning

basis WIPP waste acceptance criteria

(WIPP WAC), thermal treatment to meet

RCRA land disposal restriction (LDR)

levels, and treatment by shred and

grout. The planning basis WIPP WAC is

that level of treatment and packaging in

WIPP WAC Revision 5, with anticipated

revisions as analyzed in SEIS–II.

Treatment to planning basis WIPP WAC

would require repackaging of TRU

waste to meet transportation and

disposal regulations and DOE policies.

Treatment to LDR levels would use a

thermal process that would

substantially condense the waste and

yield a vitrified or metal ingot waste

form. Such treatment would also

remove any organic hazardous

constituents and immobilize any

hazardous metals in mixed TRU waste

and PCB commingled TRU waste.

Treatment by shredding the waste and

sealing it in grout would reduce gas

generation, but would create a much

larger waste volume. As set forth in this

WIPP Record of Decision, DOE has

concluded that waste destined for WIPP

should at a minimum be prepared (i.e.,

treated as needed, and packaged)

according to the planning basis WIPP

WAC. As noted previously, in

coordination with this WIPP Record of

Decision, DOE is preparing a Record of

Decision, based on the WM PEIS, that

will specify whether, where, and to

what extent to consolidate TRU waste

for preparation and storage pending

disposal.

Transportation Modes

SEIS–II analyzes the transport of TRU

waste by truck, by regular rail and truck

(truck transportation from those sites

that do not have rail access), and by

dedicated rail and truck. Regular rail

refers to use of commercial rail lines,

with TRU waste being included on

trains that are also carrying other types

of freight. Dedicated rail would also use

commercial rail lines, with trains

composed exclusively of rail cars

carrying TRU waste.

The Department has investigated and

continues to investigate the possibility

of using rail transportation, but

considers it less reasonable than truck

transportation at this time. The primary

factors that make rail transportation less

reasonable are (1) limited interest of rail

carriers in handling shipments of TRU

waste, (2) the higher cost of dedicated

rail transportation as compared to truck

transportation, (3) the initial cost of

acquiring additional transport

containers needed for rail transportation

(because three times as many containers

are needed for each shipment), and (4)

DOE’s inability to obtain rail carrier

assurance that TRU waste container

transit will enable DOE to unseal the

containers within 60 days of loading, as

required by Nuclear Regulatory

Commission regulations. Regular rail

transportation, because of its lower

public health impacts and cost, is still
3626 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices

considered a desirable option for some

waste transportation in the future,

provided that the factors that make it

currently less reasonable can be

mitigated.

Alternatives Considered

SEIS–II examines the environmental

impacts of the Proposed Action, three

other reasonable Action Alternatives,

and two No Action Alternatives that

involve the waste inventories and

treatment levels described above.

1. Proposed Action (Preferred

Alternative)

Under the Proposed Action, DOE

would open WIPP and dispose of

175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic

feet) of post-1970 defense TRU waste

(except PCB commingled TRU waste),

which is the Basic Inventory of TRU

waste adjusted up to the capacity limits

specified in the WIPP Land Withdrawal

Act and the C&C Agreement. The waste

would be treated as necessary to meet

the planning basis WIPP WAC. Based on

the inventory volume and the

anticipated emplacement rate, TRU

waste would be disposed of at WIPP

over a 35-year period. Transportation

would be by truck.

The Department identified the

Proposed Action as its Preferred

Alternative in the final SEIS–II. Under

the Preferred Alternative, TRU waste

transportation would initially be by

truck; however, the Department reserves

the option to use commercial rail

transportation of TRU waste in the

future.

The Proposed Action (and Preferred

Alternative) would isolate TRU waste

for more than 10,000 years and would

comply with the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act and the C&C

Agreement. However, this alternative

would not dispose of the Additional

Inventory.

2. Action Alternative 1

Under Action Alternative 1, the

Department would dispose of the Basic

and Additional Inventories of TRU

waste (except PCB commingled TRU

waste) at WIPP, after treating the waste

to meet the planning basis WIPP WAC.

SEIS–II analyzes the disposal of TRU

waste over the 160-year period needed

for emplacement of this amount of

waste at the anticipated emplacement

rate. SEIS–II also analyzes the

environmental impacts associated with

the modifications to WIPP facilities and

operations that would be needed to

increase the emplacement rate and

reduce the disposal time (for this

alternative, to 60 years). SEIS–II

analyzes transportation by truck and

transportation by rail (regular

commercial and dedicated trains).

Action Alternative 1 would isolate

TRU waste for more than 10,000 years,

and would dispose of defense, nondefense, and commercial TRU waste

and TRU waste that was buried before

1970. DOE could not implement Action

Alternative 1 unless the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement

were modified accordingly. In addition,

under Action Alternative 1, DOE would

not dispose of PCB commingled TRU

waste at WIPP.

3. Action Alternative 2

Under Action Alternative 2, the

Department would dispose of the Basic

and Additional Inventories of TRU

waste (including PCB commingled TRU

waste) at WIPP after treating the waste

thermally to LDR levels. SEIS–II

analyzes the disposal of waste over the

150-year period needed for

emplacement of this volume given

thermal loading constraints and

anticipated emplacement rate. SEIS–II

also analyzes the environmental impacts

associated with the modifications to

WIPP facilities and operations that

would be needed to increase the

emplacement rate and reduce the

disposal time (for this alternative, to 70

years). SEIS–II analyzes three

subalternatives (Alternatives 2A, 2B,

and 2C) that examine consolidated

thermal treatment at DOE sites.

Action Alternative 2 would isolate

TRU waste for more than 10,000 years,

and would dispose of defense, nondefense, and commercial TRU waste,

PCB commingled TRU waste, and TRU

waste that was buried before 1970. DOE

could not implement this alternative

unless the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act

and the C&C Agreement were modified

accordingly.

4. Action Alternative 3

Under Action Alternative 3, DOE

would dispose of the Basic and

Additional Inventories of TRU waste

(except PCB commingled TRU waste) at

WIPP after treatment by a shred and

grout process. SEIS–II analyzes the

disposal of waste over the 190-year

period needed for emplacement of this

volume at the anticipated emplacement

rate. SEIS–II also analyzes the

environmental impacts associated with

the modifications to WIPP facilities and

operations that would be needed to

increase the emplacement rate and

reduce the disposal time (for this

alternative, to 75 years). The impacts of

both truck and rail transportation are

analyzed.

Action Alternative 3 would isolate

TRU waste for more than 10,000 years,

and would dispose of defense, nondefense, and commercial TRU wastes

and TRU waste that was buried before

1970. DOE could not implement Action

Alternative 3 unless the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act and the C&C Agreement

were modified accordingly. The

treatment method under this alternative

would increase the volume of the waste

to be disposed of, thus increasing

transportation. In addition, under

Action Alternative 3, DOE would not

dispose of PCB commingled TRU waste

at WIPP.

5. No Action Alternative 1

Under No Action Alternative 1, the

Department would thermally treat the

Basic and Additional Inventories of

TRU waste and store the waste

indefinitely in newly constructed

monitored retrievable storage facilities.

SEIS–II analyzes two subalternatives

that examine the impacts of thermal

treatment. The impacts of transporting

TRU waste to treatment sites by both

truck and rail transportation are

analyzed. WIPP would be dismantled

and closed under this alternative.

No Action Alternative 1 would treat

TRU waste to RCRA LDR levels and

indefinitely store the treated waste.

Treatment to LDR levels would reduce

human health impacts in the event of a

release of the stored waste. This

alternative would not offer the isolation

afforded by deep geologic disposal,

would require periodic maintenance of

storage facilities and waste repackaging,

and could not be implemented without

modification of agreements that DOE

has reached with several states

regarding the offsite disposition of TRU

waste. No Action Alternative 1 would

require the use of effective institutional

controls for the indefinite future.

6. No Action Alternative 2

Under No Action Alternative 2, DOE

would continue to store newly

generated TRU waste at generator sites

in existing or planned storage facilities.

The newly generated waste would be

treated to meet the planning basis WIPP

WAC to facilitate safe storage; however,

the waste form would not protect

human health if the waste were

released. No transportation is analyzed

for this alternative, because the waste is

assumed to remain indefinitely where it

was generated. WIPP would be

dismantled and closed under this

alternative.

This alternative would not involve

impacts to workers and the public

associated with thermal or shred and

grout treatment or with transportation.

However, this alternative would not

offer the isolation afforded by deep
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices 3627

geologic disposal, would require

periodic maintenance of storage

facilities and waste repackaging for the

indefinite future, and could not be

implemented without modification of

agreements that DOE has reached with

several states regarding the offsite

disposition of TRU waste.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

In identifying its environmental

preference among alternatives for the

long-term management of TRU waste,

DOE considered both near-term and

long-term (through and beyond 10,000

years) human health and environmental

impacts. There are alternatives that

would result in low near-term impacts

but relatively high long-term impacts,

and identifying the environmentally

preferable alternative(s) requires

judgment concerning these impacts and

sensitivity concerning the uncertainties

of some of the near-term and long-term

impacts.

SEIS–II estimates that some potential

near-term fatalities, mainly among

workers as a result of industrial

accidents from waste treatment

operations, would occur under all

alternatives. The largest number of

potential fatalities would occur as a

result of thermal treatment under Action

Alternative 2 (up to approximately 14

fatalities) and No Action Alternative 1

(up to approximately 13 fatalities), and

the smallest under No Action

Alternative 2 (approximately 1 fatality),

under which only newly generated

waste would be treated. Thermal

treatment may result in air quality

exceedances for radionuclides, offsite

treatment impacts (including fatalities),

and, for thermal treatment at WIPP

(Action Alternative 2C), potentially

disproportionately high and adverse

impacts to minority and low income

populations near WIPP.

Some potential near-term fatalities

also could occur from storage operations

under all of the alternatives; a larger

number of fatalities could occur as a

result of a natural disaster, such as an

earthquake with a small annual

probability of occurring damaging an

aboveground TRU waste storage facility.

For the No Action Alternatives,

however, the associated risks would

continue for the indefinite future. Longterm storage risks would also occur for

the Additional Inventory that would not

be disposed of under the Proposed

Action and for PCB commingled TRU

waste that would not be disposed of

under Action Alternatives 1 and 3.

Transportation for treatment and for

disposal are estimated to cause more

fatalities (mainly involving the general

public) than other near-term waste

management operations. The largest

number of fatalities are estimated to

occur under the three Action

Alternatives, in which the most waste

would be sent to WIPP. The analysis

shows, however, that regular

commercial rail service would have

lower potential fatalities than

transportation by either dedicated rail

service or by truck. The consequences of

low probability accidents would be

similar for all transportation options. In

contrast, the No Action Alternatives

would pose little to no transportation

risk, depending on the alternative, but

would not dispose of the waste.

Thus, SEIS–II analyses show that, in

the near term, No Action Alternative 2

would be environmentally preferable.

For the long term, however, disposal of

as much of DOE’s TRU waste as possible

at WIPP is environmentally preferable to

indefinite storage, because disposal

isolates the waste and avoids the longterm need to protect the public and

workers from exposure to stored waste,

a protection than cannot be assured over

the long periods of time that TRU waste

poses a health hazard to the public. The

long-term impacts of indefinite storage

of TRU waste under No Action

Alternative 2 and, to a lesser extent, No

Action Alternative 1, would result

primarily from future exposures to

stored waste should DOE lose

institutional control of the storage

facilities in the future. Over the long

term, there would also be an increasing

probability of adverse impacts from a

natural disaster. Such impacts could be

exacerbated by future population

growth near DOE sites. SEIS–II analyses

show that there is virtually no benefit to

long-term repository performance from

thermal or shred and grout treatment of

waste as compared to treatment to meet

the planning basis WIPP WAC.

Considering both near-term and longterm impacts, therefore, Action

Alternative 1 is the environmentally

preferable alternative, with

transportation of waste by regular

commercial rail service to the maximum

extent possible to lessen near-term

impacts. Action Alternative 1 would

dispose of defense, non-defense, and

commercial TRU waste (with the

exception of PCB commingled TRU

waste) and TRU waste that was buried

prior to 1970, after treatment as

necessary to meet the planning basis

WIPP WAC. This alternative would

dispose of a greater amount of TRU

waste than the Proposed Action.

Comments on SEIS–II and Agency

Responses

SEIS–II was initiated by a notice of

intent published in the Federal Register

on August 18, 1995. A draft SEIS–II was

issued in November 1996, and public

hearings were held in January 1997.

Approximately 4,000 comments were

received from individuals,

organizations, states, tribes, and Federal

agencies during the 90-day comment

period. Many of the comments received

on the draft SEIS–II expressed strong

opinions in favor of or against disposal

at WIPP, or suggested revisions to SEIS–

II. The final SEIS–II, issued in

September 1997, incorporated many

changes in response to public comments

and internal review, including updating

of waste volumes, TRU waste locations,

and the long-term performance

assessment.

The Department received four letters

on the final SEIS–II. The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 letter

stated that the agency had completed its

review and had no further comments on

the final SEIS–II. The State of

Tennessee’s Department of Environment

and Conservation, the State of Idaho

Oversight Program, and the Southwest

Research and Information Center

submitted comments which the

Department has considered.

In its comments, the DOE Oversight

Division of the Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation

requested clarification of responses

provided in SEIS–II regarding: (1)

Consolidation of TRU waste at sites

prior to being shipped to WIPP, (2)

management of ‘‘special case’’ waste, (3)

management of the excess inventory of

RH–TRU waste if WIPP’s capacity is

reached, and (4) plans and schedules for

transporting TRU waste to WIPP. In

addition, the State asked DOE to

provide assurance in the Record of

Decision that RH–TRU waste will be

removed from DOE’s Oak Ridge site in

accordance with the Oak Ridge

Reservation Site Treatment Plan.

Decisions regarding consolidation of

TRU waste for preparation and storage

pending disposal will be made in the

Record of Decision for the WM PEIS.

With regard to what the commenter

referred to as ‘‘special case’’ waste, such

waste that is classified as post-1970

defense TRU waste is included in the

SEIS–II analysis as CH–TRU waste as

part of the Basic Inventory, and under

this Record of Decision upon

preparation to meet the planning basis

WIPP WAC would be disposed of at

WIPP. Materials cited by the commenter

that are not classified as TRU waste

could not be disposed of at WIPP and

are beyond the scope of SEIS–II and this

Record of Decision. Regarding the

comment about the excess inventory of

RH–TRU waste, DOE expects that there

will be sufficient capacity at WIPP to
3628 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices

dispose of all RH–TRU waste currently

in storage and to be generated over

approximately the next 35 years, based

on the most recent estimates contained

in the TRU Waste Management Plan.

DOE’s proposed plans and schedule for

transporting waste from particular sites

to WIPP are contained in the TRU Waste

Management Plan. Finally, as stated in

SEIS–II, DOE intends to meet its

obligations with regard to the

disposition of TRU waste as set forth in

the agreements (including Site

Treatment Plans) that it has reached

with states and in related court orders.

The State of Idaho Oversight Program

requested that the ROD be consistent

with the agreements made with the

State with regard to transuranic waste

that will be disposed of at WIPP. As

noted above, the Department intends to

fulfill its obligations with regard to the

disposition of TRU waste as set forth in

its agreements with states and in related

court orders.

In its comments on the final SEIS–II,

the Southwest Research and Information

Center stated that disposal of TRU waste

in a high-level waste repository is a

reasonable alternative that was not

examined in SEIS–II or the WM PEIS.

This commenter also stated that,

because all of the estimated TRU waste

inventory would not be disposed of at

WIPP, DOE will be required to consider

additional disposal sites, and that such

other sites were not considered in SEIS–

II or the WM PEIS. Further, the

commenter stated that DOE should

prepare a comprehensive NEPA analysis

of storage and disposal options for all of

DOE’s nuclear waste, including all TRU

waste, before issuing a Record of

Decision on TRU waste disposal at

WIPP. Finally, the commenter asked for

clarification of DOE’s position regarding

the opening of WIPP without a RCRA

permit from the New Mexico

Environment Department.

The Department has examined all

reasonable TRU waste disposal

alternatives in SEIS–II and the

preceding environmental impact

statements, including disposal in a highlevel waste repository and disposal at

sites other than WIPP. DOE decided in

1981 to develop WIPP for the disposal

of TRU waste, and SEIS–II confirms that

WIPP is an effective disposal facility for

TRU waste. The most recent waste

volume estimates contained in the TRU

Waste Management Plan indicate that

DOE would be able to dispose of all of

the TRU waste currently in storage, and

waste to be generated by DOE over

approximately the next 35 years. In

SEIS–II, DOE analyzes the disposal at

WIPP of all defense, non-defense, and

commercial TRU waste and TRU waste

that was buried prior to 1970. The WM

PEIS comprehensively analyzes the

management of all of DOE’s radioactive

and hazardous waste types. With regard

to the RCRA permit issue, DOE has

applied for a RCRA permit from the

New Mexico Environment Department

for mixed TRU waste. Such a permit is

not needed for disposal of other TRU

waste at WIPP.

Decision

The Department will dispose of up to

175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic

feet) of defense TRU waste (except PCB

commingled TRU waste) at WIPP.

Transportation of waste to WIPP will

initially be by truck, although the

Department reserves the option to use

commercial rail transportation in the

future. DOE will prepare (including

treatment, as necessary, and packaging)

the wastes to be disposed of to meet the

WIPP WAC (WIPP WAC Revision 5,

including any future revisions as

analyzed in SEIS–II, such as pipe

overpacks used in waste packaging).

This decision establishes only the

minimum waste acceptance

requirements that must be met for

disposal of waste at WIPP. DOE has

treated in the past (and based on sitespecific circumstances, may decide to

treat in the future) TRU waste at some

sites more extensively than is required

under the WIPP WAC. WIPP may accept

for disposal grouted TRU waste,

thermally treated TRU waste, or TRU

waste treated by any other process that

meets the WIPP WAC.

Under this decision, the wastes to be

disposed of include both CH and RH

defense TRU waste (except PCB

commingled TRU waste) placed in

retrievable storage after 1970, and TRU

waste generated for approximately the

next 35 years by plutonium stabilization

and management activities,

environmental restoration (including

defense TRU waste from future

remediation of sites where TRU waste

was buried before 1970),

decontamination and decommissioning,

waste management, and defense testing

and research. The amount of TRU waste

that will be disposed of at WIPP will not

exceed limits established by the WIPP

Land Withdrawal Act and the C&C

Agreement. Impacts of disposal at WIPP

of this volume of defense TRU waste are

analyzed in the SEIS–II under the

Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative).

TRU waste will be transported to

WIPP in containers certified by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as

required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal

Act. DOE will initially use trucks to

transport waste. However, DOE reserves

the option to use commercial rail

service for TRU waste transportation in

the future, because SEIS–II analyses

show that, under normal operations,

regular rail transportation would cause

fewer fatalities and would cost less than

truck transportation (although

consequences of a low probability

accident would be similar for all

transportation options). In contrast,

SEIS-II analyses show that dedicated

rail shipments would cause the largest

number of fatalities and would be the

most costly transportation mode.

Basis for Decision

The decision described above

minimizes, to the extent possible under

current statutory restrictions contained

in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, the

impacts and costs of continued TRU

waste management activities at DOE

sites. Disposal of TRU waste at WIPP

would effectively isolate the waste from

human contact for more than 10,000

years if the repository remains

undisturbed, and, under the Preferred

Alternative, is not expected to adversely

impact human health even if the

repository were to be breached by

drilling. For example, based on analyses

in the WIPP SEIS–II, the probability that

a member of a drilling crew that

breached the repository would die of

cancer from exposure to the waste is 4

in 10,000. If an intrusion occurred,

radionuclides and heavy metals could

reach the Culebra Dolomite (the

principal water-bearing unit overlying

WIPP). However, impacts would be

negligible.

The Department has taken into

consideration irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of resources,

impacts from retrieval of waste from the

repository, and cumulative impacts in

making this decision. There would be

irreversible and irretrievable

commitment of resources associated

with the use of the WIPP site resulting

from residual salt that remains after

remediation of the salt storage pile.

Although DOE has no plans to retrieve

waste from WIPP, if the waste were

retrieved prior to repository closure, the

impacts would be the same as from

emplacing the waste. If the waste were

required to be recovered after repository

closure, there could be several worker

fatalities from recovering waste and any

contaminated salt. The impacts from

transporting waste back to the treatment

sites would be higher than from

transporting it to WIPP because of the

additional volume of contaminated salt.

In considering cumulative impacts, DOE

recognizes that for all alternatives

involving transportation of TRU waste,

there would be cumulative impacts from

past, present and reasonable foreseeable
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices 3629

future activities involving transportation

of other waste types (hazardous, lowlevel, low-level mixed, and high level

waste). There would also be cumulative

impacts at some of the treatment sites as

a result of past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future activities.

DOE did not select the No Action

Alternatives because they would not

isolate TRU waste from humans and the

environment, and could cause public

harm if long-term institutional control

were to be lost. (Although no deaths

would be expected based on current

population densities and distributions

under No Action Alternative 1,

intruders could receive doses that

greatly exceed current regulatory limits;

up to 800 deaths could occur over

10,000 years under No Action

Alternative 2). Maintaining such

controls indefinitely would require

future generations to incur risks and

costs that can be avoided by disposing

of the waste in WIPP now. In addition,

the No Action Alternatives could not be

implemented without modification of

agreements that DOE has reached with

several states regarding the offsite

disposition of TRU waste.

DOE did not select the Action

Alternatives because disposal of the

volumes and waste types involved in

these alternatives would require

modification of the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act and the C&C

Agreement. DOE did not select either

thermal or shred and grout treatment

because the SEIS–II analyses show that

these treatments do not materially

improve the repository’s performance,

and also have greater costs and nearterm impacts across the DOE complex.

This decision is consistent with the

intent of Congress, as expressed in the

WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, that DOE

commence disposal operations at WIPP

once all applicable health and safety

standards and laws have been met. The

decision will enable the Department to

comply with the agreements that DOE

has entered into with several states,

particularly those agreements that set a

schedule for removal of TRU waste from

DOE sites.

Implementation of the decision to

dispose of TRU waste at WIPP is

contingent on obtaining a Compliance

Certification from EPA. EPA recently

proposed to certify compliance, subject

to certain conditions (62 FR 58792,

October 30, 1997). DOE has applied for

a RCRA permit from the New Mexico

Environment Department for disposal of

mixed TRU waste; such a permit is not

needed for disposal of other TRU waste

at WIPP.

Mitigation Measures

DOE has a Mitigation Action Plan in

effect for WIPP to reduce possible

adverse environmental effects. DOE will

continue to implement those actions

and provide information on their status

in its annual mitigation action reports.

DOE will comply with applicable

Department of Transportation and

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

regulations governing the shipment of

TRU waste. As described in SEIS–II,

DOE will transport TRU waste to WIPP

in such a manner as to alleviate, to the

maximum extent possible, potential

impacts from transportation of TRU

waste over the highways. These

measures include tracking shipments

with the TRANSCOM satellite tracking

system and maintaining constant

communication with the driver to

provide notice of adverse weather or

road conditions along the route.

Equipment will be inspected at the

beginning of each shipment and

periodically every 100 miles or every

two hours while on route. If shipments

are delayed on route, drivers will park

at designated DOE or Department of

Defense sites, or State designated

parking areas if possible. If no such sites

are available, drivers will park in areas

away from population concentrations

and notify the State Police of the

shipment’s location.

In addition to maintaining its own

emergency response capabilities, DOE

offers emergency response training to

police, fire, and medical personnel

located along the WIPP transportation

routes. In the event of an accident

involving a WIPP shipment, the driver

would notify emergency responders by

cellular phone and also the WIPP

Central Monitoring Room using the

TRANSCOM system. A DOE official

would be dispatched to assist at the

accident site. DOE resources would be

available to support mitigation of the

accident, including but not limited to

package recovery and site cleanup.

The United States Department of the

Interior suggested in comments on the

draft SEIS–II that DOE should develop

a spill contingency plan to address the

potential impacts of a diesel fuel spill

on fish and wildlife and their habitats.

DOE already has plans in place to

address the potential impacts of a truck

accident; these plans address potential

releases of TRU waste and other

materials. Remediation efforts may

include excavation and disposal of

contaminated environmental media as

appropriate.

A copy of SEIS–II and this Record of

Decision are available from the Center

for Environmental Management

Information, telephone: 1–800–7EM–

DATA (1–800–736–3282) (in

Washington, D.C., call 202–863–5084).

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 16th day

of January, 1998.

Elizabeth A. Moler,

Deputy Secretary of Energy.

[FR Doc. 98–1653 Filed 1–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision for the Department

of Energy’s Waste Management

Program: Treatment and Storage of

Transuranic Waste

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) is issuing this Record of Decision

on where, i.e., at which DOE sites, the

Department will prepare and store its

transuranic (TRU) waste prior to

disposal. Each of the Department’s sites

that currently has or will generate TRU

waste will prepare and store its TRU

waste on site, except that the Sandia

National Laboratory in New Mexico

(SNL–NM) will transfer its TRU waste to

the Los Alamos National Laboratory

(LANL) in New Mexico. LANL will have

facilities, not available or anticipated at

SNL–NM, to prepare and store this

waste prior to disposal.

DOE made this decision based on

analyses in the Department of Energy

Final Programmatic Waste Management

Environmental Impact Statement (WM

PEIS) (May 1997) and other information.

This decision differs slightly from the

Preferred Alternative in the WM PEIS.

The Appendix to this Record of

Decision lists the sites for which DOE

analyzed the potential impacts of

treating (which includes packaging) and

storing TRU waste in the WM PEIS. The

potential health and environmental

impacts of this decision were identified

and evaluated in the Decentralized

Alternative of the WM PEIS.

In the future, the Department may

decide to ship TRU wastes from sites

where it may be impractical to prepare

them for disposal to sites where DOE

has or will have the necessary

capability. The sites that could receive

such shipments of TRU waste are the

Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the

Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), the

Savannah River Site (SRS) and the

Hanford Site. However, any future

decisions regarding transfers of TRU

wastes would be subject to appropriate

review under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and