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
3630 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices

to agreements DOE has entered into,

such as those with States, relating to the

treatment and storage of TRU waste.

Future NEPA review could include, but

would not necessarily be limited to,

analysis of the need to supplement

existing environmental reviews. DOE

would conduct all such TRU waste

shipments between sites in accordance

with applicable transportation

requirements and would coordinate

these shipments with appropriate State,

Tribal and local authorities.

This Record of Decision was prepared

in coordination with the Record of

Decision issued on January 16, 1998, on

disposal of DOE’s TRU waste, which is

based on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Disposal Phase Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (WIPP

SEIS–II), issued in September 1997. On

the basis of the analyses in the WIPP

SEIS–II, DOE decided to dispose of TRU

waste generated by defense activities at

the WIPP near Carlsbad, New Mexico,

after preparation (i.e., treatment, as

necessary, and packaging) to meet

WIPP’s waste acceptance criteria.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the WM PEIS and this Record

of Decision are available in DOE public

reading rooms and selected libraries

located across the United States. A list

of the public reading rooms at which the

WM PEIS and this Record of Decision

are available can also be accessed on the

DOE Office of Environmental

Management’s World Wide Web site at

http://www.em.doe.gov/em30/. To

request copies of the WM PEIS, this

Record of Decision, or a list of the

reading rooms and public libraries,

please write or call: The Center for

Environmental Management

Information, P.O. Box 23769,

Washington, DC 20026–3769,

Telephone: 1–800–736–3282 (in

Washington, DC: 202–863–5084).

For further information on DOE’s

national Waste Management Program,

the WM PEIS, or this Record of

Decision, please write or call: Ms.

Patrice Bubar, Director, Office of

Planning and Analysis (EM–35), United

States Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Management, 19901

Germantown Road, Germantown, MD

20874, Telephone: (301) 903–7204.

For general information on the U.S.

Department of Energy National

Environmental Policy Act process,

please write or call: Ms. Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance (EH–42), United

States Department of Energy, Office of

Environment, Safety, and Health, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0119,

Telephone: (202) 586–4600, or leave a

message at (800) 472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

DOE prepared this Record of Decision

pursuant to the Council on

Environmental Quality’s regulations for

implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts

1500–1580) and DOE’s NEPA

Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part

1021). This Record of Decision is based

on analyses contained in the

Department of Energy’s Final Waste

Management Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/

EIS–0200–F). DOE published a notice of

its intent to prepare the WM PEIS in the

Federal Register on October 25, 1990.

DOE issued a Draft WM PEIS on

September 22, 1995, and hearings were

held during the public comment period,

which closed on February 19, 1996. All

public comments were addressed in the

Final WM PEIS, which DOE issued on

May 30, 1997.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

DOE needs facilities to manage its

radioactive and hazardous wastes in

order to maintain safe, efficient, and

cost-effective control of these wastes; to

comply with applicable Federal and

state laws; and to protect public health,

safety and the environment. The WM

PEIS is a Department-wide study of the

environmental impacts of managing five

types of waste generated by defense and

research activities at a variety of DOE

sites around the United States. The five

waste types are: low-level mixed waste,

low-level waste, TRU waste, high-level

waste, and hazardous waste. The WM

PEIS examines, in an integrated fashion,

the potential impacts of managing these

waste types and the cumulative impacts

of waste management, transportation

and other ongoing and reasonably

foreseeable activities.

The WM PEIS provides information

on the potential impacts of alternatives

for nationwide waste management that

DOE will use to decide, on a

programmatic basis, where, i.e., at

which DOE sites, to locate particular

waste management facilities. However,

DOE will not decide the specific

location of new facilities at sites

selected to manage a particular type of

waste, or a facility’s capacity and

design, until DOE completes

appropriate site-wide or project-specific

NEPA reviews, such as an

environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement. These

subsequent analyses would rely, to the

extent appropriate, on the analyses in

the WM PEIS.

This Record of Decision applies only

to the treatment (including packaging)

and storage of TRU waste as analyzed in

the WM PEIS. Records of Decision for

the four other waste types analyzed in

the WM PEIS will be issued in due

course. An Appendix to this Record of

Decision identifies the major sites

evaluated in the WM PEIS as potential

locations for waste management

operations, and the sites analyzed that

have TRU waste.

TRU Waste Treatment and Storage

TRU waste is waste containing more

than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting

transuranic isotopes per gram of waste,

with half-lives greater than 20 years (a

few exceptions to this definition are

identified in the WM PEIS). Over 99%

of the total volume of existing and

anticipated TRU waste is located at the

DOE sites listed in the Appendix. TRU

waste is categorized as either contacthandled (CH) or remote-handled (RH),

based on the radiation level at the

surface of the waste container. CH–TRU

waste constitutes more than 85% of the

total existing and anticipated volume of

TRU waste considered in the WM PEIS.

CH containers can be safely handled by

direct contact, with appropriate health

and safety measures. RH–TRU waste

contains a greater proportion of

radionuclides that produce highly

penetrating radiation, and thus RH

containers require special handling and

shielding during waste management

operations.

Alternatives Considered

In the WM PEIS, the term

‘‘alternative’’ refers to a nationwide

configuration of sites for treating,

storing, or disposing of a waste type.

The alternatives analyzed for each waste

type fall within the four broad

categories described below.

No Action Alternatives

These alternatives involve the use of

currently existing or planned waste

management facilities at DOE sites. In

the NEPA process, a no action

alternative or ‘‘status quo’’ alternative

may not comply with applicable laws

and regulations; however, analysis of

such an alternative is required and

provides an environmental baseline

against which the impacts of other

alternatives can be compared.

Decentralized Alternatives

These alternatives involve managing

waste where it is or will be generated.

Unlike the no action alternatives, the

decentralized alternatives may require

the siting, construction, and operation

of new facilities or the modification of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices 3631

existing facilities. Under the

decentralized alternatives, waste

management facilities would be located

at a larger number of sites than under

regionalized or centralized alternatives.

Regionalized Alternatives

These alternatives involve

consolidating waste management

activities by transporting wastes to a

limited number of sites (fewer than the

number of sites considered for the

decentralized alternatives but greater

than the number of sites considered for

the centralized alternatives). In general,

sites with the largest volumes of a

particular waste type were evaluated as

potential regional sites for consolidating

waste management activities.

Centralized Alternatives

These alternatives involve

consolidating management of wastes at

fewer locations than the regionalized

alternatives (typically one to three

locations). As was the case for the

regionalized alternatives, generally

those sites with the largest volumes of

a particular waste type were evaluated

as potential sites for centralized waste

management.

There are many possible

combinations of the number and

locations of DOE sites for waste

management facilities. To limit these

combinations to a reasonable number

for meaningful analysis, DOE selected

alternatives that cover the full spectrum

of reasonable alternatives under each

category for each waste type. Table 1

summarizes the alternatives for TRU

waste treatment storage that are

analyzed in the WM PEIS, and the

preferred alternative that DOE

developed based on the analysis and

other relevant criteria identified in the

WM PEIS.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TRU WASTE ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE WM PEIS

Alternative Category Description

No Action ......................................... Eleven sites * that anticipate generating TRU waste in the future would prepare TRU waste to meet planning-basis WIPP waste acceptance criteria **; existing TRU waste at 16 sites would be stored indefinitely; assumes TRU waste would not be transported among sites.

Decentralized .................................. Either fixed or mobile characterization facilities would be operated at sites that would need to retrieve existing TRU waste, treat, repackage, and ship the waste. TRU waste would be shipped from the 6 sites

with the smallest amounts to the nearest site of the 10 sites (ANL–E, NTS, Hanford, INEEL, LANL,

LLNL, Mound, ORR, RFETS, SRS) with the largest amounts of TRU waste for storage prior to disposal;

assumes for purposes of analysis that the waste would be prepared to meet waste acceptance criteria

for WIPP and that disposal would occur at WIPP.

Regionalized (3 Subalternatives) .... Three subalternatives differ in the level of treatment assumed for the purpose of impact analysis and the

number of sites at which treatment would occur; RH–TRU waste would be treated and stored at Hanford

and ORR; CH–TRU waste would be treated and stored at all sites considered in each alternative except

ORR; all three subalternatives assume for purposes of analysis that disposal would occur at WIPP.

Subalternatives:

1. TRU waste would be shipped from the 10 sites with the smallest amounts to the 6 sites with the largest

amounts (together having 95% of current and anticipated TRU inventories) for treatment to reduce gas

generation and storage prior to disposal.

2. TRU waste would be shipped as described for Regionalized Alternative 1; the waste would be treated to

meet Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs).

3. TRU waste would be consolidated at the 4 sites with approximately 80% of the current and anticipated

inventories; treatment to meet LDRs would occur at these 4 sites.

Centralized ...................................... All CH–TRU waste would be treated at WIPP to meet LDRs; all RH–TRU waste would be treated at Hanford or ORR to meet LDRs and stored there until disposal; assumes for purposes of analysis that disposal would occur at WIPP.

Preferred ......................................... Combination of the Decentralized Alternative, under which most TRU waste would be treated and stored

where it is located, and parts of the Regionalized Alternative, under which some TRU waste could be

shipped to INEEL, LANL, ORR, and SRS for treatment and storage, pending disposal, with the level of

treatment and whether to dispose of TRU wastes at WIPP to be decided on the basis of analyses in the

WIPP SEIS–II.

* The Appendix to this Record of Decision lists the sites’ names and their abbreviations.

** WIPP waste acceptance criteria Revision 5 as defined in the WIPP SEIS–II.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The WM PEIS analyzed a number of

potential impacts, including those on

human health, air and water resources,

ecological resources, land use, and site

infrastructures for each of the major

sites at which waste management

facilities might be located. Differences

in impacts among all of the action

alternatives were small. Nonetheless, all

potential impacts identified in the WM

PEIS were considered in DOE’s

selection of the preferred alternative, its

identification of the environmentally

preferable alternative, and its decision

regarding treatment and storage of TRU

waste.

For the 20-year period of waste

management operations analyzed in the

WM PEIS, the potential impacts under

the No Action alternative for TRU waste

management are smaller than those

identified under the action alternatives,

and on this basis, the No Action

alternative could be considered to be the

environmentally preferable alternative.

However, the No Action alternative

assumes indefinite storage, and

therefore does not include preparing

and shipping the waste for disposal, i.e.,

permanent isolation from the human

environment. Although the No Action

alternative could pose less risk to

workers and communities surrounding

DOE’s sites for the first 20 years, the

longer-term risks are likely to exceed

those for the first 20 years, not only as

a result of continuing routine storage

operations, but also as a result of

degradation of storage facilities and

containers.

Taking these circumstances into

account, the Department considers the

environmentally preferable alternative

to be the Decentralized Alternative

under which DOE will prepare the TRU

waste for disposal with minimal

transportation. Transportation of TRU

waste would occur only in situations

where the sites at which the waste is
3632 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices

located lack the capability to prepare it

for disposal.

Decision: DOE National Programmatic

Configuration for Treatment and

Storage of TRU Waste Prior to Disposal

The Department will develop and

operate mobile and fixed facilities to

characterize and prepare TRU waste for

disposal at WIPP. Each of the DOE’s

sites that has, or will generate, TRU

waste will, as needed, prepare and store

its TRU waste on site, except that the

SNL–NM will transfer its TRU waste to

LANL in New Mexico. LANL will have

facilities, not available or anticipated at

SNL–NM, to prepare and store this

waste prior to disposal.

Basis for the Decision

Although the No Action Alternative

resulted in the lowest impacts among

the alternatives analyzed in the WM

PEIS over the next 20 years, DOE did

not select this alternative because it

does not meet the Department’s needs

for the continued, safe management of

TRU waste. Under the No Action

Alternative, health and environmental

impacts would continue to occur

beyond the 20-year period of analysis in

the WM PEIS. In the WIPP SEIS–II

Record of Decision (discussed further

below), DOE decided to dispose of TRU

waste at WIPP, after treatment to meet

the planning basis waste acceptance

criteria. The No Action alternative

evaluates treatment to meet the WIPP

waste acceptance criteria only for TRU

waste to be generated in the future; i.e.,

existing retrievably stored TRU waste

would not be prepared to meet WIPP

waste acceptance criteria. Eventually,

the stored waste as well as the newly

generated and treated waste would have

to be repackaged to maintain safe

storage conditions.

Among the action alternatives, health

and environmental impacts are

generally similar over the 20-year period

of analysis. DOE’s decision seeks to

limit environmental impacts and costs,

while providing for the safe

management of DOE’s TRU waste.

Among the action alternatives, the life

cycle costs estimated in the WM PEIS

are lowest for the Decentralized

Alternative.

The level of treatment analyzed under

the Decentralized Alternative in the WM

PEIS corresponds to the level of

treatment selected in the Record of

Decision for the WIPP SEIS–II for

preparing the TRU waste for disposal.

Thus the potential health and

environmental impacts of treating TRU

waste in accordance with the WIPP

waste acceptance criteria are identified

and evaluated in the analysis of the

Decentralized Alternative, which also

identifies the potential impacts of

treating and storing waste from SNL–

NM at LANL.

Future Decisions

The Department may, in the future,

decide to transfer 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

INEEL, ORR, SRS and Hanford.

However, any future decisions regarding

transfers of TRU waste would be subject

to appropriate NEPA review, and to

agreements, such as those between DOE

and States, relating to the treatment and

storage of TRU waste. Future NEPA

review could include, but would not

necessarily be limited to, analysis of the

need to supplement existing

environmental reviews.

DOE would conduct all such TRU

waste shipments between sites in

accordance with applicable

transportation requirements and would

coordinate these shipments with

appropriate State, Tribal and local

authorities.

As provided by 10 CFR § 1021.315,

the DOE may revise this Record of

Decision in the future as long as the

revised decision is adequately

supported by existing environmental

impact statements. Revision of this

Record of Decision could occur, for

example, as new technology or

information from ongoing studies

becomes available, or as DOE identifies

situations in which it would be

appropriate to transfer TRU waste to

INEEL, ORR, SRS or Hanford.

Implementation of the Record of

Decision is subject to compliance with

all applicable Federal, State, and local

requirements.

Differences From the Preferred

Alternative in the WM PEIS

This decision differs from the

preferred alternative identified in the

WM PEIS in three respects. First, the

preferred alternative in the WM PEIS

included treatment and storage of ORR’s

RH–TRU waste on site, and treatment

and storage of ORR’s CH–TRU waste at

SRS. Since publication of the WM PEIS,

the Department has been considering

treatment, as needed, of both ORR’s CH–

TRU and RH–TRU waste at ORR,

because the radiation levels of ORR’s

CH–TRU waste are close to the levels of

ORR’s RH–TRU waste, and because the

two waste forms share other physical

characteristics. By including treatment

of ORR’s CH–TRU waste with its RH–

TRU waste, DOE would reduce the need

to transport CH–TRU waste and achieve

economies of scale. The proposed action

for a TRU waste facility at ORR that

could treat, as needed, both its CH–TRU

and RH–TRU wastes is subject to

appropriate site-specific review under

NEPA.

The second difference between this

decision and the preferred alternative in

the WM PEIS concerns RH–TRU waste

at SRS. The preferred alternative called

for transferring this waste to ORR for

treatment and storage. The Department

has now decided that it should defer

any determination whether to transfer

RH–TRU waste from SRS to ORR until

DOE has the results of the NEPA review

for the proposed ORR facility and

additional information regarding its

capability to meet transportation

requirements for shipping the RH–TRU

waste to ORR.

The third difference between this

decision and the preferred alternative in

the WM PEIS concerns the transfer of a

portion of the TRU waste at the Rocky

Flats Environmental Technology Site

(RFETS) to INEEL. Since publication of

the WM PEIS, additional information

about the characteristics of the TRU

waste at RFETS has become available

indicating that existing or anticipated

facilities at RFETS may be able to

prepare this waste for disposal. If, in the

future, RFETS needs to use another

site’s capability to prepare some of its

TRU waste for disposal, DOE will

complete any further review under

NEPA that may be necessary, and will

notify the appropriate State, Tribal and

local authorities prior to making a final

decision.

Coordinated Decision on Level of

Treatment and Disposal of TRU Waste

This Record of Decision has been

prepared in coordination with the WIPP

SEIS–II Record of Decision (January 16,

1998), which specifies the level of

treatment for, and the disposal location

of, TRU waste generated by defense

activities. The decisions on the level of

treatment of TRU waste and where to

dispose of it are based on analyses in

the WIPP SEIS–II. In the WIPP SEIS–II

Record of Decision, DOE has decided

that TRU waste destined for disposal at

WIPP will be treated to meet the

planning basis waste acceptance criteria

(Revision 5 of the waste acceptance

criteria as defined in the WIPP SEIS–II),

which establish the minimum

requirements for preparing TRU waste

for disposal at WIPP. DOE has treated in

the past and based on site-specific

circumstances, may decide in the future

to treat TRU waste at some sites more

extensively than is required under the

WIPP waste acceptance criteria.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices 3633

Mitigation

Chapter 12 of the WM PEIS describes

measures that DOE takes in order to

minimize the impacts of its waste

management activities. Mitigation

measures are an integral part of the

Department’s operations, so as to avoid,

reduce, or eliminate potentially adverse

environmental impacts. Some of the

more important mitigation measures

that DOE will continue during the

treatment and storage of TRU waste are:

• Use of pollution prevention plans;

• Assistance to States, Tribes, local

governments, and other public entities

concerning human health,

environmental, and economic impacts,

including transportation planning and

emergency response assistance;

• Use of ‘‘cleaner’’ waste treatment

and storage technologies as they become

available;

• Rigorous quality assurance

programs for the characterization of

TRU waste;

• Reuse of existing facilities wherever

feasible rather than construction of new

facilities;

• Occupational safety and health

training to ensure that workers

understand operational safety

procedures.

Site-specific, non-routine mitigation

measures may also be identified and

implemented in the course of further

decision making under site-specific

NEPA reviews based on the WM PEIS.

Issued in Washington, D.C. this 20th day

of January, 1998.

James M. Owendoff,

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Environmental Management.

APPENDIX—SITES EVALUATED IN THE WM PEIS AND SITES WITH TRU WASTE

Abbreviation Full name State Major site 1 TRU waste

ANL–E .............. Argonne National Laboratory—East ............................................................... IL Yes ............................ Yes.

BNL .................. Brookhaven National Laboratory ..................................................................... NY Yes ............................ No.

ETEC ................ Energy Technology Engineering Center ......................................................... CA No .............................. Yes.

FEMP ............... Fernald Environmental Management Project .................................................. OH Yes ............................ No.

Hanford ............. Hanford Site .................................................................................................... WA Yes ............................ Yes.

INEEL ............... Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory ........................... ID Yes ............................ Yes.

LBL ................... Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ....................................................................... CA No .............................. Yes.

LLNL ................. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ....................................................... CA Yes ............................ Yes.

LANL ................ Los Alamos National Laboratory ..................................................................... NM Yes ............................ Yes.

Mound .............. Mound Plant .................................................................................................... OH No .............................. Yes.

NTS .................. Nevada Test Site ............................................................................................. NV Yes ............................ Yes.

ORR ................. Oak Ridge Reservation ................................................................................... TN Yes ............................ Yes.

PGDP ............... Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant .................................................................. KY Yes ............................ Yes.

Pantex .............. Pantex Plant .................................................................................................... TX Yes ............................ No.

PORTS ............. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant .............................................................. OH Yes ............................ No.

RFETS .............. Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site .................................................. CO Yes ............................ Yes.

SNL/NM ............ Sandia National Laboratories–New Mexico .................................................... NM Yes ............................ Yes.

SRS .................. Savannah River Site ....................................................................................... SC Yes ............................ Yes.

UofMO .............. University of Missouri ...................................................................................... MO No .............................. Yes.

WIPP ................ Waste Isolation Pilot Plant .............................................................................. NM Yes ............................ No.

WVDP ............... West Valley Demonstration Project ................................................................ NY Yes ............................ Yes.

(1) Sites analyzed in the WM PEIS as potential locations for waste management facilities for one or more types of waste.

[FR Doc. 98–1654 Filed 1–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P