January 16, 1998 Record of Decision from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal
Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Billing Code: [6450-01-P]
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)
(SEISII). 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 particle-emitting 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.
Remote-handled (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).
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 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 35year 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 160year 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, non-defense, 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
150year 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, non-defense, 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 190year
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, non-defense, 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 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. Long-term
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 long-term 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 long-term 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 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 high-level
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 site-specific 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
future activities involving transportation of other waste types (hazardous, low-level,
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
near-term 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
