|
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
|
 |
