Revision to the Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program, 60508-60511 [05-20804]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60508
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices
points); Evaluation plan (20 points);
Budget and cost-effectiveness (10
points); and Priorities (20 points).
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application
is successful, we notify your U.S.
Representative and U.S. Senators and
send you a Grant Award Notification
(GAN). We may also notify you
informally.
If your application is not evaluated or
not selected for funding, we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy
Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy
requirements in the application package
and reference these and other
requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining
the terms and conditions of an award in
the Applicable Regulations section of
this notice and include these and other
specific conditions in the GAN. The
GAN also incorporates your approved
application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Reporting: At the end of your
project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial
information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multi-year
award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the
most current performance and financial
expenditure information as specified by
the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118.
Grantees are required to use the
electronic data instrument Evaluation of
Exchange, Language, International, and
Area Studies (EELIAS) to complete the
final report.
VII. Agency Contact
Mr.
Ed McDermott, International Education
Programs Service, U.S. Department of
Education, 1990 K Street, NW., suite
6082, Washington, DC 20006–8521.
Telephone: (202) 502–7636 or by e-mail:
ed.mcdermott@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), you may call
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities may
obtain this document in an alternative
format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to the program contact person
listed in this section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VIII. Other Information
Electronic Access to This Document:
You may view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Oct 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the
following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: October 13, 2005.
Sally L. Stroup,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary
Education.
[FR Doc. 05–20784 Filed 10–13–05; 4:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Revision to the Record of Decision for
the Department of Energy’s Waste
Management Program
Department of Energy.
Revision to record of decision.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE), pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.315, is
revising the Record of Decision for the
Department of Energy’s Waste
Management Program: Treatment and
Storage of Transuranic Waste, issued on
January 20, 1998 (63 FR 3629) and
revised previously on December 29,
2000 (65 FR 82985) and July 13, 2001
(66 FR 38646). On September 6, 2002
(67 FR 56989) and June 30, 2004 (69 FR
39446) the Department decided to send
the waste from Battelle Columbus
Laboratory West Jefferson site to the
Hanford Site. The Department has now
decided to transfer approximately 37
cubic meters of transuranic (TRU) waste
generated as part of the cleanup of the
Battelle Columbus Laboratory West
Jefferson site near Columbus, Ohio, to
the Savannah River Site (SRS) and/or
the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) site
near Andrews, Texas for either
characterization or storage until the
waste can be disposed of at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New
Mexico. Both SRS and WCS offer viable
storage options for the Battelle TRU
waste. Pursuant to this decision, DOE
may ship all of the Battelle TRU waste
to either SRS or WCS, or it may choose
to ship a portion of the waste to SRS
and the remainder of the waste to WCS.
The Remote-Handled (RH) TRU waste
(approximately 25 cubic meters,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
including about 3 cubic meters of mixed
TRU waste [containing both radioactive
and hazardous components]) would be
stored at SRS or WCS for up to five
years. The CH–TRU waste
(approximately 12 cubic meters,
including about 2 cubic meters of mixed
TRU waste) would be characterized at
SRS under the existing characterization
program and shipped to WIPP for
disposal or stored at WCS for up to five
years. If DOE’s request for modification
of the WIPP hazardous waste facility
permit currently pending before the
New Mexico Environment Department
is granted without substantial change,
DOE may be able to ship the Battelle
West Jefferson TRU waste from SRS or
WCS to WIPP near Carlsbad, NM for
disposal, without additional
characterization. If additional
characterization is necessary prior to
disposal at WIPP, the Battelle West
Jefferson TRU waste may be shipped
from SRS or WCS to another DOE site
for characterization.
DOE has prepared a Supplement
Analysis (SA) in accordance with DOE
NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314) to
determine whether the proposed off-site
shipment of the Battelle West Jefferson
TRU waste for storage at SRS or WCS
prior to disposal at WIPP is a substantial
change to the proposal or whether there
are significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental
concerns such that a supplement to the
WM PEIS or a new EIS would be
needed. Based on the SA, DOE has
determined that a supplement to the
WM PEIS or a new EIS is not needed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the Waste Management
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (WM PEIS), the 1998 WM
PEIS ROD for TRU waste, the revised
WM PEIS RODs for TRU waste, this
revised ROD, and the Supplement
Analysis for Transportation, Storage,
Characterization, and Disposal of
Transuranic Waste Currently Stored at
the Battelle West Jefferson Site near
Columbus, Ohio (DOE/EIS–0200–SA–
02) will be available on DOE’s National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web
site at: https://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa
under DOE NEPA Documents. To
request copies of any of these
documents, 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 regarding the
storage, characterization, and disposal
of Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste, or
to obtain copies of the Supplement
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices
Analysis discussed herein, contact: Mr.
Harold Johnson, Carlsbad Field Office,
U.S. Department of Energy, 4021
National Parks Highway, Carlsbad, NM
88220, Telephone: 505–234–7349.
For further information on the DOE
program for the management of TRU
waste or this revision to the ROD,
contact: Ms. Lynne Smith, Office of
Environmental Management, U.S.
Department of Energy, 19001
Germantown Road, Germantown, MD
20874, Telephone: 301–903–6828.
For information on DOE’s NEPA
process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom,
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and
Compliance, EH–42, U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone
202–586–4600, or leave a message at 1–
800–472–2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
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. TRU
waste is classified according to the
radiation dose at a package surface. 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. 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). Mixed
TRU waste contains both radioactive
and hazardous components.
The 37 cubic meters of TRU waste at
the Battelle West Jefferson site consist of
approximately 12 cubic meters of CH–
TRU waste and approximately 25 cubic
meters of RH–TRU waste. At the Battelle
West Jefferson site, most of the CH–TRU
waste is stored in six standard waste
boxes in three concrete shielding units.
One additional 30 gallon drum of
possible CH–TRU waste (this waste was
originally thought to be low-level waste,
but may eventually be determined to be
TRU waste due to the presence of
americium) is stored in a locked cargo
container at the Battelle site. The RH–
TRU waste is contained in 110 55-gallon
drums (stored in 11 concrete shielding
units) and two RH–TRU 72–B shipping
casks (the two shipping casks hold a
total of five drums).
In the WM PEIS, DOE analyzed the
potential environmental impacts of the
management (treatment and storage) of
TRU waste at DOE sites (DOE estimated
that 580 cubic meters of RH–TRU waste
had been generated and was being
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Oct 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
stored at the Battelle West Jefferson site
but did not specifically analyze the
treatment or storage of that TRU waste
at off-site locations). In the 1998 WM
PEIS ROD for TRU waste, DOE decided
that ‘‘each of the Department’s sites that
currently has or will generate TRU
waste will prepare and store its waste
on site’’ prior to shipment to WIPP. (The
only exception to this decision was the
Sandia National Laboratory in New
Mexico, which will ship its waste to the
Los Alamos National Laboratory for
disposal preparation and storage before
disposal at WIPP.) DOE also noted that
‘‘in the future, the Department may
decide to ship transuranic wastes from
sites where it may be impractical to
prepare them for disposal to sites where
DOE has or will have the necessary
capability,’’ stating that
‘‘[t]ransportation of TRU waste would
occur only in situations where the sites
at which the waste is located lack the
capability to prepare it for disposal.’’
The WM PEIS ROD also stated that the
sites that could receive TRU waste
shipments from other sites were the
Idaho National Laboratory (formerly
known as the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory), Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, the SRS, and the Hanford
Site, and that such decisions would be
subject to appropriate review under
NEPA.
In the WIPP SEIS–II, DOE analyzed
the potential environmental impacts
associated with disposing of TRU waste
at WIPP. DOE’s Proposed Action was to
open WIPP and dispose of 175,600
cubic meters of defense TRU waste; this
waste volume included 580 cubic
meters of Battelle West Jefferson RH–
TRU waste. In addition, DOE analyzed
several action alternatives that would
consolidate waste from some smallerquantity DOE sites at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, SRS, and Hanford.
In the Savannah River Site Waste
Management Final Environmental
Impact Statement (SRS WM EIS) (DOE
1995) DOE examined the environmental
impacts of alternative strategies for
managing various waste types
(including TRU wastes) at SRS. In its
initial ROD, DOE selected an alternative
that included storage of TRU waste at
SRS. In a subsequent ROD, DOE decided
to construct and operate a TRU waste
characterization/certification facility to
characterize, repackage, and certify CH–
TRU waste for disposal at WIPP.
The Battelle West Jefferson facility is
privately owned; however, as part of the
closeout of its nuclear materials
research contract, DOE is assisting in
the remediation of the site. Contract
terms specify that all radioactive waste
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60509
generated during the facility cleanup is
‘‘DOE-owned’’ for the purposes of
disposal. The TRU waste must be
shipped off-site by December 2005, to
comply with Battelle’s NRC license,
which will expire at the end of 2005.
Removal of the TRU waste from the
Battelle West Jefferson site is required to
allow site closure in fiscal year 2006.
The Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste
is not eligible for direct shipment to
WIPP for disposal because the Battelle
West Jefferson facility does not have the
capability to certify the CH–TRU waste
for disposal and WIPP is not yet
authorized by the State of New Mexico
to accept RH–TRU waste for disposal.
Because the Battelle West Jefferson site
is closing, developing the capability at
that site to certify TRU waste for
disposal is not cost-effective.
In an amended ROD pursuant to the
WM PEIS (69 Fed. Reg. 39446, June 30,
2004), DOE decided to send the Battelle
West Jefferson TRU waste to the
Hanford site for storage and eventual
shipment to WIPP. For the reasons
described in DOE’s Supplement
Analysis (described in IV below) and in
DOE’s Notice of Availability of the
Supplement Analysis (70 Fed. Reg.
53353, September 8, 2005), DOE has
now decided to ship the waste to SRS
or WCS for storage or characterization
until the waste can be disposed of at
WIPP.
II. Decision
DOE has decided to transfer
approximately 37 cubic meters of CH
and RH–TRU waste and up to 14
concrete shielding units (in 39 truck
shipments) from the Battelle West
Jefferson site to SRS and/or WCS. At
SRS or WCS, the RH–TRU waste would
be stored for a period not to exceed five
years. At WCS, the CH–TRU waste
would also be stored for up to five years.
At SRS, the CH–TRU waste would be
characterized under the existing SRS
CH–TRU program and shipped to WIPP
for disposal. DOE will ship a total of
approximately 12 cubic meters of CH–
TRU waste in TRUPACT–II shipping
casks (up to two truck shipments) and
approximately 25 cubic meters of RH–
TRU waste in 10–160B and RH–TRU
72–B shipping casks (up to 14 truck
shipments). Onsite activities will
involve preparing the waste for
shipment (loading the waste into the
shipping casks and loading the trucks
for transport).
If DOE’s request for modification of
the WIPP hazardous waste facility
permit currently pending before the
New Mexico Environment Department
is granted without substantial change,
DOE may be able to ship the Battelle
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
60510
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices
West Jefferson TRU waste from SRS or
WCS to WIPP near Carlsbad, NM for
disposal, without additional
characterization. If additional
characterization is necessary prior to
disposal at WIPP, the Battelle West
Jefferson TRU waste may be shipped
from SRS or WCS to another DOE site
for characterization. DOE has identified
the Hanford Site, the Idaho National
Laboratory, SRS (for waste stored at
WCS) and the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory as possible characterization
sites for this waste. The decision
regarding whether to ship the waste
directly to WIPP or to another site for
characterization will depend on the
characterization requirements that are
established as a result of DOE’s pending
Hazardous Waste Facility Permit
modification request and the
characterization capabilities that are
available or planned at the individual
sites at the time of any decision. Such
a decision would be the subject to
appropriate additional National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
review if required.
III. Basis for the Decision
DOE needs to ship its TRU waste from
the Battelle West Jefferson site for offsite
storage prior to characterization for
disposal at WIPP. However, this waste
is not eligible for disposal at WIPP at
this time, which results in the need to
ship the waste to safe, secure storage
until it can be shipped to WIPP. The
Battelle West Jefferson site is a
privately-owned site subject to
regulation by the NRC. The NRC license
expires in December 2005, and DOE has
committed to close the site in Fiscal
Year 2006. Continued storage would
violate the current license issued by the
NRC.
IV. Supplement Analysis
To determine whether the proposed
action would warrant a supplement to
the WM PEIS DOE prepared the
Supplement Analysis for
Transportation, Storage,
Characterization, and Disposal of
Transuranic Waste Currently Stored at
the Battelle West Jefferson Site near
Columbus, Ohio (DOE/EIS–0200–SA–
02) (SA). DOE considered both the SRS
and WCS as possible storage sites for the
Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste. Each
site has advantages. For example, the
shorter transportation route between
Battelle and SRS would mean waste
removal from Battelle could be
accomplished more quickly. Also, the
CH–TRU waste could be characterized
at SRS and sent to WIPP for disposal,
thus minimizing the amount of waste
that would have to be stored. WCS, on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Oct 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
the other hand, is close to WIPP, and
subsequent transportation to WIPP for
disposal could have less impact if,
under the permit modification to be
issued by the State of New Mexico, the
waste can eventually be shipped to
WIPP without further characterization.
Preparation for Shipment. As
discussed in the SA, it is expected that
seven or eight workers would be
involved in preparing the waste for
shipment. Based on past experience
with TRU waste handling at the Battelle
West Jefferson site, DOE estimates that
worker exposure would be less than 0.5
person-rem, a level that is equivalent to
a risk of a latent cancer fatality of 2.5 ×
10¥4. During this period, access to the
Battelle West Jefferson site would be
controlled, so there would be no
exposure of the public to radiation.
If a TRU waste drop accident were to
occur, DOE’s analysis concluded that all
radiation doses would be below 100
mrem per accident and external
exposures from groundshine would be
less than 1 mrem per hour. Total dose
to the maximally exposed member of
the public would be 4.2 × 10¥2 rem,
resulting in a risk of a latent cancer
fatality of 2.5 × 10¥5. The accident with
the highest dose, a drop accident
involving a drum of RH–TRU waste, had
an estimated radiation dose of 8.5 ×
10¥2 rem. This is equivalent to a risk of
a latent cancer fatality of 5.1 × 10¥5 to
the maximally exposed individual.
Transportation and Unloading. The
total calculated fatalities from all
shipments to either SRS or WCS are
much less than one (3.5 × 10¥3 for
shipments to SRS and 5.0 × 10¥3 for
shipments to WCS). The transportation
impacts would include those from the
shipment of the Battelle West Jefferson
TRU waste (up to 16 shipments),
shipments of characterized CH–TRU
waste from SRS to WIPP (up to 2
shipments) and the shipment of
concrete shielding units in which the
waste could be stored (up to 39
shipments). The radiation dose to
workers as a result of unloading the
waste at SRS or WCS would be less than
0.5 person-rem. This is the equivalent to
the risk of a latent cancer fatality of 2.5
× 10¥4.
Storage of TRU waste. Based on the
one year of experience with monitoring
and maintenance of the TRU waste
storage pad at the Battelle West Jefferson
site, DOE estimates that routine
exposures from monitoring, inspection
and maintenance activities for TRU
waste (stored in 14 concrete storage
units, two RH–TRU 72–B casks, and in
one drum in a locked cargo container)
results in a total exposure of no more
than 8 × 10¥3 person-rem at the Battelle
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
West Jefferson site annually. Assuming
a 5-year storage period at SRS or WCS,
the total worker exposure would be no
more than 4 × 10¥2 person-rem (8 ×
10¥3 person-rem for 5 years). This is
equivalent to the risk of a latent cancer
fatality of 2.0 × 10¥5. Radiation surveys
at the Battelle West Jefferson site have
verified that radiation exposures beyond
the storage area would be at background
levels, so the exposure to noninvolved
workers and the general public at SRS
or WCS would be zero.
The impacts to workers of a TRU
waste accident during unloading or
storage at SRS or WCS would be similar
to the accident impacts for a waste
container drop during loading at the
Battelle West Jefferson site. The impacts
to the MEI would be expected to be less
than at the Battelle West Jefferson site
because the MEI would be farther away
from the accident at SRS or WCS.
Characterization of CH–TRU waste—
DOE estimates that worker exposure
from characterizing the CH–TRU waste
at SRS would be about 0.005 personrem, which is the equivalent of a latent
cancer risk of 2.5 × 10¥6 for the
involved workers. The impacts from
characterizing RH–TRU waste at SRS
would be about 0.03 person-rem which
is the equivalent of a latent cancer risk
of 1.5 × 10¥5 for the involved workers.
A characterization accident would be
expected to result in an exposure of
about 9.0 × 10¥6 rem for the MEI, which
is the equivalent of a latent cancer risk
of 5.4 × 10¥9.
In the SA, DOE analyzed the health,
environmental and transportation
impacts of shipping the Battelle West
Jefferson TRU waste to SRS or WCS.
DOE concluded that the potential
impacts identified would not exceed
impacts reported in the WM PEIS or the
WIPP SEIS–II. DOE published a Notice
of Availability of the SA in the Federal
Register on September 8, 2005 (70 Fed.
Reg. 53353). DOE stated that it would
issue an amended ROD no sooner than
30 days after publication of the Notice,
and that it would consider public
comments received during this period.
V. Response to Public Comments on the
Supplement Analysis
DOE received two comments during
the 30-day public notification of the
availability of the SA, which
commenced on September 8, 2005. One
commenter objected to shipping the
Battelle waste and storing it until it can
‘‘theoretically’’ be disposed of at a
‘‘potential future’’ WIPP site, citing
concerns about ‘‘leaking valves’’ on
casks used for transportation of wastes.
The commenter stated that the safest
way to treat radioactive waste is to leave
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices
the waste ‘‘in the ground where it is’’
rather than expose the public to risk by
transporting the waste to another site.
DOE cannot leave the waste at Battelle
since to do so would violate the NRC
requirements for continued storage of
this waste. The waste is currently in
aboveground storage, rather than ‘‘in the
ground’’ and poses some continuing risk
to the surrounding population. The
waste will be transported to another site
in NRC approved TRU waste casks that
are sealed to prevent leakage. The WIPP
site is an existing deep underground
disposal site that is designed to isolate
the waste from humans and the
environment.
One commenter stated that DOE
cannot choose WCS as a storage site for
the Battelle West Jefferson waste. The
commenter asserted that, because WCS
was not included as an alternative in the
WM PEIS and because DOE has not
conducted an analysis of the
environmental impacts of storage at the
WCS site, DOE cannot choose WCS as
a storage site without completing a
supplemental WM PEIS that includes
WCS as an alternative. The commenter
also asserted that storage at WCS is
inappropriate because WCS, as a nonDOE site, is unable to prepare the waste
for shipment to WIPP, while SRS (and
other DOE sites considered in the WM
PEIS) could. The commenter further
asserted that the definition of interim
storage contained in the WCS license
would prevent storage of the Battelle
West Jefferson Waste because the waste
does not meet WIPP waste acceptance
criteria. In addition, the commenter
states that DOE should have considered
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) as
possible alternative storage sites for this
waste and it should have provided a
more extensive discussion of the
alternative of continued onsite storage at
the Battelle West Jefferson site.
Although the WM PEIS did not
analyze waste management actions at
commercial sites, DOE is not precluded
from using such sites. Further, based on
the conclusions in the SA, DOE does not
believe that a supplemental EIS is
needed.
There is no requirement that a site be
a DOE site before a waste
characterization program can be
established at that site. The definition of
interim storage does not prevent WCS
from storing the Battelle West Jefferson
waste. Under the definition cited by the
commenter, the waste would have to be
properly packaged and meet the waste
acceptance criteria for ‘‘an authorized
disposal facility, or an authorized
federal agency.’’ However, even if the
waste does not meet the waste
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Oct 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
acceptance criteria for WIPP (the
authorized disposal facility), the waste
will meet the waste acceptance criteria
for a DOE site (e.g. SRS) before it would
be sent to WCS for storage. This would
be sufficient to meet the definition of
the WCS license.
The alternatives of sending the waste
to ORNL or INL were considered in the
WM PEIS and not chosen in the original
Record of Decision. DOE is not
reconsidering that decision at this time.
The alternative of continued storage at
Battelle is unacceptable because NRC
has indicated it will not renew the
Battelle license for this waste.
The SA reviewed the potential health
and environmental impacts of the new
proposed action as compared to those
identified in the WM PEIS, the WIPP
SEIS–II, and the SRS Waste
Management EIS. The potential impacts
of the proposed action are very small
and would not add significantly to those
previously reported.
DOE has determined, therefore, that
the proposed actions would not, either
under incident-free or accident
conditions, present a substantial change
relevant to environmental concerns or
significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed
action or its impacts. Therefore, DOE
determined that a supplemental EIS or
a new EIS is not required under 40 CFR
1502.9(c) or 10 CFR 1021.314(c) to
implement this proposal.
60511
AGENCY:
Stephens, et al. v. EPA, Nos. 04–1112,
04–1117, 04–1118, and 04–1119 (D.C.
Cir.). In April 2004, petitioners filed
petitions for review challenging the
final EPA rule entitled ‘‘National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline); Final Rule’’ (‘‘OLD’’). 69
FR 5038 (February 3, 2004). Under the
terms of the proposed settlement
agreement, EPA has agreed that: On or
before October 31, 2005, the EPA
Administrator will sign a notice of
proposed rulemaking to amend the OLD
as provided in Attachment A to the
Settlement Agreement; As part of the
proposed amendments to the OLD, EPA
will include language in the preamble as
provided in Attachment B to the
Settlement Agreement; and within 180
days of the date the comment period on
the proposed amendments closes, EPA
will sign a notice of final rulemaking.
DATES: Written comments on the
proposed settlement agreement must be
received by November 17, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket ID number OGC–
2005–0014, online at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket (EPA’s preferred
method); by e-mail to
oei.docket@epa.gov; mailed to EPA
Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by
hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. Comments on a disk or CD–
ROM should be formatted in
Wordperfect or ASCII file, avoiding the
use of special characters and any form
of encryption, and may be mailed to the
mailing address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Thrift, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General
Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202)
564–5596.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with section
113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended
(‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is
hereby given of a proposed settlement
agreement, to address petitions for
review filed by the American Chemistry
Council, the General Electric Company
and the Coke Oven Environmental Task
Force (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’). Stan
I. Additional Information About the
Proposed Settlement
This case concerns challenges to the
rule entitled ‘‘National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline); Final Rule’’ (‘‘OLD’’). 69 FR
5038 (February 3, 2004). These
standards are based on the performance
of Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT), and implement
section 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 12th day of
October 2005.
´
Dr. Ines R. Triay,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management.
[FR Doc. 05–20804 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–7984–9]
Proposed Settlement Agreement,
Clean Air Act Citizen Suit
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement
Agreement; request for public comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60508-60511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20804]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Revision to the Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's
Waste Management Program
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Revision to record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.315,
is revising the Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste
Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste, issued
on January 20, 1998 (63 FR 3629) and revised previously on December 29,
2000 (65 FR 82985) and July 13, 2001 (66 FR 38646). On September 6,
2002 (67 FR 56989) and June 30, 2004 (69 FR 39446) the Department
decided to send the waste from Battelle Columbus Laboratory West
Jefferson site to the Hanford Site. The Department has now decided to
transfer approximately 37 cubic meters of transuranic (TRU) waste
generated as part of the cleanup of the Battelle Columbus Laboratory
West Jefferson site near Columbus, Ohio, to the Savannah River Site
(SRS) and/or the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) site near Andrews,
Texas for either characterization or storage until the waste can be
disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico.
Both SRS and WCS offer viable storage options for the Battelle TRU
waste. Pursuant to this decision, DOE may ship all of the Battelle TRU
waste to either SRS or WCS, or it may choose to ship a portion of the
waste to SRS and the remainder of the waste to WCS.
The Remote-Handled (RH) TRU waste (approximately 25 cubic meters,
including about 3 cubic meters of mixed TRU waste [containing both
radioactive and hazardous components]) would be stored at SRS or WCS
for up to five years. The CH-TRU waste (approximately 12 cubic meters,
including about 2 cubic meters of mixed TRU waste) would be
characterized at SRS under the existing characterization program and
shipped to WIPP for disposal or stored at WCS for up to five years. If
DOE's request for modification of the WIPP hazardous waste facility
permit currently pending before the New Mexico Environment Department
is granted without substantial change, DOE may be able to ship the
Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste from SRS or WCS to WIPP near
Carlsbad, NM for disposal, without additional characterization. If
additional characterization is necessary prior to disposal at WIPP, the
Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste may be shipped from SRS or WCS to
another DOE site for characterization.
DOE has prepared a Supplement Analysis (SA) in accordance with DOE
NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314) to determine whether the proposed
off-site shipment of the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste for storage
at SRS or WCS prior to disposal at WIPP is a substantial change to the
proposal or whether there are significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns such that a supplement
to the WM PEIS or a new EIS would be needed. Based on the SA, DOE has
determined that a supplement to the WM PEIS or a new EIS is not needed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the Waste Management
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS), the 1998 WM PEIS
ROD for TRU waste, the revised WM PEIS RODs for TRU waste, this revised
ROD, and the Supplement Analysis for Transportation, Storage,
Characterization, and Disposal of Transuranic Waste Currently Stored at
the Battelle West Jefferson Site near Columbus, Ohio (DOE/EIS-0200-SA-
02) will be available on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Web site at: https://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa under DOE NEPA Documents. To
request copies of any of these documents, 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 regarding the storage, characterization,
and disposal of Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste, or to obtain copies
of the Supplement
[[Page 60509]]
Analysis discussed herein, contact: Mr. Harold Johnson, Carlsbad Field
Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 4021 National Parks Highway,
Carlsbad, NM 88220, Telephone: 505-234-7349.
For further information on the DOE program for the management of
TRU waste or this revision to the ROD, contact: Ms. Lynne Smith, Office
of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 19001
Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874, Telephone: 301-903-6828.
For information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585, Telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
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. TRU waste is classified according to the radiation
dose at a package surface. 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. 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). Mixed TRU waste contains both radioactive and
hazardous components.
The 37 cubic meters of TRU waste at the Battelle West Jefferson
site consist of approximately 12 cubic meters of CH-TRU waste and
approximately 25 cubic meters of RH-TRU waste. At the Battelle West
Jefferson site, most of the CH-TRU waste is stored in six standard
waste boxes in three concrete shielding units. One additional 30 gallon
drum of possible CH-TRU waste (this waste was originally thought to be
low-level waste, but may eventually be determined to be TRU waste due
to the presence of americium) is stored in a locked cargo container at
the Battelle site. The RH-TRU waste is contained in 110 55-gallon drums
(stored in 11 concrete shielding units) and two RH-TRU 72-B shipping
casks (the two shipping casks hold a total of five drums).
In the WM PEIS, DOE analyzed the potential environmental impacts of
the management (treatment and storage) of TRU waste at DOE sites (DOE
estimated that 580 cubic meters of RH-TRU waste had been generated and
was being stored at the Battelle West Jefferson site but did not
specifically analyze the treatment or storage of that TRU waste at off-
site locations). In the 1998 WM PEIS ROD for TRU waste, DOE decided
that ``each of the Department's sites that currently has or will
generate TRU waste will prepare and store its waste on site'' prior to
shipment to WIPP. (The only exception to this decision was the Sandia
National Laboratory in New Mexico, which will ship its waste to the Los
Alamos National Laboratory for disposal preparation and storage before
disposal at WIPP.) DOE also noted that ``in the future, the Department
may decide to ship transuranic wastes from sites where it may be
impractical to prepare them for disposal to sites where DOE has or will
have the necessary capability,'' stating that ``[t]ransportation of TRU
waste would occur only in situations where the sites at which the waste
is located lack the capability to prepare it for disposal.'' The WM
PEIS ROD also stated that the sites that could receive TRU waste
shipments from other sites were the Idaho National Laboratory (formerly
known as the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory),
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the SRS, and the Hanford Site, and that
such decisions would be subject to appropriate review under NEPA.
In the WIPP SEIS-II, DOE analyzed the potential environmental
impacts associated with disposing of TRU waste at WIPP. DOE's Proposed
Action was to open WIPP and dispose of 175,600 cubic meters of defense
TRU waste; this waste volume included 580 cubic meters of Battelle West
Jefferson RH-TRU waste. In addition, DOE analyzed several action
alternatives that would consolidate waste from some smaller-quantity
DOE sites at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, SRS, and Hanford.
In the Savannah River Site Waste Management Final Environmental
Impact Statement (SRS WM EIS) (DOE 1995) DOE examined the environmental
impacts of alternative strategies for managing various waste types
(including TRU wastes) at SRS. In its initial ROD, DOE selected an
alternative that included storage of TRU waste at SRS. In a subsequent
ROD, DOE decided to construct and operate a TRU waste characterization/
certification facility to characterize, repackage, and certify CH-TRU
waste for disposal at WIPP.
The Battelle West Jefferson facility is privately owned; however,
as part of the closeout of its nuclear materials research contract, DOE
is assisting in the remediation of the site. Contract terms specify
that all radioactive waste generated during the facility cleanup is
``DOE-owned'' for the purposes of disposal. The TRU waste must be
shipped off-site by December 2005, to comply with Battelle's NRC
license, which will expire at the end of 2005. Removal of the TRU waste
from the Battelle West Jefferson site is required to allow site closure
in fiscal year 2006. The Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste is not
eligible for direct shipment to WIPP for disposal because the Battelle
West Jefferson facility does not have the capability to certify the CH-
TRU waste for disposal and WIPP is not yet authorized by the State of
New Mexico to accept RH-TRU waste for disposal. Because the Battelle
West Jefferson site is closing, developing the capability at that site
to certify TRU waste for disposal is not cost-effective.
In an amended ROD pursuant to the WM PEIS (69 Fed. Reg. 39446, June
30, 2004), DOE decided to send the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste to
the Hanford site for storage and eventual shipment to WIPP. For the
reasons described in DOE's Supplement Analysis (described in IV below)
and in DOE's Notice of Availability of the Supplement Analysis (70 Fed.
Reg. 53353, September 8, 2005), DOE has now decided to ship the waste
to SRS or WCS for storage or characterization until the waste can be
disposed of at WIPP.
II. Decision
DOE has decided to transfer approximately 37 cubic meters of CH and
RH-TRU waste and up to 14 concrete shielding units (in 39 truck
shipments) from the Battelle West Jefferson site to SRS and/or WCS. At
SRS or WCS, the RH-TRU waste would be stored for a period not to exceed
five years. At WCS, the CH-TRU waste would also be stored for up to
five years. At SRS, the CH-TRU waste would be characterized under the
existing SRS CH-TRU program and shipped to WIPP for disposal. DOE will
ship a total of approximately 12 cubic meters of CH-TRU waste in
TRUPACT-II shipping casks (up to two truck shipments) and approximately
25 cubic meters of RH-TRU waste in 10-160B and RH-TRU 72-B shipping
casks (up to 14 truck shipments). Onsite activities will involve
preparing the waste for shipment (loading the waste into the shipping
casks and loading the trucks for transport).
If DOE's request for modification of the WIPP hazardous waste
facility permit currently pending before the New Mexico Environment
Department is granted without substantial change, DOE may be able to
ship the Battelle
[[Page 60510]]
West Jefferson TRU waste from SRS or WCS to WIPP near Carlsbad, NM for
disposal, without additional characterization. If additional
characterization is necessary prior to disposal at WIPP, the Battelle
West Jefferson TRU waste may be shipped from SRS or WCS to another DOE
site for characterization. DOE has identified the Hanford Site, the
Idaho National Laboratory, SRS (for waste stored at WCS) and the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory as possible characterization sites for this
waste. The decision regarding whether to ship the waste directly to
WIPP or to another site for characterization will depend on the
characterization requirements that are established as a result of DOE's
pending Hazardous Waste Facility Permit modification request and the
characterization capabilities that are available or planned at the
individual sites at the time of any decision. Such a decision would be
the subject to appropriate additional National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) review if required.
III. Basis for the Decision
DOE needs to ship its TRU waste from the Battelle West Jefferson
site for offsite storage prior to characterization for disposal at
WIPP. However, this waste is not eligible for disposal at WIPP at this
time, which results in the need to ship the waste to safe, secure
storage until it can be shipped to WIPP. The Battelle West Jefferson
site is a privately-owned site subject to regulation by the NRC. The
NRC license expires in December 2005, and DOE has committed to close
the site in Fiscal Year 2006. Continued storage would violate the
current license issued by the NRC.
IV. Supplement Analysis
To determine whether the proposed action would warrant a supplement
to the WM PEIS DOE prepared the Supplement Analysis for Transportation,
Storage, Characterization, and Disposal of Transuranic Waste Currently
Stored at the Battelle West Jefferson Site near Columbus, Ohio (DOE/
EIS-0200-SA-02) (SA). DOE considered both the SRS and WCS as possible
storage sites for the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste. Each site has
advantages. For example, the shorter transportation route between
Battelle and SRS would mean waste removal from Battelle could be
accomplished more quickly. Also, the CH-TRU waste could be
characterized at SRS and sent to WIPP for disposal, thus minimizing the
amount of waste that would have to be stored. WCS, on the other hand,
is close to WIPP, and subsequent transportation to WIPP for disposal
could have less impact if, under the permit modification to be issued
by the State of New Mexico, the waste can eventually be shipped to WIPP
without further characterization.
Preparation for Shipment. As discussed in the SA, it is expected
that seven or eight workers would be involved in preparing the waste
for shipment. Based on past experience with TRU waste handling at the
Battelle West Jefferson site, DOE estimates that worker exposure would
be less than 0.5 person-rem, a level that is equivalent to a risk of a
latent cancer fatality of 2.5 x 10-4. During this period,
access to the Battelle West Jefferson site would be controlled, so
there would be no exposure of the public to radiation.
If a TRU waste drop accident were to occur, DOE's analysis
concluded that all radiation doses would be below 100 mrem per accident
and external exposures from groundshine would be less than 1 mrem per
hour. Total dose to the maximally exposed member of the public would be
4.2 x 10-2 rem, resulting in a risk of a latent cancer
fatality of 2.5 x 10-5. The accident with the highest dose,
a drop accident involving a drum of RH-TRU waste, had an estimated
radiation dose of 8.5 x 10-2 rem. This is equivalent to a
risk of a latent cancer fatality of 5.1 x 10-5 to the
maximally exposed individual.
Transportation and Unloading. The total calculated fatalities from
all shipments to either SRS or WCS are much less than one (3.5 x
10-3 for shipments to SRS and 5.0 x 10-3 for
shipments to WCS). The transportation impacts would include those from
the shipment of the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste (up to 16
shipments), shipments of characterized CH-TRU waste from SRS to WIPP
(up to 2 shipments) and the shipment of concrete shielding units in
which the waste could be stored (up to 39 shipments). The radiation
dose to workers as a result of unloading the waste at SRS or WCS would
be less than 0.5 person-rem. This is the equivalent to the risk of a
latent cancer fatality of 2.5 x 10-4.
Storage of TRU waste. Based on the one year of experience with
monitoring and maintenance of the TRU waste storage pad at the Battelle
West Jefferson site, DOE estimates that routine exposures from
monitoring, inspection and maintenance activities for TRU waste (stored
in 14 concrete storage units, two RH-TRU 72-B casks, and in one drum in
a locked cargo container) results in a total exposure of no more than 8
x 10-3 person-rem at the Battelle West Jefferson site
annually. Assuming a 5-year storage period at SRS or WCS, the total
worker exposure would be no more than 4 x 10-2 person-rem (8
x 10-3 person-rem for 5 years). This is equivalent to the
risk of a latent cancer fatality of 2.0 x 10-5. Radiation
surveys at the Battelle West Jefferson site have verified that
radiation exposures beyond the storage area would be at background
levels, so the exposure to noninvolved workers and the general public
at SRS or WCS would be zero.
The impacts to workers of a TRU waste accident during unloading or
storage at SRS or WCS would be similar to the accident impacts for a
waste container drop during loading at the Battelle West Jefferson
site. The impacts to the MEI would be expected to be less than at the
Battelle West Jefferson site because the MEI would be farther away from
the accident at SRS or WCS.
Characterization of CH-TRU waste--DOE estimates that worker
exposure from characterizing the CH-TRU waste at SRS would be about
0.005 person-rem, which is the equivalent of a latent cancer risk of
2.5 x 10-6 for the involved workers. The impacts from
characterizing RH-TRU waste at SRS would be about 0.03 person-rem which
is the equivalent of a latent cancer risk of 1.5 x 10-5 for
the involved workers. A characterization accident would be expected to
result in an exposure of about 9.0 x 10-6 rem for the MEI,
which is the equivalent of a latent cancer risk of 5.4 x
10-9.
In the SA, DOE analyzed the health, environmental and
transportation impacts of shipping the Battelle West Jefferson TRU
waste to SRS or WCS. DOE concluded that the potential impacts
identified would not exceed impacts reported in the WM PEIS or the WIPP
SEIS-II. DOE published a Notice of Availability of the SA in the
Federal Register on September 8, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 53353). DOE stated
that it would issue an amended ROD no sooner than 30 days after
publication of the Notice, and that it would consider public comments
received during this period.
V. Response to Public Comments on the Supplement Analysis
DOE received two comments during the 30-day public notification of
the availability of the SA, which commenced on September 8, 2005. One
commenter objected to shipping the Battelle waste and storing it until
it can ``theoretically'' be disposed of at a ``potential future'' WIPP
site, citing concerns about ``leaking valves'' on casks used for
transportation of wastes. The commenter stated that the safest way to
treat radioactive waste is to leave
[[Page 60511]]
the waste ``in the ground where it is'' rather than expose the public
to risk by transporting the waste to another site.
DOE cannot leave the waste at Battelle since to do so would violate
the NRC requirements for continued storage of this waste. The waste is
currently in aboveground storage, rather than ``in the ground'' and
poses some continuing risk to the surrounding population. The waste
will be transported to another site in NRC approved TRU waste casks
that are sealed to prevent leakage. The WIPP site is an existing deep
underground disposal site that is designed to isolate the waste from
humans and the environment.
One commenter stated that DOE cannot choose WCS as a storage site
for the Battelle West Jefferson waste. The commenter asserted that,
because WCS was not included as an alternative in the WM PEIS and
because DOE has not conducted an analysis of the environmental impacts
of storage at the WCS site, DOE cannot choose WCS as a storage site
without completing a supplemental WM PEIS that includes WCS as an
alternative. The commenter also asserted that storage at WCS is
inappropriate because WCS, as a non-DOE site, is unable to prepare the
waste for shipment to WIPP, while SRS (and other DOE sites considered
in the WM PEIS) could. The commenter further asserted that the
definition of interim storage contained in the WCS license would
prevent storage of the Battelle West Jefferson Waste because the waste
does not meet WIPP waste acceptance criteria. In addition, the
commenter states that DOE should have considered Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) as possible
alternative storage sites for this waste and it should have provided a
more extensive discussion of the alternative of continued onsite
storage at the Battelle West Jefferson site.
Although the WM PEIS did not analyze waste management actions at
commercial sites, DOE is not precluded from using such sites. Further,
based on the conclusions in the SA, DOE does not believe that a
supplemental EIS is needed.
There is no requirement that a site be a DOE site before a waste
characterization program can be established at that site. The
definition of interim storage does not prevent WCS from storing the
Battelle West Jefferson waste. Under the definition cited by the
commenter, the waste would have to be properly packaged and meet the
waste acceptance criteria for ``an authorized disposal facility, or an
authorized federal agency.'' However, even if the waste does not meet
the waste acceptance criteria for WIPP (the authorized disposal
facility), the waste will meet the waste acceptance criteria for a DOE
site (e.g. SRS) before it would be sent to WCS for storage. This would
be sufficient to meet the definition of the WCS license.
The alternatives of sending the waste to ORNL or INL were
considered in the WM PEIS and not chosen in the original Record of
Decision. DOE is not reconsidering that decision at this time. The
alternative of continued storage at Battelle is unacceptable because
NRC has indicated it will not renew the Battelle license for this
waste.
The SA reviewed the potential health and environmental impacts of
the new proposed action as compared to those identified in the WM PEIS,
the WIPP SEIS-II, and the SRS Waste Management EIS. The potential
impacts of the proposed action are very small and would not add
significantly to those previously reported.
DOE has determined, therefore, that the proposed actions would not,
either under incident-free or accident conditions, present a
substantial change relevant to environmental concerns or significant
new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and
bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. Therefore, DOE
determined that a supplemental EIS or a new EIS is not required under
40 CFR 1502.9(c) or 10 CFR 1021.314(c) to implement this proposal.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 12th day of October 2005.
Dr. In[eacute]s R. Triay,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 05-20804 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
