Record of Decision for the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury and Designation of a Long-Term Management and Storage Facility, 95189-95196 [2024-27859]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95189-95196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27859]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for the Long-Term Management and Storage of 
Elemental Mercury and Designation of a Long-Term Management and Storage 
Facility

AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision and facility designation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of 
Decision (ROD) for the long-term management and storage of elemental 
mercury to meet the purpose and need for agency action, which is to 
fulfill DOE's statutory responsibility for long-term management and 
storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States as 
required by the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 and the Frank R. 
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (together referred 
to herein as MEBA).

ADDRESSES: For copies of this ROD/MEBA Designation or the Mercury 
Storage SEIS-II, please contact Timothy Herald at U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Waste and 
Materials Management (EM-4.2), 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 
DC, 20585 or via email, [email protected]. Electronic files can 
be accessed at https://www.energy.gov/nepa/listings/records-decision-rod.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the 
management and storage of elemental mercury, please contact Timothy 
Herald at [email protected] or visit https://www.energy.gov/em/long-term-management-and-storage-elemental-mercury; by telephone: 240-
243-8753. For general information on the Office of Environmental 
Management's National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process, 
please contact Bill Ostrum, NEPA Compliance Officer for the Office of 
Environmental Management, via email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ROD is issued for the Long-Term 
Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0423-S2) (Mercury Storage SEIS-II), which 
evaluates the storage of up to 7,000 metric tons (7,700 tons) of 
elemental mercury in one or more existing facilities at alternative 
locations including a government facility at the Hawthorne Army Depot 
near Hawthorne, Nevada, and seven commercial candidate locations: Waste 
Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) near Andrews, Texas; Bethlehem Apparatus 
Company in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; Perma-Fix Diversified Scientific 
Services, Inc., in Kingston, Tennessee; Veolia Environmental Services 
in Gum Springs, Arkansas; and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, 
with three alternative facilities in Pecatonica, Illinois; Greenbrier, 
Tennessee; and Tooele, Utah. This ROD announces DOE's decision to 
select WCS from its preferred alternative of selecting one or more of 
the existing commercial facilities evaluated in the SEIS-II. DOE is 
also issuing this document to designate a facility of the DOE for the 
long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within 
the United States in accordance with MEBA. In addition to the analysis 
in the Mercury Storage SEIS-II, DOE based its MEBA facility designation 
decision on a combination of factors including schedule, permitting, 
policy and technical considerations, as well as cost information 
(including information gained during an independent and competitive 
procurement process). DOE designates WCS as that facility in accordance 
with MEBA.

A. Background

    The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-414) and the 2016 
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 
114-182) (together referred to herein as MEBA), address, among other 
things, the export and long-term management and storage of elemental 
mercury. MEBA prohibits the export of elemental mercury from the United 
States (U.S.) (with certain essential use exemptions). MEBA also 
directs the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to 
designate a facility or facilities of DOE for the long-term management 
and storage of elemental mercury generated within the U.S. (42 U.S.C. 
6939f(a)(1)). MEBA further provides the Secretary of Energy with the 
authority to establish such terms, conditions, and procedures as are 
necessary to carry out this long-term management and storage function 
(42 U.S.C. 6939f(f)). Consistent with these statutory provisions, and 
based on longstanding authorities and practice, DOE construes the term 
``facility of DOE'' to include a facility leased from a commercial 
entity or another Federal agency over which DOE provides an appropriate 
level of responsibility and control.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOE has further analyzed the meaning of ``facility or 
facilities of the [DOE]'' in a memo entitled The Meaning of 
``Facility or Facilities of the Department of Energy'' in the 
Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, in the Administrative Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary sources of elemental mercury in the United States 
include mercury generated as a byproduct of the gold-mining process and 
mercury reclaimed from recycling and waste-recovery activities. In 
addition, the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 
stores at the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee approximately 1,200 
metric tons (1,300 tons) of elemental mercury that was acquired in 
support of NNSA's mission. As identified in the Mercury Storage SEIS-
II, this NNSA elemental mercury is included in the SEIS-II (for 
analytical purposes), even though it is currently designated as a 
commodity and not waste.
    In 2011, DOE prepared the Final Long-Term Management and Storage of 
Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0423) (2011 
Mercury Storage EIS) to evaluate seven candidate locations for a 
facility for management and storage of elemental mercury, as well as a 
No-Action Alternative. The locations included use of existing 
facilities, new facility construction, or both. The candidate locations 
evaluated in 2011 were the DOE Grand Junction Disposal site near Grand 
Junction, Colorado (new construction); DOE Hanford Site near Richland, 
Washington (new construction); Hawthorne Army Depot (HWAD) near 
Hawthorne, Nevada (modification of existing facilities); DOE Idaho 
National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho (new construction and 
modification of an existing facility); Kansas City Plant in Kansas 
City, Missouri (existing facility); DOE Savannah River Site near Aiken, 
South Carolina (new construction); and the Waste Control Specialists 
LLC (WCS) site near Andrews, Texas (new construction and an existing 
facility).
    In 2013, DOE prepared the Final Long-Term Management and Storage of 
Elemental Mercury Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-
0423-S1) (2013 Mercury Storage SEIS) to evaluate three additional 
alternative locations, all in the vicinity of the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant near

[[Page 95190]]

Carlsbad, New Mexico (all new construction). The 2013 Mercury Storage 
SEIS also updated some of the relevant analyses for alternatives 
presented in the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS.
    For the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS and the 2013 Mercury Storage SEIS, 
DOE estimated that up to approximately 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) 
of elemental mercury would need to be managed and stored at the DOE-
designated facility during a 40-year period assumed for analysis 
purposes. In the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS and the 2013 Mercury Storage 
SEIS, DOE identified WCS as the preferred alternative.
    On December 6, 2019, DOE issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to 
document its designation of the WCS site near Andrews, Texas, for the 
management and storage of up to 6,800 metric tons (7,480 tons) of 
elemental mercury in leased portions of existing buildings at the WCS 
site (84 FR 66890). The ROD was supported by DOE's Supplement Analysis 
of the Final Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury 
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0423-SA-1), which evaluated 
changes in environmental conditions at WCS that had occurred since the 
initial analyses were completed in 2011 and 2013 and determined that 
the long-term management and storage of up to 6,800 metric tons of 
elemental mercury in existing buildings at the WCS site would not 
constitute a substantial change from the proposal evaluated in the 2011 
Mercury Storage EIS and updated in the 2013 Mercury Storage SEIS. On 
December 23, 2019, DOE published a rule adding 10 CFR part 955, which 
established the fee for long-term management and storage of elemental 
mercury (84 FR 70402) (Fee Rule).
    Two domestic generators of elemental mercury subsequently filed 
complaints in U.S. District Court challenging, among other things, the 
validity of the Fee Rule and the designation of WCS (Coeur Rochester, 
Inc. v. Brouillette et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03860-RJL [D.D.C. filed 
December 31, 2019] and Nevada Gold Mines LLC v. Brouillette et al., 
Case No. 1:20-cv-00141-RJL [D.D.C filed January 17, 2020]). As part of 
a settlement agreement, DOE withdrew the designation of WCS in an 
amended ROD on October 6, 2020 (85 FR 63105) and subsequently removed 
Part 955 (89 FR 33203).
    On May 24, 2021, DOE issued a Notice of Intent in the Federal 
Register (86 FR 27838) notifying the public of DOE's intent to prepare 
a second Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0423-S2) (Mercury 
Storage SEIS-II).
    On July 8, 2022, DOE published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in 
the Federal Register (87 FR 40830) of the Draft Mercury Storage SEIS-
II, inviting public comment during the 45-day public comment period and 
announcing two virtual public hearings. The U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) published an NOA in the Federal Register on the 
same day, which officially began the 45-day comment period on the Draft 
Mercury Storage SEIS-II (87 FR 40838). In response to a request from 
the public, DOE extended the public comment period on the Draft Mercury 
Storage SEIS-II and issued a Federal Register notice on August 12, 2022 
(87 FR 49817), announcing a 15-day extension. The public comment period 
ended on September 6, 2022.
    The Draft Mercury Storage SEIS-II evaluated the management and 
storage of up to 7,000 metric tons (7,700 tons) of elemental mercury in 
one or more permitted, existing facilities at alternative locations 
including HWAD, a government facility near Hawthorne, Nevada, and seven 
commercial candidate locations: WCS; Bethlehem Apparatus Company in 
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; Perma-Fix Diversified Scientific Services, 
Inc., in Kingston, Tennessee; Veolia Environmental Services in Gum 
Springs, Arkansas; and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, with three 
alternative facilities in Pecatonica, Illinois; Greenbrier, Tennessee; 
and Tooele, Utah. In the Draft Mercury Storage SEIS-II, DOE identified 
its preferred alternative to select one or more of the existing 
commercial facilities for long-term management and storage of elemental 
mercury.
    On February 9, 2024, EPA published in the Federal Register an NOA 
for the Final Mercury Storage SEIS-II (89 FR 9147). The Final Mercury 
Storage SEIS-II addressed comments received on the Draft Mercury 
Storage SEIS-II. Consistent with the Draft Mercury Storage SEIS-II, DOE 
identified its preferred alternative to select one or more of the 
existing commercial facilities for future designation as the long-term 
elemental mercury management and storage facility.
    In parallel with the NEPA process, DOE conducted a competitive 
procurement action to identify a company that could provide (1) leased 
space for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury 
generated in the United States and (2) the associated services 
necessary for the long-term management and storage of elemental 
mercury. Information gained during the procurement action has informed 
the MEBA designation of the long-term elemental mercury management and 
storage facility.

B. Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    MEBA prohibits the export of elemental mercury from the United 
States (subject to certain essential use exemptions) and, as of October 
14, 2008, prohibits a Federal agency from conveying, selling, or 
distributing to any other Federal agency, any state or local government 
agency, or any private individual or entity any elemental mercury under 
the control or jurisdiction of the Federal agency (with certain limited 
exceptions).
    Section 5 of MEBA (42 U.S.C. 6939f(a)(1)) directs the Secretary of 
Energy to designate a facility or facilities of the DOE for the purpose 
of long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated 
within the United States. In the Mercury Storage SEIS-II (Section 
2.1.2), DOE estimated the storage capacity needed for the 40-year 
period used for analysis to be up to 7,000 metric tons (7,700 tons) of 
elemental mercury. Because the statutory milestone date for the 
designated facility to become operational (January 1, 2019, see 42 
U.S.C. 6939f(a)(2)) has passed, DOE also identified a need to designate 
a facility and begin accepting elemental mercury as soon as 
practicable.

C. Proposed Action

    As identified in the Mercury Storage SEIS-II, DOE proposed to 
designate one or more facilities for the long-term management and 
storage of elemental mercury in accordance with MEBA.

D. Alternatives

    As described in Section 2.8 of the Mercury Storage SEIS-II, DOE 
considered but dismissed the following from detailed analysis:
     Storage-related alternatives and certain transportation 
methods eliminated in the 2011 Mercury Storage SEIS,
     Treatment and disposal options,
     Commercial facilities described in Section 2.2 of the 
Mercury Storage SEIS-II,
     Sites within the DOE complex that met its objective 
criteria for consideration as a reasonable alternative, but as 
described in Section 2.2.4 of the Mercury Storage SEIS-II, no 
reasonable alternatives were identified, and
     Construction of a new facility.

[[Page 95191]]

    While previously addressed in the 2011 EIS and 2013 SEIS, new 
facility construction was an alternative that was considered but 
dismissed from further analysis in the Mercury Storage SEIS-II based on 
intervening developments. The primary reasons that new construction was 
not considered to be a reasonable alternative in the SEIS-II include:
    (1) Construction of a new facility generally would not meet the 
purpose and need for agency action because schedule delays associated 
with new construction would further exacerbate the missed statutory 
deadline for the DOE-designated management and storage facility to be 
operational by January 1, 2019. When compared to using existing 
facilities, DOE estimates that construction of a new facility would add 
at least five years to the time needed for the facility to be ready for 
the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury, delaying 
DOE's receipt of elemental mercury even further beyond the deadline 
prescribed by Congress and subjecting DOE to additional financial 
liabilities under 42 U.S.C. 6939f(b)(1)(B)(iv), and
    (2) In 2020, a petition was filed with EPA for a site-specific 
Determination of Equivalent Treatment that would convert elemental 
mercury to a stabilized mercury compound for land disposal at a 
permitted disposal facility in Beatty, Nevada. If approved, this 
approach could offer a permanent disposal solution for elemental 
mercury in the U.S. EPA's review of the petition was ongoing during 
preparation of the Mercury Storage SEIS-II and no decision on the 
petition has been issued. However, DOE believes there is a realistic 
possibility that an approved treatment and disposal method for 
elemental mercury will be available within 10 years. If such a 
treatment and disposal method were to become available, it would likely 
decrease both the length of time the designated MEBA facility would 
need to store elemental mercury and the quantity of mercury to be 
stored there at any given time. Use of an existing facility allows for 
greater managerial flexibility to accommodate a shorter storage 
duration and associated lower projected inventory of elemental mercury.
    In addition to the No-Action Alternative, the Mercury Storage SEIS-
II identified and evaluated the potential environmental impacts 
associated with implementation of the Proposed Action in existing 
facilities at the following reasonable alternative locations:
     Hawthorne Army Depot in Hawthorne, Nevada;
     WCS in Andrews County, Texas;
     Bethlehem Apparatus in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania;
     Perma-Fix Diversified Scientific Services, Inc., in 
Kingston, Tennessee;
     Veolia Environmental Services in Gum Springs, Arkansas; 
and
     Clean Harbors Environmental Services (facilities in 
Pecatonica, Illinois; Greenbrier, Tennessee; and Tooele, Utah).
    In 2022, DOE issued a Request for Proposals which initiated a 
competitive procurement process soliciting bids from commercial 
facilities for long-term management and storage of elemental 
mercury.\2\ DOE received two proposals. One of the proposals was 
subsequently withdrawn by the submitting entity. While DOE, in the 
Mercury Storage SEIS-II, analyzed all of the existing facilities listed 
above, after the solicitation, there were only two viable action 
alternatives--one commercial option--WCS and one non-commercial 
option--HWAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Elemental Mercury Long-Term Management and Storage Request 
for Proposal 89303320REM000081 (March 24, 2022), as amended (Request 
for Proposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section E describes, generally, the potential environmental impacts 
of all of the action alternatives. As reflected in the Mercury Storage 
SEIS-II, the impacts for the facilities are generally comparable. Where 
differences are notable, these are noted in Section E. Section E also 
includes additional information for WCS, as the selected alternative, 
to provide further comparative context.

E. Potential Environmental Impacts

    As noted in the Mercury Storage SEIS-II, quantitative evaluation of 
potential environmental consequences under the No-Action Alternative 
would be highly speculative. The SEIS-II qualitatively evaluates the 
potential environmental consequences of the various options that are 
available to entities under the No-Action Alternative (e.g., continued 
accumulation, storage at a permitted facility, or treatment and 
disposal in Canada). It is possible that some land, or land with more- 
or less-sensitive resources than those analyzed under the action 
alternatives, could be affected. Environmental consequences to land use 
and ownership, visual, geology, soils, ecological, and cultural and 
paleontological resource areas are dependent on the affected 
environment disturbed and amount of land disturbance that might occur. 
Potential environmental consequences to water resources would depend on 
the specific location and proximity to surface waterbodies and 
groundwater aquifers and the current use of these water resources. If 
elemental mercury were transported to a RCRA-permitted storage facility 
or to a treatment facility, the potential transportation-related 
consequences would not be markedly different than those predicted for 
the action alternatives.
    Under the No-Action Alternative, the management and storage of 
elemental mercury may or may not be conducted in accordance with RCRA 
regulations. For example, long-term accumulation at ore processor sites 
has not necessarily been permitted for long-term storage. As such, 
there could be a heightened risk of facility accidents and inconsistent 
management and storage of elemental mercury containers. This could lead 
to potentially greater environmental consequences associated with air 
quality, occupational and public health and safety, and ecological 
resources. In contrast, if much of the excess elemental mercury 
remained at the generating facilities and was not transferred to a DOE 
long-term storage facility, it is reasonable to expect that 
environmental consequences associated with transportation would be 
somewhat less than those predicted to occur under the action 
alternatives. Although, these transportation consequences would 
eventually be realized if the accumulated elemental mercury were 
eventually shipped offsite for storage, treatment, or disposal. If 
elemental mercury was transported to a RCRA-permitted treatment 
facility and then on to Canada for land disposal, transportation 
impacts would be similar to those predicted under the action 
alternatives. There would be no environmental consequences under the 
No-Action Alternative related to DOE storage at any of the candidate 
sites because a DOE elemental mercury storage facility(ies) would not 
be operated.
    For the Proposed Action, the Mercury Storage SEIS-II evaluated the 
use of existing facilities at each of the alternative site locations 
for long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. In addition 
to operations of the facilities for long-term management and storage of 
elemental mercury, the analysis also included the assessment of 
potential impacts from the transportation of the elemental mercury from 
its origin sites to the long-term management and storage locations via 
truck. The analysis of potential environmental impacts included an 
evaluation of the following environmental resource areas: land use and 
ownership, and visual resources; geology and soils; water resources; 
air quality and noise; ecological resources;

[[Page 95192]]

cultural resources; site infrastructure; waste management; occupational 
and public health and safety; ecological risk; socioeconomics; and 
environmental justice.
    Land use and ownership, and visual resources. No impacts on land 
use or visual resources would be expected for any of the alternative 
sites. If DOE were to designate an action alternative(s), it would 
obtain a leasehold interest or other form of property interest in that 
facility and would ensure that any such interest would afford DOE an 
appropriate level of responsibility and control over the facility. Such 
responsibility and control would include exercising the authority 
necessary to ensure that the facility is managed and operated in 
compliance with MEBA and other applicable legal requirements and 
through contractual provisions.
    Additional time would be required to implement the HWAD alternative 
because of preparatory activities that would be required, including 
modifications or upgrades of multiple buildings, real estate 
transactions, and regulatory permitting that would not be required for 
the existing, permitted commercial facilities. DOE estimates the time 
required to complete the activities to allow receipt of elemental 
mercury at HWAD for long-term management and storage would be at least 
five years from the date that DOE designated HWAD for such use. 
Whereas, WCS would be capable of expeditiously accepting elemental 
mercury for long-term management and storage.
    Geology, soils, and geologic hazards. Except for the HWAD site, no 
impacts to geology and soils are expected because no new construction 
or soil disturbance would be required. At HWAD, external modifications 
would require trenching for installation of needed utilities and other 
systems and services, resulting in negligible-to-minor impacts to 
previously disturbed, surrounding soils. This would also include the 
upgrade or addition of access roads to the modified buildings at HWAD. 
The area surrounding HWAD is one of high seismic activity. As discussed 
in the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS, while the Hawthorne, Nevada, area has 
historically experienced numerous earthquakes and significant ground 
shaking, no depot facilities have suffered damage due to earthquakes 
over the 60-plus years of operations. Updated USGS earthquake hazard 
data recharacterize the PGA at HWAD as 0.62 g (USGS 2021b). This is the 
upper end of the range for the sites evaluated in the Mercury Storage 
SEIS-II (0.05-0.62 g). There would be no new construction at the WCS 
site and no additional impacts to geology and soils. The seismicity of 
the WCS region is on the lower end of the range of the alternative 
sites evaluated in the Mercury Storage SEIS-II.
    Water resources. Storage of elemental mercury at any of the 
alternative sites would increase water use for sanitary purposes by up 
to 16,000 gallons per year. The increased water use would directly 
correlate to the number of additional personnel required during 
operations. No impacts to groundwater or surface water would be 
expected. None of the alternative sites are located within a designated 
100-year regulated floodplain. The use of structural controls at the 
WCS Container Storage Building, such as concrete sealed floors and 
containment berms inside the building, would prevent release of mercury 
outside of the building and thus protect surface water and groundwater 
from potential impacts.
    Air quality and noise. Impacts to air quality at each alternative 
site would be negligible. The transportation of elemental mercury from 
existing storage sites and generators over a 40-year period would 
release relatively small quantities of air pollutants and greenhouse 
gases (GHGs). The Mercury Storage SEIS-II also evaluated the social 
cost associated with these GHG emissions. An average of 13 truck trips 
per year would be required to transport the 7,000 metric tons of 
elemental mercury to a storage location(s). Total GHG emissions in 
carbon dioxide equivalent for the 40-year analysis period would be 
between 592 tons and 4,312 tons dependent on the facility location and 
whether or not pre-storage treatment \3\ is undertaken. The GHGs 
associated with WCS would be between 1,161 tons and 3,477 tons. Noise 
created by mercury storage operations, including transportation, would 
be indiscernible from existing noise levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Mercury Storage SEIS-II evaluates transportation related 
impacts if elemental mercury is transported for pre-storage 
treatment and then transported to the designated management and 
storage facility, as well as impacts if the elemental mercury is 
only transported to the designated facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecological resources. No impacts on terrestrial resources, aquatic 
resources, wetlands, and threatened or endangered and other protected 
species would be expected for any of the alternative sites because of 
the use of existing buildings, which would require minimal-to-no 
external modifications. Because no external modifications would be 
expected at WCS, there would be no impacts to terrestrial, aquatic, or 
threatened or endangered species.
    Cultural resources. Except for HWAD, there are no known prehistoric 
or historic cultural resources at any of the alternative site 
locations, and any potential unknown sites would not be impacted since 
elemental mercury storage would occur within existing structures with 
no new construction or surface disturbance planned. At HWAD, the Group 
110 design storehouses that are proposed for elemental mercury storage 
are historic architectural properties that are part of a larger 
historic district, as are many of the structures at HWAD. None of the 
Group 110 structures would be impacted under the Proposed Action other 
than by proposed building modifications. These modifications would be 
coordinated with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 
If HWAD were considered for designation, DOE would further consult with 
the Nevada SHPO on the proposed storage building modifications to 
determine the potential impacts on those structures eligible for 
listing on the National Register of Historic Places and potential 
mitigation measures, as appropriate. The consultation process would 
need to be completed prior to construction activities involving the 
facilities at HWAD.\4\ Therefore, the key activities related to 
cultural resources that would need to be completed prior to any 
construction activities at HWAD would include: (1) designation of HWAD 
for long-term management and storage of elemental mercury, (2) detailed 
design of all modifications to specific HWAD buildings and 
infrastructure, and (3) closure of the consultation process with the 
Nevada SHPO. Because WCS would use an existing, permitted building and 
not require any external modifications, there would be no impacts to 
cultural resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The consultation process under Section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act can be found at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-VIII/part-800/subpart-B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Site infrastructure. The frequency of elemental mercury shipments 
is projected to be small (average of 13 per year) compared with 
baseline truck traffic; therefore, existing road systems would be 
adequate for supporting the transfer of elemental mercury. All of the 
alternative sites have sufficient utility capacity to support elemental 
mercury storage. Because most of the sites are existing, permitted, 
operating facilities, the incremental increase in utility requirements 
would be small. At HWAD, additional utility services would have to be 
extended to the designated storage buildings, as needed, including 
electricity, heating, water, and

[[Page 95193]]

communications even though the service capacity on site is sufficient. 
Additionally, access roads would have to be upgraded and/or 
constructed, as appropriate. The average of approximately 13 shipments 
per year of elemental mercury would represent an increase of about 0.5 
percent to current shipments to the WCS site and there would be no 
appreciable increase in utility use at WCS.
    Waste management. The operation of an elemental mercury storage 
facility would be expected to generate a quantity of hazardous waste 
that is commensurate with the amount of elemental mercury stored at the 
facility. The estimate of hazardous waste generation was based on the 
analysis in the 2011 Mercury Storage EIS, which assumed some degree of 
repackaging of potential leaking containers as well as a larger amount 
(10,000 MT) of elemental mercury. This is an extremely conservative 
estimate and is bounding for any of the alternative sites because the 
elemental mercury containers would not be routinely opened at the 
storage facility, leaking containers are expected to be a rare event, 
and the projected maximum storage capacity is now 7,000 MT. Assuming a 
capacity of 7,000 metric tons of elemental mercury, the Mercury Storage 
SEIS-II conservatively estimated that up to 637, 55-gallon drums of 
hazardous waste could be generated over the 40-year analytical period 
(about 16, 55-gallon drums per year). Approximately 16,000 gallons of 
sanitary wastewater would be expected to be generated per year from 
elemental mercury management and storage operations. Considering that 
WCS likely would not increase staff to support this effort, there would 
be no, or limited, increase in sanitary wastewater impacts for the 
Proposed Action.
    Occupational and public health and safety. The Mercury Storage 
SEIS-II presented potential impacts for normal operations, facility 
accidents, and transportation. Normal operations would involve the 
receipt and long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. 
Exposures could arise during normal operating conditions from small 
amounts of mercury vapor accumulating in the storage areas. The 
estimated consequences to involved workers, noninvolved workers, or 
members of the public are anticipated to be negligible. Facility 
accidents could include elemental mercury spills inside or outside the 
storage building. The SEIS-II concluded that the potential risks 
(considering accident probability and potential consequences) to 
workers and the offsite public would range between negligible and low 
for these spills. The highest potential consequences would be 
associated with the beyond-design-basis earthquake that, theoretically, 
could cause a total building collapse. In this extremely unlikely 
event, members of the public around the Bethlehem Apparatus and Clean 
Harbors Greenbrier sites could be within 330 feet of the storage 
buildings and could be exposed to potentially lethal concentrations. 
However, the probability of a beyond-design-basis earthquake in these 
areas is extremely unlikely, as the peak ground acceleration (g) for 
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Greenbrier, Tennessee, is only 0.10 g and 
0.14 g, respectively, indicating areas of relatively low seismic 
activity. Additionally, these members of the public likely would 
evacuate from the area immediately, resulting in a reduction of the 
potential severity level to the low range. Residents and other members 
of the public at other alternative sites would be farther away from the 
facilities and not subject to the higher potential consequences of a 
beyond-design-basis earthquake. As mentioned above for geology and 
soils, the seismicity of the region around WCS is even lower (0.08 g) 
and a beyond-design-basis earthquake that resulted in the collapse of 
the Container Storage Building is even more unlikely. Additionally, the 
closest public access to the WCS site is about 0.62 miles and accident 
risks to members of the public would be negligible-to-low.
    For transportation health and safety, the transportation risks 
under all alternative sites are a function of the number of miles 
driven and the nature of the accident (fire or no fire). The various 
potential accident scenarios evaluated in the Mercury Storage SEIS-II 
would result in risks that range from negligible to low. Transportation 
of 7,000 MT of elemental mercury over 40 years to WCS would require 
about 627,000 miles of truck shipments. Compared to other alternatives, 
this is near the middle of the range (315,118 to 1,079,301 miles).
    Ecological risks. Consequences, and hence risks, would be 
negligible to all ecological receptors except if there were a fire that 
accompanied an accident. Without fire, the primary risk is inhalation 
of mercury vapor, which is an insignificant pathway for exposure to 
ecological receptors. Some ecological receptors (e.g., sediment-
dwelling biota, soil invertebrates, American robin, river otter, and 
plants) could have low risks under some specific accident scenarios 
with a fire. Under a very specific scenario involving a fire, 
coincident with rain, sediment-dwelling biota could be subject to 
moderate risks. These risks are a function of the total shipment miles 
and therefore, the ecological risks from transportation of elemental 
mercury to WCS would be mid-range for all alternatives evaluated in the 
Mercury Storage SEIS-II.
    Socioeconomics. There would be negligible impacts on socioeconomic 
conditions, including overall employment population trends, available 
housing, and other community services in the regions of influence 
associated with all alternative sites, including WCS.
    Environmental justice. While there may be individual minority or 
low-income families living relatively near some of the alternative site 
locations, the sites are (or would be, in the case of HWAD) permitted 
by their respective states under RCRA for the storage of hazardous 
waste. The Proposed Action would not increase the human health risk 
beyond that approved as part of the RCRA permitting process. 
Implementing the Proposed Action would result in negligible offsite 
human health and ecological risks from mercury emissions during normal 
operations and most accidents. Potentially high mercury concentrations 
could occur in the event of a beyond-design-basis earthquake for some 
sites (Bethlehem Apparatus and Clean Harbors Greenbrier). Considering 
the probability of such an event, the potential risks associated with 
this extremely unlikely scenario are considered low. Implementing the 
Proposed Action at WCS would result in negligible offsite human health 
and ecological risks to both individuals and communities from mercury 
emissions during normal operations and accidents. Therefore, there 
would be no disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with 
environmental justice concerns under the Proposed Action at WCS.
    Cumulative impacts. Considering the negligible-to-low potential 
impacts of the Proposed Action, the potential contribution of the 
Proposed Action to the cumulative impacts to the region of each 
alternative site was shown to be negligible, including WCS. Cumulative 
impacts for the WCS Region of Influence, including potential interim 
storage of up to 40,000 MTUs (metric tons of uranium) of commercial 
spent nuclear fuel, were determined to be either small or moderate for 
the following resource areas: land use, geology and soils, groundwater, 
air quality, noise, and visual resources.

[[Page 95194]]

F. Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Under the Proposed Action, the potential impacts of continuing to 
operate the existing, permitted, commercial storage facilities would be 
similar regardless of the location. Transportation of mercury to any of 
the existing facilities would be comparable, resulting in negligible-
to-low human health risks from transportation accidents. Greenhouse gas 
emissions from transportation of mercury would be relatively low for 
all of the alternatives. However, the emissions are lower for HWAD than 
most of the commercial alternatives, if no pre-storage treatment is 
assumed. If there were pre-storage treatment, then the emissions for 
HWAD are larger than most of the commercial alternatives. For HWAD, 
required modifications to the Group 110 design storehouses and the new 
or upgraded infrastructure at the site would result in higher potential 
impacts than at existing, permitted, commercial storage facilities. 
These modifications would also require consultation with the Nevada 
SHPO prior to any construction actions because the proposed buildings 
are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places. Therefore, management and storage of elemental mercury 
at an existing, permitted, commercial storage facility would be the 
environmentally preferable alternative.
    Under the No-Action Alternative, DOE would not consolidate, manage, 
and store elemental mercury. However, the No-Action Alternative could 
include transportation to and from various locations, as described in 
Section 4.2.9.4 of the Mercury Storage SEIS-II, and therefore would not 
be significantly different than the transportation impacts under the 
action alternatives. Under the No-Action Alternative, mercury could be 
stored indefinitely at multiple non-DOE locations (some of which are 
currently not permitted); therefore, an impact of the No-Action 
Alternative, other than DOE being non-compliant with Federal statutes, 
would be widely dispersed storage of mercury in uncertain conditions. 
Taking this into consideration, the No-Action Alternative would not be 
the environmentally preferable alternative.

G. Comments Received on the Final Mercury Storage SEIS-II

    During the development of the Final SEIS-II, DOE considered the 
alternatives, information, analyses, and objections submitted by 
Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments and public commenters.
    DOE received comment letters from Coeur and from the Environmental 
Protection Agency after publishing the Final Mercury Storage SEIS-II. 
DOE considered these comments in preparation of this ROD.

H. NEPA Decision

    This NEPA decision is consistent with the preferred alternative, 
which is to designate one or more of the existing commercial facilities 
evaluated in the Final Mercury Storage SEIS-II. As identified in 
Section E, Potential Environmental Impacts, the impacts presented in 
the Mercury Storage SEIS-II for the WCS site were the same or lower 
than most of the other existing, permitted, commercial storage facility 
sites analyzed in the SEIS-II. The environmental impacts are generally 
expected to be less than those at the HWAD site, and designation of the 
WCS site is expected to allow for the long-term management and storage 
of elemental mercury years earlier than if HWAD were utilized. The No 
Action Alternative would not fulfill DOE's statutory obligations.
    Based on consideration of the analysis in the Mercury Storage SEIS-
II as well as other considerations detailed below in Section J, DOE has 
decided to select WCS for designation as the facility for long-term 
management and storage of elemental mercury. The additional basis for 
the MEBA designation decision is included in Section J, below.

I. Mitigation

    The Mercury Storage SEIS-II determined that potential environmental 
impacts associated with DOE's long-term management and storage of 7,000 
metric tons (7,700 tons) of elemental mercury would generally be 
negligible-to-low and that the storage and management of elemental 
mercury would be subject to regulatory oversight by permitting 
agencies, including compliance with RCRA. Many features of WCS are 
designed to meet applicable permitting standards or to otherwise avoid 
harm to the environment. The WCS storage facility is located on a 
13,500-acre tract of private land with no human residents within 3.4 
miles. SEIS-II (Sections 3.3.1.1, 3.3.11). The facility design includes 
concrete sealed floors with a reinforced concrete foundation, and 
bermed container storage areas that provide protection from the 
external environment and isolation from other storage areas in the 
event of a leaking source. SEIS-II (Sections 4.4.3.1, 2.3.2). WCS also 
features numerous safety and accident response systems, including a 
fire suppression system, an exhaust-fan-ventilated storage area, a 
mercury vapor monitor, and a full emergency response organization that 
includes capabilities for radiological, hazardous materials, fire, and 
medical incidents. SEIS-II (Sections 2.3.2; 3.3.9.2). Based upon the 
limited potential for adverse environmental impacts identified in the 
SEIS-II, the robust design and accident response features of WCS, terms 
and conditions of the proposed contract (see Section J), and applicable 
regulatory and statutory requirements, the selected alternative 
incorporates all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental 
harm.

J. Designation Decision Under MEBA

    As explained in more detail above, the alternatives analyzed in 
detail in the SEIS-II included an existing Federal facility (HWAD) and 
commercial facilities at various locations (WCS; Bethlehem Apparatus; 
Perma-Fix Diversified Scientific Services; Veolia Environmental 
Services; and Clean Harbors Environmental Services).
    During the NEPA process, DOE also considered and dismissed numerous 
other alternatives. The alternative of constructing a new facility was 
dismissed from detailed analysis in the SEIS-II because it would add at 
least five years to the timeline for DOE's designated MEBA facility to 
become operational and ready to receive elemental mercury, when 
compared to the designation of an existing, permitted facility. New 
construction would also introduce uncertainty in the timeline for 
having a fully operational MEBA facility, as schedule delays in the 
construction and/or RCRA permitting process or other issues outside 
DOE's control might prevent a newly constructed facility from becoming 
operational for significantly more than five years. A newly constructed 
facility would therefore not meet DOE's need to begin accepting 
elemental mercury as soon as practicable. DOE also considered the 
possibility of repurposing an existing facility on DOE property. 
However, DOE was unable to identify any such facility that met certain 
minimum criteria for future use as the designated MEBA facility.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These criteria included that the facility: must not create a 
significant conflict with any existing DOE site mission and not 
interfere with future mission compatibility; must be suitable for 
mercury storage with the capability and flexibility for operational 
expansion, if necessary; must be capable of complying with RCRA 
permitting requirements, including siting requirements; must have 
supporting infrastructure and a capability or potential capability 
for flooring that would support mercury loadings; must be compatible 
with local and regional land use plans if used for mercury storage, 
and new construction would be feasible, as may be required; must be 
accessible to major transportation routes; and must have sufficient 
information on hand to adequately characterize the site. SEIS-II 
(Section 2.2.4).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 95195]]

    In parallel with the most recent NEPA evaluation, DOE conducted an 
independent and competitive procurement process to evaluate a 
contractor(s) that could provide DOE both a leasehold interest in, and 
the services associated with, a long-term elemental mercury management 
and storage facility (LTEMSF) meeting DOE specifications and subject to 
DOE's technical direction. As part of that process, a Request for 
Information/Sources Sought notice was published on October 14, 2020, a 
synopsis was posted September 21, 2021, and the Request for Proposals 
(RFP) was issued March 24, 2022. Two timely proposals were received by 
the due date of June 1, 2022. One of the proposals was later withdrawn, 
but through this procurement process, DOE identified one commercial 
facility that responded to the RFP. DOE evaluated its response and 
determined that it met the lowest evaluated price and met or exceeded 
the acceptability standards for non-cost factors in accordance with 48 
CFR 15.101-2. The facility was WCS. The owners of the other facilities 
analyzed as commercial alternatives in the SEIS-II did not compete in 
the procurement process.
    DOE hereby designates as the LTEMSF pursuant to MEBA, WCS in 
Andrews County, Texas. In addition to the reasons discussed previously 
under Section H, NEPA Decision, the decision to designate WCS as the 
LTEMSF is based on the following considerations.
    First, of the alternatives evaluated, the designation of WCS allows 
for the most expeditious and certain timeline for DOE to have an LTEMSF 
operational and ready to accept elemental mercury, consistent with 
MEBA's fundamental objective of providing a safe option for storing 
domestic elemental mercury at a facility or facilities of the DOE. 
Congress initially charged DOE to designate a LTEMSF that would be 
operational by January 1, 2013, and later extended that deadline to 
January 1, 2019. Public Law 110-414, 122 Stat. 4344 (Oct. 14, 2008); 
Public Law 114-182, 130 Stat. 478 (June 22, 2016). Although those 
milestone dates have passed, Congress has not extended the date by 
which the LTEMSF must be operational. DOE therefore identified a need 
to designate an LTEMSF facility and begin accepting elemental mercury 
as soon as practicable. WCS is an established, existing, permitted 
waste facility capable of expeditiously accepting elemental mercury for 
long-term management and storage. In contrast, selecting HWAD, a 
facility that requires significant modifications and development 
processes, time-consuming real estate transactions, and a waste permit, 
or constructing a new facility, would both (1) extend the timeline for 
having an operational storage facility, and (2) create additional 
uncertainty in that timeline. In a best-case scenario, selecting HWAD 
or constructing a new facility would likely result in elemental mercury 
continuing to be stored for at least five years longer in widely 
dispersed storage locations in uncertain conditions instead of in a 
DOE-controlled LTEMSF.
    Furthermore, issues outside DOE's control could arise during the 
planning, budgeting, construction, and/or permitting processes that 
prevent HWAD or a new facility from becoming fully operational for much 
longer than five years. For example, due to statutory prohibitions on 
the use of Department of Defense (``DoD'') installations for the 
storage of toxic or hazardous materials not owned by the DoD, 10 U.S.C. 
2692, the relevant portion of HWAD would likely need to be purchased by 
or otherwise transferred to DOE before non-DoD elemental mercury could 
be stored at the facility. An acquisition or administrative transfer 
process would require actions by multiple Federal agencies, including 
the Department of the Army and the General Services Administration, and 
the timing and decision making of those agencies is outside DOE's 
control. The additional time required to build a new facility or modify 
an existing facility like HWAD would cause DOE to fall significantly 
further behind the statutory deadline for a DOE-designated LTEMSF to be 
operational. MEBA imposed financial consequences on DOE for missing the 
January 1, 2019, deadline, such that the longer it takes for DOE to 
have an operational LTEMSF, the greater the amount of private mercury 
storage costs that are borne by DOE, and indirectly, by the United 
States.\6\ Selecting WCS as the designated LTEMSF brings DOE into 
compliance with MEBA's directives as soon as practicable, avoids 
introducing uncertainty in the timeline for when the LTEMSF will become 
operational and capable of accepting elemental mercury, and minimizes 
DOE's financial responsibility for the ongoing storage of elemental 
mercury by generators pending the availability of the LTEMSF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Because the LTEMSF was not operational by January 1, 2019, 
MEBA compels DOE to subtract the costs to mercury generators of 
temporarily accumulating certain elemental mercury after that date 
from DOE's future fee assessments to those generators. 42 U.S.C. 
6939f(b)(1)(B)(iv). The more time that passes after January 1, 2019, 
and before the LTEMSF is operational and accepts custody of 
elemental mercury, the greater the amount DOE will need to subtract 
from its future fee assessments to mercury generators, resulting in 
correspondingly greater costs to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, leasing space for management and storage at WCS provides 
DOE managerial flexibility to adjust to evolving circumstances as it 
conducts its management and storage obligations pursuant to MEBA. Based 
on currently available information, DOE believes there is a realistic 
possibility that an approved treatment and disposal method for 
elemental mercury in the United States will be available within 10 
years. An approved treatment and disposal method would likely decrease 
both the length of time the designated MEBA facility would need to 
store elemental mercury and the quantity of elemental mercury to be 
stored. Given the uncertainty in how long the LTEMSF will be needed, 
designating WCS enables DOE to evaluate the impact of any forthcoming 
treatment and disposal option or other statutory or regulatory changes 
that may affect the expected storage duration or capacity, without 
making the larger commitments of capital and administrative resources 
necessary to purchase, construct, or significantly modify a federally 
owned facility.
    Additionally, because there is a realistic possibility that a 
treatment and disposal method for domestic elemental mercury will be 
available within 10 years, and because it will take at least 5 years 
after designation for HWAD or a newly constructed facility to be ready 
to receive elemental mercury, investing resources to modify or 
construct a facility that may only be used for 5 years is not cost 
effective or a prudent investment of resources. DOE has prepared a 
relative cost comparison workbook based on a 2007 EPA report that 
demonstrates that, in the short-term (e.g., about 10 years), management 
and storage of elemental mercury at an existing, permitted, commercial 
facility like WCS is likely to be less expensive than any of the 
previously evaluated alternatives requiring capital improvements (DOE-
New, DOE-Existing/Retrofit, and Hawthorne/Retrofit). Other factors not 
reflected in DOE's cost comparison workbook also weigh in favor of 
selecting WCS. The workbook does not include administrative burdens 
associated with a federally funded project and DOE's acquisition of 
real property, which would likely be required to establish an LTEMSF at 
HWAD (see 10 U.S.C. 2692) or for construction of a new facility.

[[Page 95196]]

Selecting WCS avoids these costs to DOE and other Federal agencies. The 
cost comparison workbook also does not reflect the fact that MEBA, as 
amended, makes DOE indirectly financially responsible for the costs of 
storing certain elemental mercury accumulated by mercury generators 
after January 1, 2019, by requiring DOE to subtract these costs from 
its future MEBA fee assessments to these generators. 42 U.S.C. 
6939f(b)(1)(B)(iv). These indirect costs to DOE, in the form of 
foregone future fee assessments, increase the longer it takes DOE's 
designated LTEMSF to become operational. Selecting an existing, 
permitted facility like WCS minimizes these costs.
    Third, DOE's selection of WCS as the Secretary's designated LTEMSF 
satisfies the requirement of MEBA that ``the Secretary of Energy shall 
designate a facility or facilities of the Department of Energy for the 
purpose of long-term management and storage of elemental mercury 
generated within the United States.'' MEBA section 5(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
6939f(a)(1)). MEBA does not define the phrase, ``facility or facilities 
of the Department of Energy[,]'' but it does state that ``[t]he 
Secretary is authorized to establish such terms, conditions, and 
procedures as are necessary to carry out this section.'' DOE construes 
the phrase ``facility or facilities of the Department of Energy'' to 
include a facility leased from a commercial entity or another Federal 
agency, over which DOE provides an appropriate level of responsibility 
and control. This construction is consistent with MEBA's plain language 
and DOE's operational history. Certain comments on the Draft SEIS-II 
asserted that ``facility or facilities of the Department of Energy'' 
could only mean one or more facilities owned by DOE or owned and 
operated by DOE. However, MEBA does not expressly require the 
designated facility to be owned by DOE or even by the U.S. government. 
Similarly, MEBA does not mandate that DOE employees operate the 
designated facility and does not prohibit DOE from using qualified 
contractors in connection with the facility. The phrase ``facility or 
facilities of the Department of Energy'' encompasses facilities leased 
by DOE and subject to an appropriate level of DOE responsibility and 
control. This structure provides DOE flexibility to select a facility 
that best serves the various requirements and purposes of MEBA and the 
fiscal and mission responsibilities of DOE, regardless of ownership.
    DOE has determined that the lease and contract with WCS, developed 
through DOE's competitive procurement process, will provide DOE a 
leasehold interest in WCS property and an appropriate level of 
responsibility and control over the property such that it will become a 
``facility or facilities of the Department of Energy'' within the 
meaning of MEBA Section 5(a)(1). By entering into the lease and 
contract DOE can ensure that the LTEMSF is managed and operated in 
compliance with MEBA and other applicable legal requirements, including 
those addressing the protection of human health and the environment. 
For example, as set forth in the RFP, among other control measures, DOE 
will ensure that the designated facility: (1) complies with all 
applicable local, state, and Federal regulations including all 
applicable RCRA requirements; (2) employs a fully enclosed, weather-
protected structure that complies with all applicable building, fire, 
and life safety codes and standards; (3) meets RCRA and Department of 
Transportation-compliant performance measures covering, among other 
things, receiving, handling, container storage, and security; (4) 
satisfies applicable local, state, and Federal regulatory requirements 
for recordkeeping and reporting; and (5) submits operating records, 
inventories, and other reports to DOE for periodic review. In addition 
to contractually imposed oversight, the arrangement between DOE and WCS 
will involve DOE entering into a lease agreement covering the premises 
where the operations will occur. The lease will require, among other 
things, the premises to be used exclusively for DOE elemental mercury 
management and storage, consistent with contract provisions governing 
operations at the premises, and will grant DOE access to the 
premises.\7\ Awarding the contract to WCS will formally conclude DOE's 
independent and competitive procurement process, which was conducted in 
compliance with applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Request for Proposals, Section J.5.
    \8\ The selection of WCS is also consistent with the Federal 
Government's general policy of using commercial services and 
capabilities when they are sufficient to meet the mission needs. 
See, e.g. FAR Part 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, DOE has selected WCS for designation as the LTEMSF under 
MEBA. As identified in Section E, Potential Environmental Impacts, the 
impacts presented in the Mercury Storage SEIS-II for the WCS site were 
comparable to the other action alternatives. This MEBA decision is 
consistent with the preferred alternative in the Final Mercury Storage 
SEIS-II and the NEPA decision in this ROD.
    Although this document satisfies DOE's obligation to designate a 
facility or facilities of the DOE for the purpose of long-term 
management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United 
States, MEBA Section 5(b) (42 U.S.C. 6939f(b)) also requires DOE to 
assess and collect a fee at the time that elemental mercury is 
delivered to the designated facility. As explained in responses to 
comments on the Draft SEIS-II, after publication of this document, DOE 
intends to focus on issuing a rule to establish the fee. At this time, 
however, DOE remains unable to accept elemental mercury from generators 
at a facility of the Department of Energy for long-term management and 
storage. DOE acknowledges that the temporary storage provisions of MEBA 
Section 5(g)(2) (42 U.S.C. 6939f(g)(2)) remain in effect until DOE is 
able to accept elemental mercury shipments at the designated facility 
or facilities, which will generally require applying DOE's future fee 
rule to assess a fee pursuant to MEBA Section 5(b).

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on November 
21, 2024, by Candice Trummell, Senior Advisor for Environmental 
Management, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of 
Energy. The document with the original signature and date is maintained 
by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with 
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE 
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit 
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official 
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no 
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on November 22, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2024-27859 Filed 11-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P