NOW, WHAT DOES DOE DO WITH IT? RESULTS OF THE FINAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

David Hoel
U.S. Department of Energy

K. Cornelius, J. Loving, and C. Mueller
Argonne National Laboratory

F. Skidmore
Louis Berger and Associates

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published the Draft Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS) in September 1995 and will publish the Final WMPEIS in early 1997. The WMPEIS examines the potential environmental impacts and costs of managing DOE's radioactive and hazardous wastes over the next twenty years (40 years for HLW storage). A 5-month public comment period, which included public hearings in 18 different locations, produced over 5000 public comments. The changes made as a result of these comments include more up-to-date site-specific waste inventory projections; a reevaluation and expansion of cumulative impacts which better integrate predicted impacts from other DOE programs; clarification of various transportation issues; and revised, more comprehensive evaluations of environmental justice and privatization considerations. This paper summarizes these changes, and the final results of the WM PEIS analyses. The factors and criteria which the Department will use to identify preferred alternatives and the status of the subsequent decision-making process and related public involvement activities are discussed.

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

The Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS) is a comprehensive Department-wide study examining the potential health, environmental and cost impacts of strategic management alternatives for managing five types of radioactive and hazardous wastes. These wastes have resulted and will continue to result from nuclear energy research and the development, production, and testing of nuclear weapons at a variety of sites around the United States.(1,2) The five waste types are: low-level mixed waste (LLMW); low-level waste (LLW); transuranic waste (TRUW); high-level waste (HLW); and hazardous waste (HW). This study provides information on the impacts of various siting alternatives which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will use to help decide at which sites to locate additional treatment, storage, and disposal capacity for each waste type. However, the siting, construction and operation of any new facility at a selected DOE site will not be decided until completion of a sitewide or project-specific environmental impact review.

Table I summarizes the range of decisions DOE needs to make with respect to the treatment, storage, or disposal of the waste types discussed. To assist DOE in making decisions regarding the sites at which it should conduct waste management activities, the WM PEIS considers four categories of alternatives for each waste type: a no action alternative that is generally consistent with current practice; a decentralized alternative that would, in general, result in wastes being managed where they are generated or stored currently; regionalized alternatives that would locate waste management facilities at a few sites throughout the nation; and centralized alternatives that would locate large waste management facilities at only one or two sites. For certain waste types, DOE considered more than one regionalized or centralized alternative to present a wide variety of options on the number and location of sites that currently have major waste management facilities and the sites at which the facilities could be located. Fig.1 identifies the sites where wastes are generated or stored under the alternatives evaluated.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT WM PEIS

An extended, 150-day public comment period was conducted from September 22, 1995, to February19, 1996. During this period, DOE received more than 5,000 comments from more than 1,200 individuals, tribal nations, states, agencies, and organizations. During this period, DOE conducted 13 public meetings in 18 cities throughout the country. Comments were received from virtually all of the communities near the major DOE sites and from many other interested members of the public. Many citizens and organizations posed questions, or made comments or objections regarding proposed waste management activities at particular DOE sites. Some suggested other alternatives for waste management activities; others expressed their preferences for certain alternatives described in the WMPEIS. A few expressed their support for DOE's current efforts.

In compliance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), DOE assessed and considered all public comments on the Draft WMPEIS, both individually and collectively. Many public comments provided valuable suggestions for improving the Draft WM PEIS that led to modifications which are incorporated into the final document. For example, some comments resulted in a response to explain or communicate government policy, to clarify the scope of the WM PEIS, to explain the relationship of this WMPEIS to other related NEPA documentation, to refer commenters to information in the WMPEIS, to answer technical questions, to further explain technical issues, or to correct readers' misinterpretations. Several important changes that were made in preparing the final WM PEIS, and as a result of the public comment process, are summarized in the following paragraphs.

TABLE I Range of Decisions to be Supported by the WM PEIS

Updated Waste Inventory Information

DOE prepared a new appendix that presents updated waste volume inventories and projections for all waste types. This appendix contains site-specific comparisons with earlier reported inventories and projections upon which the analysis in the Draft WM PEIS was based. The comparisons were made to determine if any of the newer waste volumes would substantially change any of the impacts described in the Draft WM PEIS. DOE used this information to identify needs for new analysis using updated waste inventory data at selected LLMW, LLW, and TRUW sites. The results of those new analysis were incorporated into the final WM PEIS.

Cumulative Impacts

DOE revised the chapter on "Cumulative Impacts" to include a more comprehensive evaluation of other DOE actions (such as tritium supply and recycling, weapons material stockpile stewardship management, and storage and disposition of excess fissile materials). DOE also expanded the cumulative impacts presentation to include the range of cumulative transportation impacts to an individual in the region around each site and the effects to groundwater quality at each site for waste management and other activities.

Clarification of Transportation Issues

DOE clarified the comparison of radiological risks in truck and rail transportation and included the potential number of waste shipments that would enter and exit each site. DOE also reiterated that the intersite routes used in the analysis are representative of possible routes, not prescriptive of actual routes to be used. A description of how DOE determines transportation routes for shipments has been added, as well as a description of interagency coordination and emergency preparedness planning.

Consideration of Privatized Facilities and Operations

DOE expanded the discussions of privatization with respect to waste management. For purposes of the WMPEIS, the term "privatization" refers to situations where a private entity constructs (including financing and obtaining necessary permits), operates, maintains, and would decontaminate and decommission a DOE waste management facility on a DOE site for the exclusive use of DOE. The private entity is reimbursed by DOE on a competitive, fixed price basis. The potential environmental impacts of privatized waste management facilities would not be expected to differ from those managed by DOE.

Environmental Justice

DOE modified the analysis of potential environmental justice impacts regarding the estimates of whether high and adverse human health impacts could disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations. Maps that illustrate the proximity of these populations to the major DOE sites were also included.

FINAL RESULTS OF WM PEIS ANALYSIS

For each waste type, the alternatives were evaluated and impacts identified. Highlights of the results are as follows:

Low-Level Mixed Waste

Costs are a greater discriminator than risks and environmental impacts.

• Facility health risks over 20 years are low with very little difference among the alternatives. They are principally risks to workers rather than the public, and 75% of the worker risks are due to physical trauma from accidents typical of any industrial setting.
• Twenty-year transportation risks are also very low, with relatively low numbers of shipments required for low-level mixed waste management compared to the other waste types (for example, 1/25 the number of shipments of low-level waste for similar management alternatives).
• The environmental impact analysis indicate that radionuclide acceptance criteria could limit disposal of some radionuclides at some sites. Air quality was generally not a concern, with the possible exception of alternatives that maximize activities at Rocky Flats and Hanford.
• Treatment costs over 20 years vary by 44% among the action alternatives, while disposal costs for those alternatives vary by 260%. The costs are lowest for alternatives with fewer treating or disposing sites. Transportation costs, although they increase for fewer treating and disposing sites, are very low and are not a major discriminating factor among alternatives.

Low-Level Waste

Transportation risks and overall costs are the greatest discriminators.

• Facility health risks are low and are principally to workers, with two-thirds or more from physical accidents.
• Volume reduction, especially thermal treatment, as a complex-wide approach was not supported by overall impact and cost results but may be effective at sites with space constraints. The lower costs and risks for disposal in alternatives postulating volume reduction did not compensate for the higher treatment costs and higher risks for both routine operations and accidents.
• The range of total costs over 20 years when minimum levels of treatment are combined with disposal at 1 ­ 16 sites varied by nearly 50% between the lowest costs (for 1 site) and the highest (16 sites), demonstrating potential cost savings when fewer sites are utilized.
• Transportation over 20 years can be substantial when one site is utilized for disposal of low-level waste. The number of trips required ranged from 24,000 for decentralized disposal at 16 sites to 264,000 for centralized disposal at 1 site. As a consequence, transportation risks are noticeably greater for low-level waste alternatives than for other waste types. This result is largely associated with traffic accident statistics.
• Environmental impact analysis indicate that acceptance criteria may be needed to limit disposal of some radionuclides at some sites. Only Brookhaven and Nevada were identified for any potential air quality impacts that might require mitigative measures.

Transuranic Waste

For the transuranic waste alternatives, which evaluate treatment, retrieval, and storage but do not evaluate disposal, estimated risks and environmental impacts are generally low.

• Facility health risks over 20 years are principally to workers, with 75% from physical accidents. Transportation risks were also low -- about 1/8 those for low-level waste, reflecting the lower number of shipments (19,000 ­ 24,000 trips per alternative).
• Impacts and costs for alternatives involving thermal treatment to meet land disposal restrictions are predicted to be greater than those for less intensive treatment. (This analysis did not, however, explore the tradeoffs between treatment and characterization when both transuranic and alpha low-level mixed wastes are present in the inventory.)

• The analysis predicted that two sites utilizing thermal treatment to meet land disposal restrictions (Los Alamos and the Waste Isolation Pilot Project) may need mitigative measures to meet radionuclide emission standards.
• Treatment and storage costs over 20 years (including retrieval) vary by 26% among alternatives, with the highest costs for alternatives postulating more intensive treatment to meet land disposal restrictions. Transportation costs are less than 10% of total costs.

High-Level Waste

For the high level waste alternatives, which evaluate only storage of treated waste in canisters following immobilization, differences in risks, costs, and environmental impacts are small.

• Storage facility health risks are low for any alternative and are only considered for workers. Risks from facility accidents are also low.
• Transportation trips range from 21,600 (decentralized) to 24,300 (centralized-- repository opens in 2015), with risks comparable to those for transportation of transuranic waste.
• The range of storage and transportation costs over 20 years varied by only $160 million among the action alternatives.

Hazardous Waste

The WM PEIS evaluated alternatives of increased on-site treatment of nonwastewater hazardous waste versus the continued current practice of relying on commercial facilities for treatment for most waste. The analysis indicated that estimated risks and environmental impacts were likely to be small for all alternatives. Costs were less for those alternatives with the greatest reliance on commercial facilities.

WM PEIS DECISIONS AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives that were analyzed describe the roles of different sites where waste management facilities could be constructed and operated. Table II lists factors and criteria DOE is considering to screen, evaluate, and narrow the alternatives to select agency preferred alternatives for each waste type analyzed in the WM PEIS. At the time of submission of this preparation, the Department has not selected its preferred alternatives. However, when that selection has been made, they will be identified in the final WM PEIS.

Completion of this comprehensive Department-wide study will culminate six years of intensive data gathering, analyses and public interactions. The decisions which will result from this effort will establish the strategic foundation for management of these wastes well into the twenty-first century. DOE anticipates issuing Records of Decision (RODs) by waste type starting in calendar year 1997.

After RODs are issued, particular sites may propose to use commercial or privatized facilities for waste management activities. Such proposals would be analyzed in sitewide or project-level NEPA reviews as appropriate. The WM PEIS impact projections would be similar for waste management facilities constructed and operated by private entities on DOE sites at DOE's direction.

It should be emphasized that the construction of specific new facilities which may be required to implement DOE's decisions would be subject to additional environmental impact review as appropriate.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Work by Argonne National Laboratory authors was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, under contract W-31-109-Eng-38.

REFERENCES

1. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Draft Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0200-D, Office of Environmental Management (1995).
2. D. HOEL et al., "An Overview of the Department of Energy Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement," Proceedings of Waste Management '96, Tucson, Ariz. (March 1996).