|
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOE United States Department of Energy EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEMP Fernald Environmental Management Project FS/PP-EIS Feasibility Study/Proposed Plan-Environmental Impact Statement NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NTS Nevada Test Site OU operable unit ROD Record of Decision RPCDF representative permitted commercial disposal facility SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX F F.1.0 NEPA Supplement Analysis F.1.1 Requirements for Conducting a Supplement Analysis This Appendix provides an evaluation of the alternatives being considered for the remediation of the Silo 3 residues and a recommendation as to the appropriate level of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation required for the action. The remediation of the Fernald silos (including Silo 3) was evaluated in the Operable Unit 4 (OU4) Feasibility Study/Proposed Plan-Environmental Impact Statement (FS/PP-EIS) which was approved by United States Department of Energy (DOE) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) on December 7, 1994. After issuance of the ROD, it was determined that a modest cost savings could be achieved by shipping material for disposal via truck as opposed to the combination of rail/truck evaluated in the OU4 FS/PP-EIS. Therefore, a Supplement Analysis to the original EIS was prepared and approved on January 9, 1996 by DOE concluding that preparation of a full Supplemental Environm The following provides a second Supplement Analysis to the OU4 FS/PP-EIS for the revised alternatives being considered for Silo 3. F.1.1.1 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500) and DOE Regulations (10 CFR 1021) There are two relevant regulations dealing with the decision whether or not to prepare a SEIS. These regulations are the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) NEPA implementation regulations (40 CFR 1500) and the DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR 1021). F.1.2 Evaluating Proposed Changes Both the CEQ and DOE regulations require an agency to prepare a SEIS where the agency has made a substantial change in a proposed action, or if there are new significant circumstances in the proposed EIS action that are relevant to environmental concerns. The agency may also prepare a SEIS if the agency determines that the purposes of NEPA would be furthered by the supplement. In addition, the DOE NEPA regulations require the preparation of a "Supplemental Analysis" where the decision to prepare a SEIS is unclear (10 CFR 1021.314). The Supplement Analysis should discuss the changed or new circumstances that are pertinent in determining whether or not to prepare a SEIS. The discussion should therefore contain sufficient information for DOE to determine whether a SEIS, new EIS, or no new NEPA documentation is required. F.1.3 Applying "Rule of Reason" It is inevitable that new information is learned after the finalization of an EIS, and NEPA case law confirms that an agency does not need to supplement an EIS every time new information comes to light. The agency should however, take a hard look at the environmental impacts of its planned action. It should apply a "rule of reason" in deciding whether or not to prepare a SEIS. In applying this rule of reason, the agency should evaluate factors related to the new information or circumstances for the action. These factors might include the environment information and its impact; and the degree to which the agency supports its decision to prepare or not prepare a SEIS. F.1.4 Approval of Supplement Analysis and SEIS by DOE If a Supplement Analysis is developed to determine whether or not to prepare a SEIS, this information should be made available to the public for information. If the Supplement Analysis supports the decision to supplement the original EIS, DOE must meet the same requirements for filing an EIS (e.g., preparing a Record of Decision). One exception here is that the public scoping requirements are optional if the scope of the proposed action has not changed from the original EIS. F.2.0 Evaluation of Alternatives F.2.1 Onsite Vitrification - Off-site Disposal at the NTS (VIT) This alternative would involve combining cold metal oxides from Silo 3 with residues from Silos 1 and 2 and treating them through vitrification. This process would involve constructing a feed preparation system to prepare and deliver a feed slurry containing both silo residues and glass-formers to the melter. The vitrification process would include a nominal 25-ton per day joule-heated melter and would be constructed in conjunction with the melter feed system immediately east of the silos. A melter off-gas system would mitigate the potential for an unplanned release of contamination and the treatment of effluent gases. This alternative would involve the packaging, loading and shipping of stabilized material to a waste disposal site at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) via truck. A detailed discussion of this alternative is available in Section 3.2.1. The treatment and disposal aspects of this alternative were fully evaluated in the original Operable Unit 4 FS/PP-EIS. In addition, transportation of silo residues to the NTS via the truck scenario was evaluated in a Supplemental Analysis to the OU4 FS/PP-EIS which was approved by DOE on January 9, 1996. This alternative does not represent a significant change in scope from what was evaluated in the OU4 FS/PP-EIS. Potential environmental impacts including human health risks are consistent with those evaluated in the original EIS. Impacts would be limited because the project would be carried out in previously disturbed areas with the appropriate engineering controls employed. Short- and long-term human health risks associated with this alternative to both workers and the public would f Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) target risk range of 10-4 - 10-6. This includes risks associated with transportation and disposal of the material. A full discussion of the potential environmental impacts is included in Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.6. F.2.2 Onsite Stabilization - Off-site Disposal at the NTS (ALT1) This alternative would involve the same removal process for the Silo 3 residues as VIT (Section 3.2). A treatment facility constructed on-property would house the process for stabilization. The process would involve mixing the Silo 3 residues with portland cement and blast furnace slag, placing the stabilized material in containers and transporting the material to the NTS for disposal (Section 3.3). Four boxes would be carried on each truck load and approximately 540 truck shipments would be required to transport the stabilized material to the NTS. The stabilization of the silo residues with cement and disposal of the residues at the NTS was discussed in the OU4 FS/PP-EIS. Consistent with the previous alternative, transportation of the silo residues to the NTS via the truck scenario was evaluated in a Supplemental Analysis. F.2.3 Onsite Stabilization - Off-site Disposal at a RPCDF (ALT2) This alternative would involve the same removal process for the Silo 3 residues as VIT (Section 3.2). Stabilization would be accomplished by thoroughly mixing the Silo 3 residues with portland cement and blast furnace slag. An engineered metal sided building would be constructed in the previously disturbed area east of the silos which would house the stabilization operations. Stabilized residues would be loaded into containers and loaded onto trucks. An estimated 504 truck shipments would be necessary to transport all of the stabilized material to the RPCDF. The use of cement to stabilize the Silo 3 residues was evaluated in the OU4 FS/PP-EIS. The truck transportation alternative was evaluated in the aforementioned Supplemental Analysis. Therefore, nothing in this alternative would represent a change in scope from the initial OU4 FS/PP-EIS and Supplemental Analysis. Though not evaluated in the OU4 FS/PP-EIS, the geology and climate of the Representative Permitted Commercial Disposal Facility (RPCDF) are sufficiently similar to those of the NTS. Therefore, human health risks and potential environmental impacts resulting from disposal of treated Silo 3 residues at the RPCDF should be similar to those eva minimal as the action would be carried out in previously disturbed areas with appropriate engineering controls. The geology and climate of the representative permitted commercial disposal facility (RPCDF), in conjunction with specific engineering controls required for the facility, would prevent long-term impacts at the site, assuming proper maintenance. F.2.4 Off-site Stabilization and Disposal at a RPCDF This alternative would be very similar to the previous alternative except that Silo 3 residues would be "conditioned" for transportation utilizing a mixture of silicite and water. Final treatment of the material would occur at the RPCDF prior to disposal (Section 3.5). Although this alternative was not specifically evaluated in the FS/PP-EIS, it is so similar to the cementation alternative (e.g., mixing would take place in a metal sided building as a batch operation) that this alternative would not represent a significant new action. Human health risks and environmental impacts associated with this alternative are discussed in Sections 3.5.3. and 3.5.5. Risks and impacts associated with this alternative would be very similar to the previous alternative, therefore, no significant new information related to environmental impacts would be associated with this alternative. F.2.5 Onsite Blending with OU1 Waste Pit 5 Material - Off-site Disposal at a RPCDF Under this alternative, Silo 3 residues would be removed and stored in the OU1 area near the process intended to "blend-dry" waste pit material. The process would involve blending the Silo 3 residues with OU1 Waste Pit 5 material, segregating the waste based on size, reducing the size of material through drying, and managing debris associated with the material. A waste loadout and storage area would be in place to transfer dried materials into rail cars. The material would then be transported to the RPCDF via rail. A detailed description of this alternative is provided in Section 3.6. The drying and segregation of the Waste Pit Area material was evaluated in the OU1 FS/PP-NEPA evaluation. The OU1 FS/PP was not a formal EIS; however, NEPA values were incorporated in the CERCLA FS/PP pursuant to DOE's revised policy on NEPA issued in June of 1994. Although the evaluation in the OU1 FS/PP did not specifically consider the Silo 3 residues, blending of the Pit 5 material with the Silo 3 residues would not res a significant change in the scope of the original alternative. Human health risks and potential environmental impacts are evaluated in Section 3.6.1. There are no unacceptable risks associated with this alternative. Transportation risks are less than those for disposal at the NTS because the waste can be sent in bulk via rail. Environmental impacts associated with this alternative would be minimized due to the location of activities at the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) site and the use of engineering controls. The RPCDF impacts would be similar to those discussed in previous alternatives. F.3.0 Conclusion As required under the DOE NEPA regulations, DOE has conducted this Supplemental Analysis to determine whether or not a SEIS needs to be conducted for the revised Silo 3 alternatives. Based upon the results of this analysis, DOE has determined that the proposed Silo 3 alternatives do not constitute a substantial change in project scope or result in the availability of significant new information related to environmental impacts from the original EIS alternatives. Therefore, a SEIS is not recommended for the proposed alternatives |