References


bar

1 Regulations For Implementing The Procedural Provisions Of The National Environmental Policy Act (Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR 1500.1), July 1, 1986.

2 National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, Final Rule (U.S. Department of Energy, 10 CFR Û1021), January 1, 1997 Edition, p. 651.

3 Secretarial Policy on the National Environmental Policy Act (U.S. Department of Energy), June 1994.

4 Effective Public Participation Under the National Environmental Policy Act (Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance, U.S. Department of Energy), December 1994.

5 Predecisional Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Interim Storage of Highly Enriched Uranium Above the Maximum Historical Storage Level at the Y-12 Plant Oak Ridge, Tennessee (DOE EA/0929, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations), February 1994.

6 Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Interim Storage of Highly Enriched Uranium Above the Maximum Historical Storage Level at the Y-12 Plant Oak Ridge, Tennessee (DOE EA/0929, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations), September 1995. The Finding of No Significant Impact was released September 27, 1995.

7 Department of Energy NEPA Reviews in Progress Grouped by Major Site, matrix listing NEPA activities across the DOE complex distributed to the public in April 1994.

8 Environmental Assessment, Proposed Replacement and Operation of the Anhydrous Hydrogen Fluoride Supply and Fluidized-Bed Chemical Processing Systems at Building 9212, Y-12 Plant Oak Ridge, Tennessee (DOE/EA-1049, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations), September 1995.

9 Effective Public Participation Under the National Environmental Policy Act, p.6.

10 ibid., p.8.

11 ibid., p.9.

12 ibid., p.21

13 ibid., p.21.

14 Secretarial Policy on the National Environmental Policy Act, p.6.

15 Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements (Office of NEPA Oversight, U.S. Department of Energy), May 1993, p. 12.

16 ibid.

17 Regulations For Implementing The Procedural Provisions Of The National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR 1508.25(a).

18. A "major federal action" is defined to include "...actions with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility." (40 CFR 1508.18). They are actions which "...include new and continuing activities, including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated or approved by federal agencies..." (40 CFR 1508.18(a)). The construction of a U.S. Post Office requires that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared; certainly the treatment of 28.6 million kg of low-level mixed waste deserves at least the same amount of scrutiny as building a post office.

19 Letter from Suzanne P. Riddle (U.S. Department of Energy) to Stakeholder dated October 9, 1996.

20 Letter from Jean Ramirez (Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance) and Janice Morrissey (Save Our Cumberland Mountains) to Mr. Rod Nelson (U.S. Department of Energy) and Ms. Patti Phillips (U.S. Department of Energy), January 10, 1997. Reply from Rod Nelson to Jean Ramirez and Janice Morrissey, April 23, 1997.

21 Fact sheet entitled Disposition of Legacy Low-Level Mixed Waste (U.S. Department of Energy), dated June 3, 1997.

22 Fact sheet entitled Broad Spectrum Procurement Treatment Categories and Quantities (U.S. Department of Energy), distributed at the June 3, 1997, public meeting.

23 National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures Final Rule, 40 CFR 1021.216, July 1996.

24 At a public meeting on June 18, 1997, the Department of Energy asked that the public be "open minded" about the use of categorical exclusions for these waste streams. The Department of Energy also stated at a public meeting on July 21, 1997 that they do not consider treatment of 1.25 million kg of broad spectrum wastes to be a major federal action and that treatment of these wastes do not warrant an EIS.

25 10 CFR Û1021, Subpart D, Appendices A, B. "Categorical Exclusions Applicable to General Agency Actions,"(App. A) and "Categorical Exclusions Applicable to Specific Agency Actions," Appendix B. See especially, Section B6, "Categorical Exclusions Applicable to Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Activities"

26 On September 24, 1990, Leo Duffy, then Director of the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, signed the statement of determination for the project (0968X) and forwarded it to to DOE's NEPA office for review. The routing slip shows review comments typewritten "OK, not sensitive area, equipment will be removed and graveled area restored when demo is completed." Penciled in, in unattributed handwriting, is the note "But glass will stay in place." DOE's office of NEPA review signed off on the memorandum- to-file on October 18, 1990. These memos are available as part of the April 16, 1993, "Project Review Summary" (1786XPAS) prepared by P. A. Souza, Environmental Review and Documentation Section, Office of Environmental Compliance and Documentation.

27 Project Review Summary, 1786XPAS (P. A. Souza, Environmental Review and Documentation Section, Office of Environmental Compliance and Documentation), April 16, 1993, p.5.

28 Fact sheet entitled Through the cooking glass: Oak Ridge delves into the uncommon world of ISV (U.S. Department of Energy), 1992. The "yellow paper" is a four sheet ad for the project which says, on page 2, "the waste would stay where it is, locked in rock for millenia."

29 Letter from Edward Carreras (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV) to Nelson Lingle (U.S. Department of Energy), January 7, 1994.

30 Technical Evaluation of the In Situ Vitrification Melt Expulsion at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory on April 21, 1996, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (ORNL/ER-377), August 1996. The report states: "Even with implementation of all the techniques discussed in the previous section to prevent ISV melt expulsions, the degree of understanding of the melt expulsion mechanism is not sufficient to assure that it wil not happen again." pp.64-65.

31 Fortunately, in situ vitrification does not appear to be a living, breathing option in Oak Ridge right now; funding for further development of the technology is not part of DOE's current budget. Although in May 1998, DOE reported that in situ vitrification is not the top choice to treat the pits and trenches at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the use of in situ vitrification remains part of DOE's "cleanup" plan for Oak Ridge; it is included as a fundamental assumption in "Accelerating Cleanup, Paths to Closure" for Oak Ridge Operations. Intense media scrutiny and vigilant public monitoring have, to date, managed to forestall any further pursuit of in situ vitrification, a technology which may have applications in less wet climates but has been demonstrated a failure in Oak Ridge.

32 Letter from Ralph Hutchison (Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance) to Rod Nelson (U.S. Department of Energy), September 11, 1996.

33 Letter from Rod Nelson (U.S. Department of Energy) to Ralph Hutchison (Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance) October 4, 1996.

34 Scoping Document, Waste Disposal Alternatives Evaluation at Oak Ridge Reservation (Jacobs Environmental Restoration Team for the U.S. Department of Energy), October 1995.

35 National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 1021, Appendix C to Subpart D, Item C16.

36 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Disposal of Oak Ridge Reservation Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 Waste (Jacobs EM Team for the U.S. Department of Energy), January 1998, p. 7-2.

37 U.S. Department of Energy Order DOE 5820.2A, Chapter III, Section 3.i.(7)(b) Disposal Site Selection; Section 3.i.(8)(b) Disposal Facility and Disposal Site Design; and Section 3.j.(1) Disposal Site Closure/Post Closure (U.S. Department of Energy), September 26, 1988. This Order is apparently scheduled for revision by DOE.

38 Secretarial Policy on the National Environmental Policy Act, Section II.E,4, June 13, 1994, p. 4.

39 Letter from Jean Ramirez (Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance) and Janice Morrissey (Save Our Cumberland Mountains) to Rod Nelson (U.S. Department of Energy) and Patti Phillips (U.S. Department of Energy), January 10, 1997.

40 Letter from Gerald Palau (Oak Ridge Environmental Quality Advisory Board) to Jim Hall (U.S. Department of Energy), March 25, 1997.

41 Letter from Randy Gordon (Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental Management Site Specific Advisory Board) to Rod Nelson (U.S. Department of Energy), May 14, 1997.

42 Identification and Screening of Candidate Sites for the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (Jacobs ER Team for U.S. Department of Energy), September 1996, p. 1.

43 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Disposal of Oak Ridge Reservation Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 Waste, p. 2-2.

44 Secretarial Policy on the National Environmental Policy Act, Section II.,E.,1., June 13, 1994, p.4.

45 Letter from Gerald Palau (Oak Ridge Environmental Quality Advisory Board) to Jim Hall (U.S. Department of Energy), March 25, 1997.

46 Letter from R. Doug McCoy (Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation), to Margaret Wilson (U.S. Department of Energy), November 12, 1997.


Return to Report Part 1

Return to Report Part 2