Notice2024-27859
Record of Decision for the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury and Designation of a Long-Term Management and Storage Facility
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 2, 2024
Issuing agencies
Energy Department
Abstract
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).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95189-95196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a6e5357554e524314725f485b565e7a5f57145e555f145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a5e6367657e627324426f786b666e4a6f67246e656f246d657c">[email protected]</span></a>. Electronic files can
be accessed at <a href="https://www.energy.gov/nepa/listings/records-decision-rod">https://www.energy.gov/nepa/listings/records-decision-rod</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the
management and storage of elemental mercury, please contact Timothy
Herald at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#affbc6c2c0dbc7d681e7caddcec3cbefcac281cbc0ca81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86d2efebe9f2eeffa8cee3f4e7eae2c6e3eba8e2e9e3a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a> or visit <a href="https://www.energy.gov/em/long-term-management-and-storage-elemental-mercury">https://www.energy.gov/em/long-term-management-and-storage-elemental-mercury</a>; 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1a6989d9d98909cdfbe828583849cb19980df959e94df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="27704e4b4b4e464a0968545355524a674f560943484209404851">[email protected]</span></a>.
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:
<bullet> Storage-related alternatives and certain transportation
methods eliminated in the 2011 Mercury Storage SEIS,
<bullet> Treatment and disposal options,
<bullet> Commercial facilities described in Section 2.2 of the
Mercury Storage SEIS-II,
<bullet> 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
<bullet> 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:
<bullet> Hawthorne Army Depot in Hawthorne, Nevada;
<bullet> WCS in Andrews County, Texas;
<bullet> Bethlehem Apparatus in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania;
<bullet> Perma-Fix Diversified Scientific Services, Inc., in
Kingston, Tennessee;
<bullet> Veolia Environmental Services in Gum Springs, Arkansas;
and
<bullet> 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: <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-VIII/part-800/subpart-B">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-VIII/part-800/subpart-B</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 2, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.