[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1932]
[Federal Register: January 28, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Intent To Prepare Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System
Environmental Impact Statements, Richland, WA
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare two Environmental Impact
Statements (EISs) for proposed actions at the Hanford Site, Richland,
Washington. One EIS will address the proposed Tank Waste Remediation
System (TWRS) activities, and the second will address the proposed
construction of six new tanks for the storage of high-level radioactive
waste as an interim action to the TWRS EIS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to
prepare two EISs pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in accordance with the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the
procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the DOE
implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021), and to conduct a series of
public scoping meetings. It is intended that the TWRS EIS cover all
TWRS activities that are ripe for decision. In addition, DOE proposes
to prepare an EIS for the construction and operation of six new storage
tanks as an interim action while the TWRS EIS is being prepared,
consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 1506.1. The public scoping
period being announced in this NOI provides an opportunity for the
public to comment on the scope of issues to be addressed in both the
TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS.
The TWRS program is conducted in concert with the Hanford Federal
Facility Agreement and Consent Order (also called the Tri-Party
Agreement or TPA) among DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The
scope of the TWRS Program includes: Resolution of high-level
radioactive waste tank safety issues; management of high-level waste
tank farm operations; upgrading the tank farm infrastructure; waste
characterization; storage of wastes generated from Hanford cleanup
activities; tank farm waste retrieval, conditioning (e.g., evaporation/
dilution), pretreatment (e.g., radionuclide separation), and
immobilization (e.g., vitrification); construction of new high-level
waste tanks; storage of immobilized high-activity waste; storage/
disposal of immobilized low-activity waste; management of encapsulated
strontium and cesium; and technology development.
DOE has identified the immediate need for additional interim high-
level waste storage capacity to support the resolution of safety issues
associated with ``Watchlist'' tanks as identified pursuant to ``Safety
Measures for Waste Tanks at Hanford Nuclear Reservation,'' section 3137
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, P.L.
101-510. As an interim action to the TWRS EIS, the new tanks EIS will
address the proposed construction and operation of six new underground
storage tanks to support the resolution of safety issues concerning the
high-level waste in existing tanks.
In March 1993, DOE completed a rebaselining of the TWRS program to
ensure that the program to remediate Hanford tank wastes is
comprehensive, integrated and technically sound. Subsequently, the TPA
was renegotiated and revised. Public meetings on the revised TPA were
held in several locations statewide during November 1993. The revised
TPA is expected to be signed by all parties on January 25, 1994.
The proposed TWRS program actions constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the environment and, accordingly, DOE has
developed a strategy for providing the appropriate NEPA reviews for the
actions. The strategy consists of a TWRS EIS for the overall proposed
action to treat, store, and dispose of Hanford's stored high-level tank
waste, and an EIS for the new tanks as an interim action. In addition,
separate NEPA reviews for other interim actions may need to be
initiated during preparation of the TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS.
Such interim actions would include activities needed to maintain the
current waste management system; collect data and resolve urgent
pretreatment issues; and protect both the workers, the public and the
environment. The TWRS EIS will address the cumulative impacts of the
TWRS program including the new tanks and other interim actions.
In December 1987 the DOE completed the ``Final Environmental Impact
Statement on the Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic
and Tank Wastes'' (HDW EIS), which addressed the environmental
consequences of alternatives for disposal of wastes generated during
national defense activities and stored at the Hanford site. A Record of
Decision (ROD) issued in April 1988 has formed the basis for DOE's
programs to manage these wastes at the Hanford site.
In the HDW EIS ROD, DOE deferred final disposal decisions for the
tank wastes contained in single-shell tanks (SSTs), pending further
evaluations in a supplemental EIS. However, to meet regulatory
requirements, DOE's current planning basis is to retrieve SST waste,
and to integrate double-shell tank (DST) and SST waste management
activities leading to final disposal. Because DOE now proposes to
integrate SST and DST waste management programs, the TWRS EIS described
in this NOI will replace the previously planned supplement to the HDW
EIS.
The TWRS EIS will address the DOE's proposal for the management,
treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste currently stored in the
existing 149 SSTs and 28 DSTs and other wastes to be generated during
future decontamination and decommissioning activities at Hanford. DOE
recognizes that removal of waste from the tanks may trigger Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) treatment and disposal
requirements to complete closure of the tanks. However, the impacts of
tank closure cannot be meaningfully evaluated at this time. DOE will
conduct an appropriate NEPA review, such as an EIS to support tank
closure, in the future.
The planned interim action EIS will address the construction of six
new tanks and associated new transfer lines, and the tank operations.
For the purposes of this interim action EIS, operations considered
would be limited to the retrieval, pH adjustment or alkalinity control,
and storage of wastes from the Watchlist safety tanks. The primary
focus of the EIS would be the resolution of safety issues related to
the three tanks that are on the Watchlist because of hydrogen
generation (241-SY-101, 241-SY-103 and 241-AN-104), but the tanks may
also be used to alleviate safety concerns in other Watchlist tanks (50
tanks are currently on the Watchlist). Further decisions regarding the
retrieval, treatment and disposal of wastes from the Watchlist tanks
will be the subject of the TWRS EIS.
DATES: DOE invites all interested parties to submit written comments or
suggestions concerning the scope of the issues to be addressed,
alternatives to be analyzed, and the environmental impacts to be
assessed in the TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS, during a 45-day comment
period ending March 14, 1994. The public is also invited to attend
scoping meetings in which oral comments will be received on the
proposed TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS. Oral and written comments will
be considered equally in preparation of the EISs. Written comments must
be postmarked by March 14, 1994. Comments postmarked after that date
will be considered to the extent practicable. Oral and written comments
will be received at public scoping meetings to be held on the dates and
at the locations given below:
Richland, Washington. February 14, 1994.... Hanford House--Red Lion
802 George Washington
Way. Richland, WA 99352
Hood River, Oregon... February 16, 1994.... The Hood River Inn/Best
Western 1108 East Marina
Way Hood River, OR 97031.
Portland, Oregon..... February 17, 1994.... Bonneville Power
Administration
Auditorium, 911 N.E. 11th
Avenue Portland, OR
97204.
Seattle, Washington.. February 22, 1994.... The Mountaineer's 300
Third Ave. West Seattle,
WA 98105.
Spokane, Washington.. February 24, 1994.... Spokane Convention Center
334 West Spokane Falls
Blvd. Spokane, WA 99201.
Each scoping session will begin with a welcome and introduction of
DOE officials, followed by short presentations by DOE officials on the
EIS process, the Hanford TWRS program and the proposed interim actions.
Individuals and organization spokespersons will then have an
opportunity to present oral comments to DOE representatives. The agenda
will be repeated twice a day at each location, in afternoon and evening
sessions. The hours for the sessions are: 1 pm to 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm
to 10 pm.
Requests to speak at these meetings may be made by calling the
toll-free telephone number, 1-800-500-1660, by 3 p.m. the day before
the meeting or by writing to Donald Alexander (see ADDRESSES, below).
The meetings will be chaired by a presiding officer but will not be
conducted as evidentiary hearings; speakers will not be cross-examined
although the presiding officer and DOE representatives present may ask
clarifying questions. Individuals requesting to speak on behalf of an
organization must identify the organization. A 5-minute limit will be
imposed on each individual speaker except that a speaker representing
an organization (one per organization) will be given a 10-minute limit.
These limits are to ensure that all who wish to speak have an
opportunity to do so. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter and
will become part of the scoping meeting record.
Persons who have not submitted a request to speak in advance of the
scoping meetings may register at the meetings and will be called on to
speak on a first-come first-served basis as time permits. Written
comments will also be accepted at the meetings, and speakers are
encouraged to provide written versions of their oral comments for the
record.
DOE will review scoping comments to determine their applicability
to the two proposed EISs. Records of, and responses to, the scoping
comments will be provided as appropriate in either the Implementation
Plan (IP) for the TWRS EIS or the IP for the new tanks EIS. The IPs
will provide guidance for preparation of the TWRS and new tanks EISs
and establish their scopes and content (10 CFR 1021.312). The IPs will
be issued prior to the release of the draft EISs and copies will be
available for inspection in public reading room locations to be
announced.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the TWRS EIS and the new
tanks EIS, questions concerning the tank waste program, requests for
speaking times, and requests for copies of the IPs and/or the Draft
EISs (DEISs) should be directed to the designated contact below. If any
additional DEISs are prepared for other interim actions, their
availability will be announced in the Federal Register and opportunity
will be provided for public review and comment as required by CEQ and
DOE regulations. Any interim action DEISs may also be obtained from the
designated contact below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald H. Alexander, Attn: Scoping
Comments, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 550, Richland, WA
99352, Telephone: 509-372-2453 or 1-800-500-1660.
For information on the DOE NEPA process, contact: Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight (EH-25), U.S. Department
of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,
Telephone: 202-586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Federal government created the Hanford Site, near Richland,
Washington, in 1943, as part of the Manhattan Project, to produce
plutonium for national defense. Metallic uranium fuel was irradiated in
nuclear reactors and then the fuel was chemically processed to recover
plutonium. Plutonium production at the Hanford Site stopped in 1988.
Processing of reactor fuel and other waste management activities
created a wide variety of radioactive wastes, including high-level
wastes that have been stored in underground tanks. The high-level
wastes came from many different processes and sources, and they have
been processed and transferred among tanks so that chemical and
physical characteristics of the wastes vary greatly among tanks and
even within individual tanks. Typically, the tank wastes are highly
radioactive and chemically hazardous.
SSTs have one steel wall, surrounded by reinforced concrete; they
were constructed between 1944 and 1964 and received waste until 1980.
The capacity of most SSTs is 0.5 million gallons (Mgal) to 1.0 Mgal.
The tanks are situated below grade and are covered with 6 to 10 feet of
earth.
Waste in SSTs consists of liquids, sludges, and saltcake, i.e.,
crusty solids made of crystallized salts. Some of the liquids in the
SSTs are contained in the pores of the sludges and saltcake, and some
liquids are free standing in the tanks.
There are 149 SSTs storing about 36 Mgal of waste. This waste is
comprised of approximately 0.6 Mgal of free-standing liquid, 23.2 Mgal
of saltcake, and 12.5 Mgal of sludge. About half of the SSTs have
leaked or are assumed to have leaked. Approximately 0.6 to 0.9 Mgal of
waste has leaked or spilled into the nearby soil. Over the years, much
of the liquid stored in SSTs has evaporated or been pumped to DSTs.
There are 28 one Mgal DSTs at Hanford. The DSTs were constructed
between 1970 and 1986. Most of these tanks are designed for up to 50
years of storage. DSTs have a second steel containment wall. The space
between the two walls is monitored for leaks. DOE has used the DSTs
since 1970 and none has been known to leak. The DSTs are used to treat
and store a variety of liquid radioactive wastes from the SSTs and from
various Hanford Site processes. The wastes are stored in tanks based
upon composition, level of radioactivity, or origin. The DSTs now
contain about 25 Mgal of waste.
In the 1960s and 1970s, radioactive strontium and cesium were
extracted from wastes in some SSTs. The strontium and cesium were
converted to salt forms and placed in double-walled capsules. Most of
the 610 strontium capsules and 1323 cesium capsules are stored at
Hanford. Some capsules were shipped offsite for beneficial use as heat
or radiation sources. Because the capsules were only leased from DOE,
it is anticipated that they will be returned to Hanford.
In the April 1988 HDW EIS ROD, DOE decided to proceed with
preparing the DST waste for final disposal because it was readily
retrievable. Wastes were to be processed in a pretreatment facility
(planned to be the Hanford B-Plant and AR Vault) to separate DST waste
into two portions. The larger portion would be low activity waste, and
a much smaller portion would be highly radioactive. The low activity
waste was to be mixed with a cement-like material to form grout. The
grout was to be poured into large, lined, concrete, near-surface,
underground vaults where it would solidify.
The high activity waste fraction was to be made into a borosilicate
glass and poured into stainless-steel canisters (approximately 0.6 m
diameter by 3 m long) at the proposed Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant
(HWVP). The canisters were to be stored there until a geologic
repository was ready to receive this waste.
Existing and future DST wastes were to be characterized for
hazardous chemical constituents as well as other constituents that
might affect glass or grout formulations before processing. This
characterization would also help ensure that proper treatment, in
accordance with hazardous waste regulations, occurred before disposal
of the waste.
The HDW EIS ROD also called for storage of cesium and strontium
capsules to continue until a geologic repository is ready to receive
this waste for disposal. Before shipment to the repository, the
capsules would be packaged to meet repository acceptance criteria.
In the HDW EIS ROD, DOE decided to conduct additional development
and evaluation before making decisions on final disposal of SST wastes.
This development and evaluation effort was to focus both on methods to
retrieve and process SST wastes for disposal and to stabilize and
isolate the wastes near-surface. SST waste would continue to be stored
and monitored. Before a decision on the final disposal of the wastes
could be made, the alternatives were to be analyzed in a supplement to
the HDW EIS.
Several significant changes have occurred subsequent to the HDW
EIS. These include the identification of significant waste tank safety
issues; the DOE, EPA and Ecology signing the TPA; the elimination of B-
Plant from consideration as a waste pretreatment facility; the delay of
the HWVP; and the proposal to treat SST waste with DST waste. These
changes resulted in DOE's proposal to integrate all Hanford tank waste
remediation efforts. As a result, resolving waste tank safety issues,
planning for SST waste retrieval, and developing pretreatment
facilities have become major elements of the proposed Hanford tank
waste remediation program.
Purpose and Need for Agency
ACTION:
DOE needs to take action to treat, store, and dispose of Hanford's
stored high-level tank waste and encapsulated strontium and cesium and
to reduce the overall potential risks posed by the tank wastes. This
entails addressing four major programmatic elements: Retrieval,
pretreatment, immobilization, and storage/disposal. More specifically,
these programmatic elements include:
Retrieval of SST and DST wastes.
Conditioning (e.g., evaporation/dilution) of wastes.
Waste pretreatment.
New infrastructure such as facilities, tanks, and transfer
lines.
Production of a stabilized high-activity waste form.
Interim storage for the stabilized high-activity waste
form.
Production and disposal of a stabilized low-activity waste
form.
Management of encapsulated strontium and cesium inventory.
DOE also needs to address closure of tanks (including disposal of
tanks, piping, ancillary facilities, and contaminated soil). Although
tank closure is included in the TPA, closure is not included in the
proposed action for the TWRS EIS because the impacts of tank closure
cannot be meaningfully evaluated at this time. DOE will conduct an
appropriate NEPA review, such as preparing a tank closure EIS, in the
future.
TWRS EIS Alternatives
A number of alternatives can be constructed from the range of
options available for the four major subcomponents of the TWRS, which
are retrieval, pretreatment, immobilization and storage/disposal.
Combinations of these options comprise the range of reasonable
alternatives currently envisioned for TWRS. The TPA establishes one
specific case within the range of alternatives to be considered in the
TWRS EIS. The TWRS EIS will also evaluate a number of other
alternatives constructed from the range of options described for the
four major subcomponents of the TWRS and a no-action alternative in
order to adequately evaluate the full range of potential environmental
impacts.
TPA Preferred Alternative
On March 31, 1993, DOE, EPA, and Ecology agreed to enter into
formal negotiations on matters relating to Hanford tank waste
remediation, environmental restoration activities, cost control, and
implementation and administration of the Hanford Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order. The negotiations were concluded in
September 1993, with tentative agreement on all matters under
negotiation. The revised TPA received public review during November
1993, and the TPA was scheduled to be signed by the three parties on
January 25, 1994. The full TPA covers subjects outside the purview of
the TWRS program. The elements of the TPA which are within the scope of
the TWRS program constitute elements of the preferred alternative for
purposes of the TWRS EIS. Accordingly, the TPA preferred alternative
consists of the following activities:
Upgrading the infrastructure of the high-level waste tank
farms to provide improved facility management and operation.
Characterization of the wastes in all 177 SSTs and DSTs to
facilitate treatment, immobilization and disposal.
Construction and operation of additional DSTs (beyond the
six tanks proposed in the interim action EIS noticed here) as necessary
to support waste management and disposal.
Stabilization of SST waste by removing and storing the
pumpable liquids in DSTs, thus reducing the potential for leaks to the
surrounding soil.
Retrieval of the waste from SSTs and DSTs with priority on
the SSTs. The retrieval criterion is removal of 99% of the waste from
all SSTs on a tank-by-tank basis.
Construction and operation of a waste pretreatment
facility to treat the tank waste and to prepare the low-activity
fraction for final processing. The high-activity fraction of the waste
would be stored pending final processing. Separate complexes would be
constructed to house enhanced sludge washing and cesium and strontium
ion exchange processes. An evaporator would be included in the low-
activity waste pretreatment complex. These complexes could be stand-
alone facilities, a set of distributed facilities, or part of a central
processing complex.
Construction and operation of a low-activity waste
vitrification plant of appropriate capacity. Bounding analysis may be
used if definitive designs are not available. DOE would maintain in a
standby condition the capability to restart the grout facility if its
operation is necessary before new DSTs are available to provide tank
space to resolve safety issues.
Storage/disposal of the vitrified low-activity waste on-
site at Hanford.
Construction and operation of a high-activity waste
vitrification plant of appropriate capacity. Bounding analysis may be
used if definitive designs are not available.
Construction and operation of storage for vitrified high-
activity waste until a repository for permanent disposal is available.
Existing cesium and strontium capsules would be either
over-packed and stored, or dissolved and blended with the high-activity
vitrification waste stream.
Additional Alternatives
Additional alternatives will be constructed from the range of
options described below in order to adequately evaluate the full range
of potential environmental impacts.
Options for Retrieval
Waste can be retrieved by hydraulic sluicing, pneumatic or
mechanical systems. Hydraulic sluicing injects liquid into the tank to
dislodge and mobilize or dissolve the waste. Pumps transfer the liquid
and slurry out of the tank. Mechanical or pneumatic systems are placed
in contact with the waste. This equipment conditions the waste and
transfers it out of the tank. The retrieved waste is transferred to the
pretreatment process.
Options for Pretreatment
Pretreatment is performed to separate the waste into its high-
activity and low-activity components. One option is to perform no
pretreatment. Another option is to limit the volume of waste going to a
geologic repository by pretreating waste to accomplish some level of
high- and low-activity waste separation. Two bounding alternatives for
pretreating tank wastes have been identified, corresponding to the
reasonable limits of waste pretreatment (such as evaporation, acid
digestion, nuclide separation, ion exchange) to concentrate the
radionuclides in a smaller volume. For purposes of this discussion,
these bounds are referred to as ``minimal'' and ``extensive''
pretreatment. The pretreatment bounds may also influence the relative
volumes of high- and low-activity wastes to be stabilized and stored/
disposed of. The pretreated waste would be transferred to the waste
immobilization process.
Minimal pretreatment would use sludge washing to separate the waste
into a smaller volume fraction of high-activity waste (containing the
majority of radionuclide activity), and a larger volume fraction of
low-activity waste. The low-activity waste might be subjected to an
evaporation step to reduce the volume resulting from the sludge washing
process.
Extensive pretreatment would use advanced solvent extraction
methods to provide the maximum level of radionuclide partitioning.
Hazardous nitrates, metals, and other selected chemicals would be
removed from the low-activity waste stream, and the volume of the high-
activity waste fraction would be minimized.
Options for Immobilization
The immobilization would stabilize the waste coming from the
pretreatment process. Both the low-activity waste stream and the high-
activity waste stream would be stabilized. The stabilized waste would
be transferred to storage or disposal.
High-activity waste stabilization options include vitrification,
ceramic forms and calcination. After stabilizing, the high-activity
waste fraction would comply with any likely waste form criteria for
geologic repository acceptance and transportation.
Low-activity waste stabilization options include vitrification,
glass cullet in a sulfur cement and cement polymer-based grout. The
current plan provides that the encapsulated cesium and strontium would
meet the waste form criteria for geologic repository acceptance and
transportation. The first option is overpacking the capsules. If the
repository waste form criteria cannot be achieved by overpacking, the
capsules would be stabilized the same as the high-activity waste
fraction above (e.g., vitrification, ceramic or calcination).
Options for Disposal/Storage
The disposal options include disposal onsite, disposal offsite and
interim storage pending disposal.
High-activity waste disposal options include emplacement of the
stabilized waste in an offsite geologic repository or in interim
storage onsite pending availability of an offsite geologic repository.
Low-activity waste disposal options depend on the stabilized waste
form and include: Burial in onsite landfills in containers; burial in
onsite vaults; burial onsite in steel culverts with liners and leachate
collection; and soil melt slurry injection to a landfill. Some of these
options would accommodate retrievability if desired.
No Action Alternative
The no action alternative for TWRS would be continued storage of
tank wastes and encapsulated cesium and strontium without preparation
for disposal. However, the no action alternative includes continued
maintenance, monitoring, and safety upgrades. No action also includes
maintaining the low-activity waste grouting facility in a standby
condition in case its operation is necessary before new DSTs are
available to provide tank space to resolve safety issues. The no-
disposal action alternative was analyzed in the HDW EIS and the DOE
intends to update the HDW EIS analyses in the TWRS EIS. The no action
alternative is included to comply with the CEQ regulations (40 CFR
1502.14(d)) for consideration of a no action alternative.
Interim Actions
DOE plans to complete the TWRS EIS by approximately October 1996.
DOE may need to undertake interim actions while the TWRS EIS is being
prepared. Any interim actions undertaken would have to be independently
justified because, for example, they are activities needed to maintain
the current waste management system; collect data and resolve urgent
pretreatment issues; or protect workers, the public and the
environment. Any interim actions would be actions on which decisions
were needed prior to the scheduled completion of the TWRS EIS. None of
the interim actions would prejudice the ultimate decision to be made on
the basis of the TWRS EIS because they would be needed regardless of
which alternatives are selected in that EIS. As described previously in
this notice, DOE has already identified the construction of new tank
capacity needed to resolve tank safety issues (identified in the TPA as
the Multi-function Waste Tank Facility) as an interim action, and is
planning to prepare a separate EIS for that project. DOE plans to
complete the new tanks EIS by September 1994 to support a near-term TPA
milestone.
Other interim actions may include system and infrastructure
upgrades, replacement of the cross-site transfer system, waste
characterization, technology development and demonstration activities
including a compact processing unit, and initial retrieval or
pretreatment and immobilization activities. These activities, if
undertaken, would also require preparation of independent NEPA reviews
while the TWRS EIS is in preparation.
Proposed Actions, New Tanks EIS
The proposed new tanks would provide waste storage space needed for
resolution of tank safety issues and would not be used for storage of
newly generated high-level waste. The new tanks would be improved
versions of the existing DSTs. Each tank would be constructed of double
shell stainless steel surrounded by a concrete liner, and would have a
1 million gallon capacity. All tanks would have leak detection
monitoring systems and filtered ventilation systems. The EIS will
address the construction of new tanks and associated new transfer
lines, and the tank operations. For the purposes of this interim action
EIS, operations considered would be limited to the retrieval, pH
adjustment or alkalinity control, and storage of wastes from the
Watchlist safety tanks. The primary focus of the EIS would be the
resolution of safety issues related to the three tanks that are on the
Watchlist because of hydrogen generation (241-SY-101, 241-SY-103 and
241-AN-104), but the tanks may also be used to alleviate safety
concerns in other Watchlist tanks (50 tanks are currently on the
Watchlist). Further decisions regarding the disposition of these wastes
will be addressed by the TWRS EIS.
Alternatives, New Tanks EIS
The new tanks EIS will evaluate all reasonable alternatives.
Alternatives which have been tentatively identified for possible
evaluation in this EIS include but are not limited to the following:
TPA Preferred Alternative
The TPA preferred alternative is to construct two DSTs in the 200
West Area by 1997 and four DSTs in the 200 East Area by 1998. These new
tanks would be utilized to store wastes retrieved from Watchlist tanks
in order to resolve tank safety issues. Resolution of safety issues for
these Watchlist tanks may include up to a three-to-one dilution of the
wastes with water and/or caustic solutions. In order to achieve this
dilution a combination of new and existing tank space would be used.
Construct Fewer Tanks
Under this alternative, the need for additional tanks would be
reduced using alternatives to retrieval for tank safety issue
mitigation. An example would be the use of mixer pumps for mitigating
the flammable gas safety issue.
No Action
The EIS will also address the no action alternative, under which no
additional underground high-level waste storage tanks would be built in
the near term. No action would leave the safety issues for the
Watchlist safety tanks unresolved.
Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
The issues listed below have been tentatively identified for
analysis in both EISs. This list is presented to facilitate public
comment on the scope of the EISs. It is not intended to be all-
inclusive or to predetermine the potential impacts of any of the
alternatives.
(1) Potential effects on the public and on-site workers from
releases of radiological and nonradiological materials during normal
operations and from reasonably postulated accidents;
(2) Pollution prevention and waste minimization;
(3) Potential effects on air and water quality and other
environmental consequences of normal operations and potential
accidents;
(4) Potential cumulative effects of operations at the Hanford Site,
including relevant impacts from other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable activities at the site;
(5) Potential effects on endangered species, floodplain/wetlands,
archaeological/historical sites;
(6) Potential effects on future decommissioning decisions;
(7) Effects from normal transportation and postulated
transportation accidents;
(8) Potential socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities;
(9) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects;
(10) Short-term uses of the environment versus long-term
productivity;
(11) Potential irretrievable and irreversible commitment of
resources.
Regulatory Framework
The TPA sets milestones to achieve coordinated cleanup of the
Hanford Site and provides a legal and procedural framework for
regulatory compliance during cleanup. During the development of both
EISs, DOE intends to fully comply with the TPA, as modified by the
change control process.
Federal and State laws that are of major importance to waste
management activities at Hanford include the Atomic Energy Act of 1954;
RCRA; the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act, Chapter
70.105 RCW; and the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The Atomic
Energy Act requires the management, processing, and use of radioactive
materials in a manner that protects workers, public health, and the
environment. RCRA and the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management
Act establish requirements for management of hazardous waste, including
generation, treatment, storage, transportation, and disposal. RCRA also
requires cleanup of hazardous waste releases from past and present
operations when the releases pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
Related NEPA Documentation
NEPA documents that have been or are being prepared for activities
at Hanford include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Final Environmental Impact Statement for Disposal of Hanford
Defense High-Level Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland
Washington, DOE/EIS-0113, Vol. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, December 1987. U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. As discussed in the Background
section of this notice, the HDW EIS analyzed the impacts of Hanford
tank waste treatment and disposal.
(2) Final Environmental Statement for Waste Management Operations,
Hanford Reservation, Richland Washington, ERDA-1538, Vol.1 and 2, 1975.
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C.
This EIS analyzed the environmental impacts of Hanford Site waste
management operations.
(3) Hanford Remedial Action-Environmental Impact Statement. The
HRA-EIS will assess the potential environmental consequences of
alternatives for conducting a remedial action program at the Hanford
Site for inactive hazardous, high- and low-level radioactive,
transuranic and mixed-waste sites. DOE published a NOI to prepare the
HRA-EIS on August 21, 1992 (47 FR 37959-37964) and intends to issue the
draft HRA-EIS in 1994.
(4) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management. The EM-PEIS will analyze the complex-
wide environmental restoration and waste management issues and
alternatives. DOE published the NOI to prepare the EM-PEIS on October
22, 1990 (55 FR 42633) and issued the Implementation Plan on December
23, 1993. The TWRS EIS will discuss its relationship to the EM-PEIS and
how issues addressed in the EM-PEIS could affect the alternatives
analyzed in the TWRS EIS.
(5) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Reconfiguration
of the Nuclear Weapons Complex (DP-PEIS). The DP-PEIS will analyze
longterm reconfiguration strategies and evaluate those strategies
against the consequences of maintaining existing defense production
facilities. DOE published an Implementation Plan in February 1992. In
July 1993, DOE published a revised NOI and intends to issue a revised
Implementation Plan based on that NOI.
(6) Tank Safety Environmental Assessments. DOE has completed eight
environmental assessments and issued corresponding findings of no
significant impact for activities to sample and characterize tank
wastes or to modify tank equipment to improve safety conditions.
(7) Stabilization Operations at the Plutonium Finishing Plant. In
September 1993, DOE announced plans to prepare an EA for this proposed
action and invited public comments on the scope. On the basis of
comments, including those received at four public meetings, DOE is
considering whether to prepare an EIS instead. Alternatives under
consideration may generate liquid high-level wastes requiring storage
in the Hanford tank farm.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 25th day of January, 1994.
Peter N. Brush,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 94-1932 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P