[Federal Register: January 8, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 5)]
[Notices]
[Page 1052-1057]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08ja03-32]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of Single-
Shell Tanks at the Hanford Site, Richland, WA
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) intends to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed retrieval,
treatment, and disposal of the waste being managed in the high-level
waste (HLW) tank farms at the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington,
and closure of the 149 single-shell tanks (SSTs) and associated
facilities in the HLW tank farms. The HLW tanks contain both hazardous
and radioactive waste (mixed waste).
This EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations (40
CFR parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR part 1021). DOE's proposed action is to
remove waste from the tanks to the extent that retrieval is technically
and economically feasible, treat the waste through vitrification in the
planned Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) and/or one of several other
treatment processes such as bulk vitrification, grout, steam reforming
and sulfate removal, depending on waste type and waste characteristics.
DOE proposes to package the waste for offsite shipment and disposal or
onsite disposal. The tanks would be filled with materials to immobilize
the residual waste and prevent long-term degradation of the tanks and
discourage intruder access.
The 149 underground SSTs and 28 underground double-shell tanks
(DSTs) are grouped in 18 tank farms that are regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as treatment,
storage, and disposal units that, for closure purposes, include tanks,
associated ancillary equipment, and contaminated soils. DOE proposes to
close the tanks in accordance with the Hanford Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order (also known as the Tri-Party Agreement or
TPA). DOE invites public comments on the proposed scope of this EIS.
DATES: The public scoping period begins with the publication of this
Notice and concludes March 10, 2003. DOE invites Federal agencies,
Native American tribes, State and local governments, and members of the
public to comment on the scope of this EIS. DOE will consider fully all
comments received by the close of the scoping period and will consider
comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Public meetings will be held during the scoping period. Meetings
will be held in Seattle and Richland, Washington and in Portland and
Hood River, Oregon on the following dates.
Richland: February 5, 2003.
Hood River: February 18, 2003.
Portland: February 19, 2003.
Seattle: February 20, 2003.
At least 15 days prior to the meetings, DOE will notify the public
of the meeting locations and times and will provide additional
information about each meeting through press releases, advertisements,
mailings and other methods of encouraging public participation in the
NEPA process. At these scoping meetings, DOE will provide information
about the tank waste program and alternatives for retrieving, treating,
and disposing of the waste, along with alternatives for closing the
SSTs. The meetings will provide opportunities to comment orally or in
writing on the EIS scope, including the alternatives and issues that
DOE should consider in the EIS.
ADDRESSES: DOE invites public comment on the proposed scope of this
EIS. Comments may be submitted by mail, electronic mail, fax, or voice
mail and addressed as follows: Mary Beth Burandt, Document Manager, DOE
Office of River Protection, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box
450, Mail Stop H6-60, Richland, Washington, 99352, Attention: Tank
Retrieval and Closure EIS, Electronic mail: Mary_E_Burandt@rl.gov,
Fax: (509) 376-2002, Telephone and voice mail: (509) 373-9160.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request information about this EIS
and the public scoping workshops or to be placed on the EIS
distribution list, use any of the methods identified in ADDRESSES
above. For general information about the DOE NEPA process, contact:
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-
42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC, 20585-0119, Fax: (202) 586-7031, Telephone: (202) 586-
4600, Voice mail: (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Background
The Hanford Site defense activities related to nuclear weapons
production created a wide variety of waste. Over 50 million gallons of
waste are presently stored in the HLW tank farms, which are located in
the 200 Area of the Site. The waste is stored in 149 underground SSTs
(ranging in capacity from approximately 55,000 to 1 million gallons)
and 28 underground DSTs (ranging in capacity from approximately one to
1.16 million gallons) grouped in 18 tank farms, and approximately 60
smaller miscellaneous underground storage tanks. This waste has been
processed and transferred between tanks, and as a result, the chemical,
physical (i.e., liquid, solid and sludge) and radiological
characteristics of the waste vary greatly among and within individual
tanks. In addition, the tank waste contains chemicals or has
characteristics classified as hazardous waste under RCRA regulations
(40 CFR Parts 260-268 and Parts 270-272) and as dangerous waste under
the Washington Administrative Code ``Dangerous Waste Regulations'' (WAC
173-303).
In 1996, DOE issued the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) EIS
(DOE/EIS-0189), which included analyses of alternatives for retrieving
and treating (e.g., immobilizing) the waste stored in the tank farms.
Because sufficient data were not available to evaluate a range of
closure actions, tank system closure alternatives were not evaluated in
the TWRS EIS. Among the uncertainties were data regarding past leak
losses from the SSTs and how retrieval technology would perform to meet
retrieval objectives.
In 1997, DOE issued its Record of Decision (ROD, 62 FR 8693,
February
[[Page 1053]]
26) in which DOE decided that it would proceed with tank waste
retrieval and treatment. In the ROD and subsequent supplemental
analyses, DOE acknowledged that there were substantial technical
uncertainties that required resolution. Nevertheless, to make progress
while resolving the technical uncertainties, DOE decided to implement
waste treatment using a phased approach as identified in the TWRS ROD.
During the initial phase (Phase I), DOE planned to design, construct
and operate demonstration-scale waste treatment facilities. Following
the demonstration phase, DOE would construct full-scale facilities to
treat the remaining tank waste (Phase II).
DOE's decision in the TWRS ROD was consistent with modifications to
the Tri-Party Agreement contained in the M-62, ``Complete Pretreatment,
Processing and Vitrification of Hanford High-level (HLW) and Low-
activity (LAW) Tank Wastes'' series of milestones. Accordingly, DOE
proceeded with plans to design, construct, and operate facilities that
would separate waste into high-level and low-activity waste streams,
vitrify the high-level waste stream and vitrify or similarly immobilize
the LAW stream. These facilities are now under construction and are
collectively referred to as the ``Waste Treatment Plant'' or WTP.
DOE's strategy for retrieving, treating and disposing of the tank
waste and closing the tank farms has continued to evolve, based on
information becoming available since the TWRS ROD was issued. New
information and proposed changes to DOE's strategy include the
following:
[sbull] Design of and preliminary performance projections for the
WTP support DOE's proposal to extend operations beyond the original
plan to operate the WTP for a ten-year period and to enhance throughput
compared to facilities planned for in the 1997 ROD.
[sbull] New information indicates that deployment of large-scale
treatment facilities in approximately 2012 to immobilize waste not
processed by the WTP currently under construction, as identified in the
TWRS ROD, may be prohibitively expensive (DOE/EIS-0189-SA-3).
[sbull] Under DOE Order 435.1 (Radioactive Waste Management), as
applicable, DOE may determine that some tank wastes should be managed
as low-level waste (LLW) and transuranic (TRU) waste, which may result
in changes in how DOE may treat and dispose of portions of the SST and
DST wastes from the HLW tank farms.
[sbull] DOE wants to consider non-vitrification treatment
technologies for LAW and LLW, if these wastes could be immobilized and
disposed of onsite or offsite, while providing protection to the human
environment comparable to LAW and LLW immobilized by vitrification.
In developing its Performance Management Plan for the Accelerated
Cleanup of the Hanford Site (PMP, DOE/RL-2000-47, August 2002), DOE
stated its intent to meet its commitments under the Tri-Party
Agreement, and identified its plan to complete tank waste retrieval,
treatment and disposal by 2028, and to close all of the tanks and
associated facilities, including the WTP, by 2033. DOE's current plans
call for closing all of the SSTs by 2028.
DOE stated in the PMP that to achieve these objectives, increased
capacity will be needed for the WTP, along with additional treatment
capacity provided by other waste immobilization technologies, referred
to herein as ``supplemental'' technologies (bulk vitrification,
containerized grout, steam reforming, or sulfate removal are examples).
Also in the PMP and in the Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste
Remediation System (DOE/EIS-0189-SA3, 2001), DOE concluded that its
evolving strategy for treating and disposing of the tank wastes by 2028
and closing the SSTs by 2028 requires NEPA analysis of proposed tank
waste retrieval, treatment and disposal, and proposed tank closure
actions.
Further, under the TPA Milestone M-45, ``Complete Closure of All
Single-Shell Tank (SST) Farms,'' DOE and the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) have identified a process to start
discussing how SST closure would occur. An important part of the
process DOE and Ecology have defined for closing tank systems is
compliance with Washington State Dangerous Waste regulations that
require approval of a closure plan and modification of the Hanford Site
Dangerous Waste Permit. Before Ecology can approve either a closure
plan or modification of DOE's permit, the State of Washington must
fulfill its State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements. As SEPA
is very similar to NEPA, Ecology can adopt a NEPA document if it
determines that the document is sufficient to meet SEPA requirements.
Ecology has agreed to be a cooperating agency in preparing this EIS.
Need for Action
To meet its commitments under the Tri-Party Agreement and implement
its plans to close the tank systems and associated facilities in a
timely manner to reduce existing and potential future risk to the
public, site workers, and the environment, DOE needs to complete waste
retrieval, treatment and disposal of the waste from the SST and DST
systems by 2028 and close all SST systems by 2028.
Although DOE is addressing safety and environmental issues posed by
tank wastes to minimize current potential risks to human health and the
environment, DOE must also implement long-term actions to safely manage
and dispose of waste from the tank waste systems, including waste
associated with inactive miscellaneous underground storage tanks, and
close the SST systems to reduce permanently the potential risk to human
health and the environment. These long-term actions also are needed to
ensure compliance with applicable Federal requirements regulating the
management and disposal of radioactive waste, as well as Federal and
Washington State requirements regulating hazardous and mixed waste.
Proposed Action
DOE proposes to retrieve waste from the 149 SST and 28 DST systems
and close the SST tank farms in a manner that complies with Federal and
Washington State requirements and protects the human environment.
(Closure of the DSTs and closure of the WTP are not part of the
proposed action because they are active facilities needed to complete
waste treatment. Closure of the DSTs and WTP would be addressed at a
later date, after appropriate NEPA analysis.) DOE proposes to
immobilize the retrieved waste in the WTP and through supplemental
treatment technologies such as bulk vitrification, grout, steam
reforming and sulfate removal, and to package the immobilized waste for
offsite shipment and disposal in licensed and/or permitted facilities
or disposal onsite. DOE proposes to close the SST farms (including
tanks, ancillary equipment and soils) within the tank farm area by
2028. The tanks would be filled with materials to immobilize the
residual waste and prevent long-term degradation of the tanks and
discourage intruder access. Associated support buildings, structures,
laboratories, and the treatment facilities would be decontaminated and
decommissioned in a cost-effective, legally compliant, and
environmentally sound manner. Under the proposed action, DOE would use
existing, modified, or, if required, new systems to assure capability
to store and manage waste during retrieval and treatment.
[[Page 1054]]
Background on Development of Alternatives
The proposed action could result in changes to DOE's tank waste
management program with respect to waste storage, waste retrieval,
waste treatment, waste disposal, and tank farm closure at the Hanford
Site. These key variables were evaluated to develop the range of
reasonable alternatives identified below. In terms of waste storage,
the EIS would analyze the use of the existing waste storage systems and
evaluate the need for new storage systems. With regard to waste
retrieval, DOE would evaluate a range of timing of retrieval and the
technologies used, from past-practice sluicing as analyzed in the TWRS
EIS to dry retrieval. Treatment and disposal alternatives for portions
of the SST and DST waste would be evaluated based on some volume of the
waste being classified as LLW or TRU waste pursuant to DOE Order 435.1.
The waste identified as LLW could be treated and packaged for onsite or
offsite disposal. The waste identified as TRU waste could be treated
and packaged for transport and disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Unless a specific alternative identifies a waste type as LLW and/or
TRU waste, the waste would be analyzed as HLW or LAW for the purposes
of treatment and disposal. The alternatives for waste treatment
include: 1) Treating all wastes via an enhanced WTP as vitrified waste;
2) treating HLW via the WTP and LAW via WTP or supplemental treatments;
or 3) treating the waste as stated in 2 and/ or supplemental
treatment for LLW and TRU waste in the tank farms, in which case some
waste would not be processed through the WTP. The options for waste
disposal include disposing of the waste onsite using existing or new
facilities, disposing of the waste at offsite government facilities
(e.g., a geological repository, WIPP, DOE's Nevada Test Site) or using
onsite and offsite commercial facilities (such as Envirocare in Utah)
for disposal of Hanford waste. Alternatives for tank closure would be
evaluated based on broad closure strategies including clean closure
(removal of the tanks, ancillary facilities, and contaminated soils)
and landfill closure (residual waste left in place and post closure
care).
Proposed Alternatives
Each of the six alternatives contains a waste storage, retrieval,
treatment and disposal component. Alternatives 3 through 6 also include
a tank closure component. The main differences among the alternatives
include the extent of waste retrieval, the waste treatment and disposal
approach, the tank closure approach, and timing to complete the
necessary activities.
1. No Action
The Council on Environmental Quality NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts
1500-1508), and the DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part 1021) require
analysis of a No Action alternative.
Storage: DOE would continue current waste management operations
using existing storage facilities. Immobilized (i.e., vitrified) High-
level Waste (IHLW) would be stored onsite pending disposal at a
geologic repository. Once WTP operations are completed, all tank waste
system storage (SSTs and DSTs), treatment, and disposal facilities at
the Hanford Site would be placed in a stand-by operational condition.
Retrieval: Waste would be retrieved to the extent required to
provide waste feed to the WTP using currently available liquid-based
retrieval and leak detection technologies (approximately 25-50% of the
total waste volume would be retrieved).
Treatment: No new vitrification or treatment capacity beyond that
anticipated in the WTP would be deployed. However, the WTP would be
modified within parameters provided for in the TWRS ROD to increase
throughput. The WTP would continue to operate until its design life
ends in 2046.
Disposal: The residual waste in tanks and the waste remaining in
tanks that had not been retrieved (approximately 50 to 75% of the total
waste volume) would remain in the tank farm indefinitely. Immobilized
Low Activity Waste (ILAW) (by vitrification) would be disposed of
onsite. IHLW would be stored onsite pending disposal at a geological
repository. For purposes of analysis, administrative control of the
tank farms would end following a 100-year period.
Closure: Tank closure would not be addressed; under this
alternative, some waste would be left in the tanks indefinitely.
2. Implement the 1997 Record of Decision (With Modifications)
This alternative would continue implementation of decisions made in
the TWRS ROD and as considered in three supplement analyses completed
through 2001. (See ``RELATED NEPA DECISIONS AND DOCUMENTS'' below for
references.) Under these supplement analyses, DOE concluded that
changes in the design and operation of the WTP, as defined in its
contracts and program plans, were within the bounds of analysis of
environmental impacts in the TWRS EIS. Among the key modifications that
would occur under this alternative are: (1) Implementing the initial
phase of waste treatment with one ILAW facility rather than two, (2)
expanding the design capacity of the ILAW facility from 20 metric tons
of glass per day to 30 metric tons of glass per day, and (3) extending
the design life of the Phase I facilities from 10 years to 40 years.
Under this alternative, no new actions would be taken beyond those
previously described in the TWRS ROD and supplement analyses regarding
the tank waste.
Storage: DOE would continue current waste management operations
using existing storage facilities as described under No Action.
Retrieval: Waste would be retrieved to the Tri-Party Agreement goal
(i.e., residual waste would not exceed 360 cubic feet for 100 series
tanks or 36 cubic feet for 200 series tanks, which would correspond to
99% retrieval) using currently available liquid-based retrieval and
leak detection systems.
Treatment: The existing WTP would be modified to enhance throughput
and supplemented with additional vitrification capacity, as needed, to
complete waste treatment by 2028. Under this alternative, all waste
retrieved from tanks (approximately 99%) would be vitrified.
Disposal: Retrieved and treated waste would be disposed of onsite
(ILAW) or stored onsite pending disposal at a geologic repository
(IHLW). Once operations are completed, all tank waste system waste
storage, treatment, and disposal facilities at the Hanford Site would
be placed in a stand-by operational condition. The residual waste would
remain in the tank farm indefinitely. For purposes of analysis, DOE
assumes under this alternative that it would cease to maintain
administrative control after a 100-year period.
Closure: Tank closure would not be addressed under this
alternative. Some waste would be left in the tanks indefinitely.
3.0 Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal
Storage: DOE would continue current waste management operations
using existing storage facilities.
Retrieval: Waste would be retrieved to the Tri-Party Agreement goal
(i.e., residual waste would not exceed 360 cubic feet for 100 series
tanks or 36 cubic feet for 200 series tanks, which would correspond to
99% retrieval) using currently available liquid-based retrieval and
leak detection systems.
[[Page 1055]]
Treatment: Retrieved waste would be treated with the WTP capacity
based on enhanced and/or modified performance of operating systems
(e.g., modifications to melters to increase throughput). WTP capacity
would be supplemented with additional waste treatment capacity to
immobilize LAW using a non-vitrification technology. New non-
vitrification supplemental treatment capacity would be developed
external to the WTP to immobilize a portion of the tank waste that
would be designated as LLW pursuant to DOE Order 435.1 and/or prepare a
portion of the tank waste that would be designated as TRU waste for
disposal. Waste treatment under this alternative would be completed in
2028 and all SST tank systems would be closed by 2028.
Disposal: ILAW immobilized via the WTP would be disposed of onsite
or at offsite commercial (e.g., U.S. Ecology of Washington or
Envirocare of Utah) or DOE facilities (Nevada Test Site). IHLW would be
stored onsite pending disposal at a national geologic repository. LLW
immobilized external to the WTP would be disposed of onsite or at
offsite commercial or DOE facilities. TRU waste would be packaged and
stored onsite in an existing or new facility pending disposal at the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).
Closure: As operations are completed, SST waste system, waste
storage, treatment and disposal facilities at the Hanford Site would be
closed as a RCRA landfill unit under Dangerous Waste Regulations under
WAC 173-303 and DOE Order 435.1, as applicable, or decommissioned
(waste treatment facilities under DOE Order 430.1A). The tanks would be
filled with materials to immobilize the residual waste and prevent
long-term degradation of the tanks and discourage intruder access.
Tanks, ancillary equipment, and contaminated soils would be remediated
and remain in place and the closed tank systems would be covered with
an engineered barrier that exceeds RCRA landfill requirements and is
the more protective of the landfill options being evaluated (i.e.,
Hanford barrier).
The main differences between this alternative and other
alternatives involve: 1) Using a more robust barrier for closure of
tank systems that would provide longer term protection from contaminant
releases from closed tank systems and limit intrusion into the closed
system compared to the barrier evaluated under Alternatives 5 and 6
(tanks would not be closed under Alternatives 1 and 2, thus no barriers
would be used); and 2) Treatment and disposal of treated waste would be
the same for Alternatives 3 through 5 allowing for a comparison of the
impacts associated with deployment of systems to treat and dispose of
transuranic waste (Alternatives 3 through 5) to treatment of waste via
the WTP and subsequent management as ILAW and IHLW (Alternatives 2 and
6).
4.0 Clean Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal
Storage: DOE would continue current waste management operations
using existing storage facilities that would be modified, as needed, to
support minimizing liquid losses from SSTs and accelerating SST waste
retrieval into safer storage pending retrieval for treatment.
Retrieval: Waste would be retrieved using multiple waste retrieval
campaigns using various retrieval technologies (e.g., confined
sluicing, crawlers), to the extent needed to support clean closure
requirements (i.e., 0.1% residual in the tanks or 99.9% waste retrieved
from tanks) using liquid and non-liquid retrieval and enhanced in-tank
and/or ex-tank leak detection systems.
Treatment: Retrieved waste would be treated with the WTP capacity
based on enhanced and/or modified performance of operating systems (see
Alternative 3). New alternative treatment capacity to immobilize LLW
(e.g., bulk vitrification, containerized grout, steam reforming,
sulfate removal) and/or prepare TRU waste for disposition would be
developed external to the WTP. Waste treatment under this alternative
would be completed in 2028 and all SST tank systems would be closed by
2028.
Disposal: LAW immobilized via the WTP would be disposed of onsite
or at offsite commercial or DOE facilities (see Alternative 3). IHLW
would be stored onsite pending disposal at a national geologic
repository. LLW immobilized external to the WTP would be disposed of
onsite or at offsite commercial or DOE facilities (See Alternative 3).
TRU waste would be retrieved from tanks, packaged in a new facility,
and stored onsite in existing or new storage facilities pending
shipment to and disposal at the WIPP.
Closure: Clean closure reflects minimal residual waste in tanks and
ancillary equipment, and contaminated soils remediated in place and/or
removed from the tank system to be treated and disposed of in
accordance with RCRA requirements. As operations are completed, all SST
system storage, treatment, and disposal facilities at the Hanford Site
would be closed. Waste storage and disposal facilities would be closed
in a manner that supported future use on an unrestricted basis and that
did not require post-closure care.
The main differences between this alternative and the other
alternatives are: 1) The greatest amount of waste is retrieved from
tanks based on multiple technology deployments; and 2) tank systems
would be closed to meet clean closure standards. Treatment and disposal
of treated waste would be the same for Alternatives 3 through 5,
allowing a comparison of the impacts associated with deployment of
systems to treat and dispose of TRU waste (Alternatives 3 through 5) to
treatment of TRU waste via the waste treatment plant (Alternatives 2
and 6).
5.0 Accelerated Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal
Storage: DOE would continue current waste management operations
using existing storage facilities that would be modified or
supplemented with new waste storage facilities, to support actions
regarding near-term acceleration of tank waste retrieval and treatment.
Under this alternative, some SSTs would be retrieved and closed by
2006, exceeding the existing TPA M-45 commitments.
Retrieval: Waste would be retrieved to the Tri-Party Agreement goal
to the extent feasible using currently available liquid-based retrieval
and leak detection systems (residual waste would correspond to 90-99%
retrieval).
Treatment: Waste treatment would be completed no later than 2024
and SST systems would be closed by 2028. Retrieved waste would be
treated with the WTP capacity based on enhanced and/or modified
performance of operating systems, as described under Alternative 2. WTP
capacity would be supplemented with new treatment capacity to
immobilize LLW. New treatment capacity to immobilize LLW and/or prepare
TRU waste for disposition would be developed external to the WTP.
Disposal: LAW immobilized via the WTP would be disposed of onsite
or at offsite commercial or DOE facilities. IHLW would be stored onsite
pending disposal at the proposed national geologic repository. LLW
immobilized external to the WTP would be disposed of onsite or at
offsite commercial or DOE facilities. Transuranic waste would be
packaged and stored onsite pending disposal at the WIPP.
Closure: As operations are completed, SST tank waste system waste
storage, treatment, and disposal facilities would be closed as a RCRA
landfill unit under Dangerous Waste Regulations under WAC 173-303 and
DOE Order 435.1, or decommissioned (waste treatment
[[Page 1056]]
facilities under DOE Order 430.1A). Waste storage and disposal
facilities would be closed as RCRA landfill units under applicable
state Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303). The tanks would be
filled with materials to immobilize the residual waste and prevent
long-term degradation of the tanks and discourage intruder access. Tank
systems (tanks, ancillary equipment, and soils) would be closed in
place and would be covered with a modified RCRA barrier (i.e., a
barrier with performance characteristics that exceed RCRA requirements
for disposal of hazardous waste).
The main difference between this alternative and the other
alternatives are (1) completion of some SST closure actions by 2006,
completion of all waste treatment by 2024, and closure of all SST
systems by 2028 in contrast to Alternatives 2, 3 and 6, which would
complete waste treatment in 2028 and SST tank systems closure in 2028
and; (2) no remediation of ancillary equipment and contaminated soil,
allowing a comparison with the more extensive remediation analyzed
under Alternative 3. Another main difference between this alternative
and Alternative 3 is the use of a modified RCRA barrier. Treatment and
disposal of treated waste would be the same for Alternatives 3 through
5, allowing for a comparison of the impacts associated with deployment
of systems to treat and dispose of transuranic waste (Alternatives 3
through 5) to treatment of transuranic waste via the WTP (Alternatives
2 and 6).
6.0 Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal
Storage: DOE would continue current waste management operations
using existing storage facilities that would be modified, as needed, to
support SST waste retrieval and treatment.
Retrieval: Waste would be retrieved to the Tri-Party Agreement goal
(i.e., residual waste would not exceed 360 cubic feet for 100 series
tanks or 36 cubic feet for 200 series tanks, which corresponds to
retrieval of 99%) using liquid and non-liquid based retrieval and
enhanced leak detection systems.
Treatment: Retrieved waste would be treated with the WTP capacity
based on enhanced and/or modified performance of operating systems.
Supplemental treatment technologies would be used to immobilize LLW.
New non-vitrification treatment capacity to immobilize LLW for
disposition would be developed external to the WTP. Waste treatment
under this alternative would be completed in 2028, and all SST systems
would be closed by 2028.
Disposal: ILAW immobilized via the WTP would be disposed of onsite
or at offsite commercial or DOE facilities. IHLW would be stored onsite
pending disposal at a national geologic repository. LLW immobilized
external to the WTP would be disposed of onsite or at offsite
commercial or DOE facilities.
Closure: As operations are completed, all tank waste system waste
storage, treatment, and disposal facilities at the Hanford Site would
be closed (tank farm systems) or decommissioned (waste treatment
facilities). The tanks would be filled with materials to immobilize the
residual waste and prevent long-term degradation of the tanks and
discourage intruder access. Waste storage and disposal facilities would
be closed as RCRA landfill units under applicable state Dangerous Waste
Regulations (WAC 173-303). Residual waste in tanks, ancillary
equipment, and contaminated soils would be remediated in place as
needed in accordance with RCRA requirements, and the closed tank
systems would be covered with a modified RCRA barrier.
The main difference between this alternative and the other
alternatives is that under this alternative there would not be a
separate TRU waste stream (Alternatives 3 through 5). As with
Alternative 2, waste would be treated in the WTP and subsequently
managed as either ILAW or IHLW.
Preliminary Identification of EIS Issues: The following issues have
been tentatively identified for analysis in the EIS. The list is
presented to facilitate comment on the scope of the EIS; it is not
intended to be all-inclusive or to predetermine the potential impacts
of any of the alternatives.
[sbull] Effects on the public and onsite workers from releases of
radiological and nonradiological materials during normal operations and
reasonably foreseeable accidents.
[sbull] Long-term risks to human populations resulting from waste
disposal and residual tank system wastes.
[sbull] Effects on air and water quality from normal operations and
reasonably foreseeable accidents, including long-term impacts on
groundwater.
[sbull] Cumulative effects, including impacts from other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at the Hanford Site.
[sbull] Effects on endangered species, archaeological/cultural/
historical sites, floodplains and wetlands, and priority habitat.
[sbull] Effects from onsite and offsite transportation and from
reasonably foreseeable transportation accidents.
[sbull] Socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities.
[sbull] Disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income
and minority populations (Environmental Justice).
[sbull] Unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
[sbull] Short-term uses of the environment versus long-term
productivity.
[sbull] Potential irretrievable and irreversible commitment of
resources.
[sbull] The consumption of natural resources and energy, including
water, natural gas, and electricity.
[sbull] Pollution prevention, waste minimization, and potential
mitigative measures.
Related NEPA Decisions and Documents: The following lists DOE other
NEPA documents that are related to this proposed Hanford Site Tank
Retrieval and Closure EIS.
45 FR 46155, 1980, ``Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level
Radioactive Waste Storage, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record
of Decision,'' Federal Register.
53 FR 12449, 1988, ``Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level
Transuranic, and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington;
Record of Decision,'' Federal Register.
60 FR 28680, 1995, ``Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Program, Part III; Record of Decision,'' Federal
Register.
60 FR 54221, 1995, ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Safe
Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes at the Hanford Site, Richland,
WA; Record of Decision,'' Federal Register.
60 FR 61687, 1995, ``Record of Decision Safe Interim Storage of Hanford
Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,'' Federal Register.
61 FR 3922, 1996, ``Availability of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K Basins at the
Hanford Site, Richland, WA; Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Impact Statement,'' Federal Register.
61 FR 10736, 1996, ``Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K Basins
at the Hanford Site, Richland, WA. ACTION: Notice of Record of
Decision,'' Federal Register.
62 FR 8693, 1997, ``Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation
System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,'' Federal Register.
DOE/EA-0479, 1990, Collecting Crust Samples from Level Detectors in
Tank
[[Page 1057]]
SY-101 at the Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland,
Washington.
DOE/EA-0495, 1991, Preparation of Crust Sampling of Tank 241-SY-101,
U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EA-0511, 1991, Characterization of Tank 241-SY-101, U.S. Department
of Energy, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EA-0581, 1991, Upgrading of the Ventilation System at the 241-SY
Tank Farm, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EA-0802, 1992, Tank 241-SY-101 Equipment Installation and Operation
to Enhance Tank Safety, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland,
Washington.
DOE/EA-0803, 1992, Proposed Pump Mixing Operations to Mitigate Episodic
Gas Releases in Tank 241-SY-101, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland,
Washington.
DOE/EA-0881, 1993, Tank 241-C-103 Organic Vapor and Liquid
Characterization and Supporting Activities, U.S. Department of Energy,
Richland, Washington.
DOE/EA-0933, 1995, Tank 241-C-106 Past Practice Sluicing Waste
Retrieval, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EA-0981, 1995, Solid Waste Retrieval Complex, Enhanced Radioactive
and Mixed Waste Storage Facility, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland,
Washington.
DOE/EA-1203, 1997, Trench 33 Widening in 218-W-5 Low-Level Burial
Ground, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EA-1276, 1999, Widening Trench 36 of the 218-E-12B Low-Level Burial
Ground, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EA-1405, 2002, Transuranic Waste Retrieval from the 218-W-4B and
218-W-4C Low-Level Burial Grounds, Finding of No Significant Impact,
U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0113, 1987, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Disposal of
Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes Hanford Site
Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
DOE/EIS-0189, 1996, Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington, Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S.
Department of Energy and Washington State Department of Ecology,
Washington, DC.
DOE/EIS-0189-SA1, 1997, Supplement Analysis for the Proposed Upgrades
to the Tank Farm Ventilation, Instrumentation, and Electrical Systems
under Project W-314 in Support of Tank Farm Restoration and Safe
Operations, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office,
Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0189-SA2, 1998, Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste
Remediation System, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
DOE/EIS-0189-SA3, 2001, Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste
Remediation System, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
DOE/EIS-0200, 1997, Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
DOE/EIS-0212, 1995, Safe Interim Storage of Hanford's Tank Waste Final
Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland
Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0222, 1999, Final Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact
Statement and Comprehensive Land Use Plan, U.S. Department of Energy,
Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0250, 2002, Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic
Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, U.S.
Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,
Washington, DC.
DOE/EIS-0286D, 2000, Draft Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and
Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement, U.S.
Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0287, 2002, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition
Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
DC.
Ecology, 2000, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Commercial Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, Richland, Washington, Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and
Consent Order, as amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy,
Olympia, Washington.
Issued in Washington, DC on this 3rd day of January, 2003.
Beverly A. Cook,
Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 03-318 Filed 1-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P