Notice of Intent To Prepare the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, WA, 5655-5660 [E6-1404]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
addressed as follows: Office of
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability
(Mail Code OE–20), U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0350 (FAX
202–586–5860).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202–586–
9624 or Michael Skinker (Program
Attorney) 202–586–2793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of
electricity from the United States to a
foreign country are regulated and
require authorization under section
202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)
(16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On December 14, 2005, the
Department of Energy (DOE) received an
application from MAG E.S. to transmit
electric energy from the United States to
Canada. MAG E.S. is a Canadian
corporation with its principal place of
business in Montreal, Quebec. MAG E.S.
has requested an electricity export
authorization with a 5-year term. MAG
E.S. does not own or control any
transmission or distribution assets, nor
does it have a franchised service area.
The electric energy which MAG E.S.
proposes to export to Canada would be
purchased from electric utilities and
Federal power marketing agencies
within the U.S.
MAG E.S. will arrange for the delivery
of exports to Canada over the
international transmission facilities
owned by Basin Electric Power
Cooperative, Booneville Power
Administration, Eastern Maine Electric
Cooperative, International Transmission
Co., Joint Owners of the Highgate
Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric
Power Company, Maine Public Service
Company, Minnesota Power, Inc.,
Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., New
York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk
Power Corp., Northern States Power
Company and Vermont Electric
Transmission Co.
The construction, operation,
maintenance, and connection of each of
the international transmission facilities
to be utilized by MAG E.S. has
previously been authorized by a
Presidential permit issued pursuant to
Executive Order 10485, as amended.
Procedural Matters: Any person
desiring to become a party to this
proceeding or to be heard by filing
comments or protests to this application
should file a petition to intervene,
comment or protest at the address
provided above in accordance with
§§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC’s
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18
CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of
each petition and protest should be filed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
with DOE on or before the date listed
above.
Comments on the MAG E.S.
application to export electric energy to
Canada should be clearly marked with
Docket EA–306. Additional copies are to
be filed directly with Martin Gauthier,
Director, MAG E.S. Energy Solutions
Inc., 486 Ste-Catherine W, #402,
Montreal, QC, Canada H3B 1A6.
A final decision will be made on this
application after the environmental
impacts have been evaluated pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, and a determination is
made by the DOE that the proposed
action will not adversely impact on the
reliability of the U.S. electric power
supply system.
Copies of this application will be
made available, upon request, for public
inspection and copying at the address
provided above or by accessing the
program’s Home Page at https://
www.electricity.doe.gov. Upon reaching
the Home page, select ‘‘Divisions,’’ then
‘‘Permitting Siting & Analysis,’’ then
‘‘Electricity Imports/Exports,’’ and then
‘‘Pending Proceedings’’ from the options
menus.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 26,
2006.
Anthony J. Como,
Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. E6–1392 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Intent To Prepare the Tank
Closure and Waste Management
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Hanford Site, Richland, WA
Department of Energy.
Notice of intent.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) announces its intent to
prepare a new environmental impact
statement (EIS) for its Hanford Site
(Hanford) near Richland, Washington,
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR
Parts 1500–1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021.
The new EIS, to be titled the Tank
Closure and Waste Management
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC
& WM EIS), will implement a
Settlement Agreement announced on
January 9, 2006, among DOE, the
Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) and the State of
Washington Attorney General’s office.
The Agreement serves as settlement of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5655
NEPA claims in the case State of
Washington v. Bodman (Civil No. 2:03–
cv–05018–AAM), which addressed the
Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive
and Hazardous) Waste Program EIS,
Richland, Washington (HSW EIS, DOE/
EIS–0286, January 2004).
Ecology will continue its role as a
Cooperating Agency in the preparation
of the TC & WM EIS. Ecology already
was acting in that capacity during the
ongoing preparation of the EIS for
Retrieval, Treatment and Disposal of
Tank Waste and Closure of the SingleShell Tanks at the Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington (TC EIS, DOE/
EIS–0356, Notice of Intent [NOI] at 68
FR 1052, January 8, 2003). The TC &
WM EIS will revise, update and
reanalyze groundwater impacts
previously addressed in the HSW EIS.
That is, the TC & WM EIS will provide
a single, integrated analysis of
groundwater at Hanford for all waste
types addressed in the HSW EIS and the
TC EIS. As a result, the TC & WM EIS
will include a reanalysis of onsite
disposal alternatives for Hanford’s lowlevel radioactive waste (LLW) and
mixed low-level radioactive waste
(MLLW) and LLW and MLLW from
other DOE sites. The TC & WM EIS will
revise and update other potential impact
areas previously addressed in the HSW
EIS as appropriate. Finally, the TC &
WM EIS will incorporate existing
analyses from the HSW EIS that do not
affect and are not directly affected by
the waste disposal alternatives after
review or revision as appropriate. DOE
will continue its ongoing analysis of
alternatives for the retrieval, treatment,
storage, and disposal of underground
tank wastes and closure of underground
single-shell tanks (SST). In addition,
DOE plans to include the ongoing Fast
Flux Test Facility Decommissioning EIS
(FFTF EIS, DOE/EIS–0364, NOI at 69 FR
50178, August 13, 2004) in the scope of
the new TC & WM EIS, in order to
provide an integrated presentation of
currently foreseeable activities related to
waste management and cleanup at
Hanford.
In accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, DOE will not ship offsite
waste to Hanford for storage, processing,
or disposal until a Record of Decision
(ROD) is issued pursuant to the TC &
WM EIS, except under certain limited
exemptions as provided in the
Settlement Agreement.
DOE is soliciting comments on the
proposed scope of the new TC & WM
EIS. Comments previously submitted in
response to the 2003 NOI for the TC EIS
and the 2004 NOI for the FFTF EIS are
being considered and need not be
resubmitted.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
5656
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
DOE invites Federal agencies,
American Indian tribal nations, state
and local governments, and the public
to comment on the scope of the planned
TC & WM EIS. DOE will consider all
comments received by March 6, 2006, as
well as comments received after that
date to the extent practicable. DOE
plans to hold public meetings at the
following locations:
Hood River, Oregon; February 21,
2006.
Portland, Oregon; February 22, 2006.
Seattle, Washington; February 23,
2006.
Richland, Washington, February 28,
2006.
The public meetings will address the
scope of the planned TC & WM EIS.
DOE will provide additional notification
of the meeting times and locations
through newspaper advertisements and
other appropriate media.
ADDRESSES: To submit comments on the
scope of the TC & WM EIS or to request
copies of the references listed herein,
including references listed in Appendix
A, contact: Mary Beth Burandt,
Document Manager, Office of River
Protection, U.S. Department of Energy,
Post Office Box 450, Mail Stop H6–60,
Richland, WA 99352. Electronic mail:
TC&WMEIS@saic.com. Fax: 509–376–
3661. Telephone and voice mail: 509–
373–9160.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information on DOE’s NEPA process,
contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director,
Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
(EH–42), 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.
This NOI will be available on DOE’s
NEPA Web site at https://
www.eh.doe.gov/nepa and the TC & WM
EIS Web site at https://www.hanford.gov/
orp/ (click on Public Involvement).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
I. Background
The Hanford Site is located in
southeastern Washington State along the
Columbia River, and is approximately
586 square miles in size. Hanford’s
mission included defense-related
nuclear research, development, and
weapons production activities from the
early 1940s to approximately 1989.
During that period, Hanford operated a
plutonium production complex with
nine nuclear reactors and associated
processing facilities. These activities
created a wide variety of chemical and
radioactive wastes. Hanford’s mission
now is focused on the cleanup of those
wastes and ultimate closure of Hanford.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
To this end, DOE manages several types
of radioactive wastes at Hanford: (1)
High-level radioactive waste (HLW) as
defined under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act [42 U.S.C. 10101]; (2) transuranic
(TRU) waste, which is waste containing
alpha-particle-emitting radionuclides
with atomic numbers greater than
uranium (i.e., 92) and half-lives greater
than 20 years in concentrations greater
than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste;
(3) LLW, which is radioactive waste that
is neither HLW nor TRU waste; and (4)
MLLW, which is LLW containing
hazardous constituents as defined under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.).
At present, DOE is constructing a
Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) in the
200-East Area of the site. The WTP will
separate waste stored in Hanford’s
underground tanks into HLW and lowactivity waste (LAW) fractions. HLW
will be treated in the WTP and stored
at Hanford until it can be shipped to the
proposed repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. Immobilized LAW waste would
be treated in the WTP and disposed of
at Hanford as decided in the ROD issued
in 1997 (62 FR 8693), pursuant to the
Tank Waste Remediation System,
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,
Final EIS (TWRS EIS, DOE/EIS–0189,
August 1996). DOE is processing
Hanford’s contact-handled TRU waste
(which does not require special
protective shielding) for shipment to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near
Carlsbad, New Mexico, consistent with
the 1998 RODs (63 FR 3624 and 63 FR
3629) for treatment and disposal of TRU
waste under the Final Waste
Management Programmatic EIS for
Managing Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous
Waste (WM PEIS, DOE/EIS–0200) and
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal
Phase Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (WIPP
SEIS-II, DOE/EIS–0026–S–2, September
1997). DOE is disposing of Hanford’s
LLW and MLLW onsite, consistent with
the ROD for treatment and disposal of
these wastes under the WM PEIS (65 FR
10061). This ROD also designates
Hanford as a regional disposal site for
LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites.
In January 2003, DOE issued an NOI
(68 FR 1052) to prepare the TC EIS
(DOE/EIS–0356). The proposed scope of
the TC EIS included closure of the 149
underground SSTs and newly available
information on supplemental treatment
for the LAW from all 177 tanks, which
contain a total of approximately 53
million gallons of waste.
In March 2003, Ecology initiated
litigation on issues related to
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
importation, treatment, and disposal of
radioactive and hazardous waste
generated offsite as a result of nuclear
defense and research activities. The
Court enjoined shipment of offsite TRU
waste to Hanford for processing and
storage pending shipment to WIPP.
In January 2004, DOE issued the HSW
EIS and a ROD (69 FR 39449), which
addressed ongoing solid waste
management operations, and announced
DOE’s decision to dispose of Hanford
and a limited volume of offsite LLW and
MLLW in a new Integrated Disposal
Facility in the 200-East Area of Hanford.
DOE also decided to continue sending
Hanford’s MLLW offsite for treatment
and to modify Hanford’s T-Plant for
processing remote-handled TRU waste
and MLLW (which require protective
shielding).
Ecology amended its March 2003
complaint in 2004, challenging the
adequacy of the HSW EIS analysis of
offsite waste importation. In May 2005,
the Court granted a limited discovery
period, continuing the injunction
against shipping offsite wastes to
Hanford, including LLW and MLLW
(State of Washington v. Bodman [Civil
No. 2:03–cv–05018–AAM]). In July
2005, while preparing responses to
discovery requests from Ecology,
Battelle Memorial Institute, DOE’s
contractor who assisted in preparing the
HSW EIS, advised DOE of several
differences in groundwater analyses
between the HSW EIS and its
underlying data.
DOE promptly notified the Court and
the State and, in September 2005,
convened a team of DOE experts in
quality assurance and groundwater
analysis, as well as transportation and
human health and safety impacts
analysis, to conduct a quality assurance
review of the HSW EIS. The team
completed its Report of the Review of
the Hanford Solid Waste Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Data Quality,
Control and Management Issues,
January 2006 (hereafter referred to as the
Quality Review).
Because both Ecology and DOE have
a shared interest in the effective cleanup
of Hanford, DOE and Ecology
announced a Settlement Agreement
ending the NEPA litigation on January
9, 2006. The Agreement is intended to
resolve Ecology’s concerns about HSW
EIS groundwater analyses and to
address other concerns about the HSW
EIS, including those identified in the
Quality Review.
The Agreement calls for an expansion
of the TC EIS to provide a single,
integrated set of analyses that will
include all waste types analyzed in the
HSW EIS (LLW, MLLW, and TRU
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
waste). The expanded EIS will be
renamed the TC & WM EIS. Pending
finalization of the TC & WM EIS, the
HSW EIS will remain in effect to
support ongoing waste management
activities at Hanford (including
transportation of TRU waste to WIPP) in
accordance with applicable regulatory
requirements. The Agreement also
stipulates that when the TC & WM EIS
has been completed, it will supersede
the HSW EIS. Until that time, DOE will
not rely on HSW EIS groundwater
analyses for decision-making, and DOE
will not import offsite waste to Hanford,
with certain limited exemptions as
specified in the Agreement.
DOE and Ecology have mutual
responsibilities for accomplishing
cleanup of Hanford, as well as
continuing ongoing waste management
activities consistent with applicable
Federal and state laws and regulations.
The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement
and Consent Order (also called the TriParty Agreement [TPA]) among the
state, DOE, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) contains
various enforceable milestones that
apply to waste management activities.
DOE also is required to comply with
applicable requirements of RCRA and
the state’s Hazardous Waste
Management Act of 1976 as amended
(Chapter 70.105 Revised Code of
Washington). To carry out proposals for
future actions and obtain necessary
permits, each agency must comply with
the applicable provisions of NEPA and
the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) respectively. The
agencies have revised their
Memorandum of Understanding for the
TC EIS (effective March 25, 2003),
which identified Ecology as a
Cooperating Agency in the preparation
of the TC EIS. The Memorandum of
Understanding revision is consistent
with the Settlement Agreement and
provides for Ecology’s continuing
participation as a Cooperating Agency
in preparation of the TC & WM EIS to
assist both agencies in meeting their
respective responsibilities under NEPA
and SEPA.
II. Purpose and Need for Action
Recognizing the potential risks to
human health and the environment
from Hanford tank wastes, DOE needs to
retrieve waste from the 149 SSTs and 28
double-shell tanks (DST), treat and
dispose of the waste, and close the SST
farms in a manner that complies with
Federal and Washington State
requirements. Some waste from tanks
and LLW and MLLW from Hanford and
other DOE sites that do not have
appropriate facilities must be disposed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
of to facilitate cleanup of Hanford and
these sites.
III. Proposed Action
DOE proposes to retrieve and treat
waste from 177 underground tanks and
ancillary equipment and dispose of this
waste in compliance with applicable
regulatory requirements. Vitrified HLW
waste would be stored onsite until it can
be disposed of in the proposed
repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE
proposes to provide additional
treatment capacity for the tank LAW
that can supplement the planned WTP
capacity in fulfillment of DOE’s
obligations under the TPA in as timely
a manner as possible. DOE would
dispose of Hanford’s immobilized LAW,
LLW and MLLW, and LLW and MLLW
from other DOE sites, in lined trenches
onsite. These trenches would be closed
in accordance with applicable
regulatory requirements.
DOE also proposes to complete the
final decontamination and
decommissioning of the FFTF. DOE
decided, in January 2001, (ROD at 66 FR
7877) that the permanent closure of
FFTF was to be resumed with no new
missions, based on the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Accomplishing Expanded
Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and
Development and Isotope Production
Missions in the United States, Including
the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility
(DOE/EIS–0310, December 2000).
IV. Proposed Scope of the TC & WM EIS
In accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, DOE intends to prepare a
single, comprehensive EIS addressing
tank waste retrieval, treatment, storage,
and disposal; tank closure; and
management of all waste types analyzed
in the HSW EIS as an integrated
document for public and agency review
and reference. The TC & WM EIS will
update, revise, or reanalyze resource
areas (such as groundwater and
transportation) from the HSW EIS as
necessary to make them current and
reflect the waste inventories and
analytical assumptions being used for
environmental impact assessment in the
TC & WM EIS. All updated analyses
would be included in the revised
quantitative groundwater and other
cumulative impact analyses in the TC &
WM EIS.
The proposed scope of the TC & WM
EIS includes alternatives for onsite
disposal of LLW, MLLW, and LAW;
transportation of offsite LLW and
MLLW to Hanford for disposal; and
current or revised information for
ongoing operations, such as those
involving Hanford’s Central Waste
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5657
Complex, that were included in the
HSW EIS.
DOE proposes to retain all of the
scope identified in the 2003 NOI for the
TC EIS as modified by public scoping
comments. Proposed modifications to
the alternatives identified in the 2003
NOI are provided in Section VI. That is,
the new TC & WM EIS would address
management of the approximately 53
million gallons of waste 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
1 to 1.16 million gallons) grouped in 18
tank farms, and approximately 60
smaller miscellaneous underground
storage tanks, along with ancillary
equipment.
DOE proposes to retain all of the
scope identified in its August 2004 NOI
to evaluate alternatives for the final
disposition of the FFTF and proposes to
integrate that scope into the TC & WM
EIS. The TC & WM EIS will thus
provide an integrated presentation of
currently foreseeable activities related to
waste management and cleanup at
Hanford.
V. Potential Decisions To Be Made
DOE plans to make decisions on the
following topics.
• Retrieval of Tank Waste—A
reasonable waste retrieval range is
comprised of three levels: 90 percent, 99
percent, and 99.9 percent. The 99
percent retrieval is the goal established
by the TPA (Milestone M–45–00); 90
percent retrieval evaluates a risk
analysis of the tank farms as defined in
the M–45–00, Appendix H, process; and
99.9 percent retrieval reflects uses of
multiple retrieval technologies to
support clean closure of the tank farms.
• Treatment of Tank Waste—WTP
waste treatment capability can be
augmented by supplemental treatment
technologies and constructing new
treatment facilities that are part of, or
separate from, the WTP. The two
primary choices that could fulfill DOE’s
TPA commitments are to treat all waste
in an expanded WTP or provide
supplemental treatment to be used in
conjunction with, but separate from, the
WTP. DOE has conducted preliminary
tests on three supplemental treatment
technologies—cast stone (a form of
grout), steam reforming, and bulk
vitrification—to determine if one or
more could be used to provide the
additional, supplemental waste
treatment capability needed to complete
waste treatment.
• Disposal of Treated Tank Waste—
Onsite disposal includes treated tank
waste such as immobilized LAW and
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
5658
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
waste generated from closure activities
that meets onsite disposal criteria; the
decision to be made involves the onsite
location of disposal facilities. Decisions
to be made related to offsite disposal
include the length of time and facilities
required for storage of immobilized
high-level radioactive waste (IHLW)
prior to disposal at the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository.
• Storage of Tank Waste—Depending
on the alternative being analyzed,
storing tank waste for different lengths
of time may be necessary. This may
require the construction, operation, and
deactivation of waste transfer
infrastructures, including waste receiver
facilities (below-grade lag storage and
minimal waste treatment facilities),
waste transfer line upgrades, and new or
replacement DSTs. Also depending on
the alternative, construction and
operation of additional immobilized
HLW storage vaults, melter pads, and
TRU waste storage facilities needed to
store treated tank waste.
• Closure of SSTs—Decisions to be
made include closing the SSTs by clean
closure, selective clean closure/landfill
closure, and landfill closure with or
without any soil contamination
removal. Decisions regarding barriers
(engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C
barrier or Hanford barrier) to prevent
water intrusion will be made. A closure
configuration for the original 28 DSTs
will be evaluated in the TC & WM EIS
for engineering reasons related to barrier
placement for the SSTs. This evaluation
also is provided to aid Ecology in
evaluating the impacts which might
result in closing DSTs to a debris rule
standard. However, DOE is deferring a
decision on closure of DSTs and
decommissioning of the WTP until a
later date when the mission for those
facilities is nearing completion.
• Disposal of Hanford’s and DOE
Offsite LLW and MLLW—The decision
to be made concerns the onsite location
of disposal facilities for Hanford’s waste
and other DOE sites’ LLW and MLLW.
DOE committed in the HSW EIS ROD
that henceforth LLW would be disposed
of in lined trenches. Thus, the decision
would concern whether to dispose of
the waste in the 200-West Area or at the
Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200East Area.
• Final Decontamination and
Decommissioning of the FFTF—The
decision would identify the final end
state for the above-ground, belowground, and ancillary support
structures.
VI. Potential Range of Alternatives
Six alternatives were originally
proposed for TC EIS and are listed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
below. The initial scope of the TC EIS
was provided in the January 2003 NOI
and at each public scoping meeting.
• No Action Alternative, which was
to implement the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD;
• Implement the 1997 TWRS EIS
ROD with Modifications;
• Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/
Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal;
• Clean Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite
and Offsite Waste Disposal;
• Accelerated Landfill Closure/Onsite
and Offsite Waste Disposal; and
• Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite
Waste Disposal.
Onsite disposal would include
immobilized LAW, LLW, and MLLW
resulting from tank retrieval and
treatment. Offsite disposal of HLW
would occur at Yucca Mountain. No
determination has been made as to
whether any of the tanks contain TRU
waste. If it is determined that any tank
waste is TRU waste, offsite disposal at
WIPP would be appropriate, provided
the required approvals from EPA and
the New Mexico Environment
Department were obtained.
As a result of the 2003 scoping for the
TC EIS, a number of changes are being
made to those identified in the NOI. The
major changes are:
• The No Action Alternative was
modified to address a traditional ‘‘no
action’’ rather than the action from the
TWRS EIS ROD;
• The alternative addressing
implementation of the 1997 TWRS EIS
ROD was modified to address both the
currently planned vitrification capacity
and the currently planned capacity
supplemented with additional
vitrification capacity as the
supplemental treatment;
• A partial tank removal option was
added, which analyzes leaving some of
the SSTs in place and exhuming the
SSTs completely in the SX and BX tank
farms;
• The Landfill Closure of Tank
Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste
Disposal Alternative has been modified
to more clearly evaluate the No
Separations (of HLW and LAW waste)
with Onsite Storage and Offsite Disposal
Alternative; and
• A suboption has been added to both
the All Vitrification with Separations
and All Vitrification/No Separations (of
HLW and LAW waste) Alternatives to
address closure of the cribs and trenches
proximal to tanks within identified
waste management areas in place as
opposed to removing them.
For Hanford and offsite LLW and
MLLW analyzed in the HSW EIS, DOE
proposes to simplify the alternatives.
Both waste types would be disposed of
in lined trenches. DOE plans to update
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the volumes to be disposed of,
approximating those volumes for offsite
waste in the 2004 HSW EIS ROD, and
to update the waste information. DOE
also intends to update the transportation
analysis of shipping offsite waste to
Hanford for disposal. The onsite
disposal alternatives are:
• Construction of a new disposal
facility in the 200-West Area burial
grounds; and
• Construction of new LLW and
MLLW capacity in the Integrated
Disposal Facility in the 200-East Area.
For the FFTF, the 2004 NOI identified
three alternatives as listed below.
• No Action—actions consistent with
previous DOE NEPA decisions would be
completed; final decommissioning
would not occur.
• Entombment—above-ground
structures would be decontaminated
and dismantled, below-ground
structures would be grouted and left in
place.
• Removal—above-ground structures
would be decontaminated and
dismantled, below-ground structures
would be removed and disposed of at
Hanford.
VII. Potential Environmental Issues for
Analysis
The following issues have been
tentatively identified for analysis in the
TC & WM EIS. This list is presented to
facilitate comment on the scope of the
TC & WM EIS, but is not intended to be
all-inclusive or to predetermine
potential impacts of any alternative.
• Effects on the public and onsite
workers of radiological and
nonradiological material releases during
normal operations and reasonably
foreseeable accidents;
• Long-term risks to human
populations resulting from waste
disposal and residual tank system
wastes;
• Effects on air and water quality of
normal operations and reasonably
foreseeable accidents, including longterm impacts on groundwater;
• Cumulative effects, including
impacts of other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions at
Hanford, including past discharges to
cribs and trenches, groundwater
remediation activities, activities subject
to TPA requirements and cleanup
activities under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act;
• Effects on endangered species,
archaeological/cultural/historical sites,
floodplains and wetlands, and priority
habitat;
• Effects of on- and offsite
transportation and of reasonably
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
foreseeable transportation accidents;
and
• Socioeconomic impacts on
surrounding communities.
VIII. Public Scoping
DOE invites Federal agencies,
American Indian tribal nations, state
and local governments, and the general
public to comment on the scope of the
planned TC & WM EIS. Information on
the scoping comment period is provided
in the DATES section above. Comments
previously submitted in response to the
2003 NOI for the TC EIS and the 2004
NOI for the FFTF EIS are being
considered and need not be
resubmitted.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30,
2006.
John Spitaleri Shaw,
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety
and Health.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Appendix A—Related National
Environmental Policy Act Documents
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, Washington; 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,
Washington; 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, Washington; Record
of Decision,’’ Federal Register.
62 FR 8693, 1997, ‘‘Record of Decision for
the Tank Waste Remediation System,
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,’’
Federal Register.
63 FR 3624, 1998, ‘‘Record of Decision for
the Department of Energy’s Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant Disposal Phase,’’ Federal Register.
63 FR 3629, 1998, ‘‘Record of Decision for
the Department of Energy’s Waste
Management Program: Treatment and Storage
of Transuranic Waste,’’ Federal Register.
65 FR 10061, 2000, ‘‘Record of Decision for
the Department of Energy’s Waste
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
Management Program: Treatment and
Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed
Low-Level Waste; Amendment to the Record
of Decision for the Nevada Test Site,’’
Federal Register.
69 FR 39449, 2004, ‘‘Record of Decision for
the Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington: Storage and
Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed
Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level
Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste, and
Storage, Processing, and Certification of
Transuranic Waste for Shipment to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant, Federal Register.
DOE/EA–0479, 1990, Collecting Crust
Samples from Level Detectors in Tank 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–0993, 1995, Shutdown of the Fast
Flux Test Facility, Hanford Site, Richland,
Washington and Finding of No Significant
Impact.
DOE/EA–0981, 1995, Environmental
Assessment—Solid Waste Retrieval Complex,
Enhanced Radioactive and Mixed Waste
Storage Facility, Infrastructure Upgrades,
and Central Waste Support Complex,
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S.
Department of Energy, Richland Operations
Office, 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, Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington, 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5659
U.S. Department of Energy, Richland
Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS–0212, 1995, Safe Interim Storage
of Hanford Tank Wastes—Final
Environmental Impact Statement, U.S.
Department of Energy, Richland Operations
Office, Richland, Washington, and
Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, Washington.
DOE/EIS–0189, 1996, Tank Waste
Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland,
Washington, Final Environmental Impact
Statement, U.S. Department of Energy,
Richland Operations Office, Richland,
Washington, and Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington.
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, Richland
Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS–0189–SA3, 2001, Supplement
Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation
System, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland
Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS–0200, 1997, Final Waste
Management Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for Managing Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and
Hazardous Waste, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Environmental
Management, Washington, DC.
DOE/EIS–0026–S–2, 1997, Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement II, U.S. Department of Energy,
Carlsbad, New Mexico.
DOE/EIS–0222, 1999, Final Hanford
Comprehensive Land-Use Plan
Environmental Impact Statement, U.S.
Department of Energy, Richland Operations
Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS–0310, 2000, Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for
Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear
Energy Research and Development and
Isotope Production Missions in the United
States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux
Test Facility.
DOE/EIS–0250, 2002, Final 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, Yucca
Mountain Site Characterization Office, North
Las Vegas, Nevada.
DOE/EIS–0287, 2002, Idaho High-Level
Waste and Facilities Disposition Final
Environmental Impact Statement, U.S.
Department of Energy, Idaho Operations
Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
DOE/EIS–0286, 2004, Final Hanford Site
Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste
Program Environmental Impact Statement,
Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of
Energy, Richland Operations Office,
Richland, Washington.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
5660
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
DOH Publication 320–031, 2004, Final
Environmental Impact Statement—
Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Site, Richland, Washington,
Washington State Department of Health,
Olympia, Washington, and Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2006, Report of
the Review of the Hanford Solid Waste
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Data
Quality, Control and Management Issues,
Washington, DC.
[FR Doc. E6–1404 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Considerations for Transmission
Congestion Study and Designation of
National Interest Electric Transmission
Corridors
Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability (‘‘OE’’),
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry requesting
comment and providing notice of a
technical conference.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(the ‘‘Department’’) seeks comment and
information from the public concerning
its plans for an electricity transmission
congestion study and possible
designation of National Interest Electric
Transmission Corridors (‘‘NIETCs’’) in a
report based on the study pursuant to
section 1221(a) of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. Through this notice of inquiry,
the Department invites comment on
draft criteria for gauging the suitability
of geographic areas as NIETCs and
announces a public technical
conference concerning the criteria for
evaluation of candidate areas as NIETCs.
DATES: Written comments may be filed
electronically in MS Word and PDF
formats by e-mailing to:
EPACT1221@hq.doe.gov no later than 5
p.m. EDT March 6, 2006. Also,
comments can be filed by mail at the
address listed below. The technical
conference will be held in Chicago on
March 29, 2006. For further information,
please visit the Department’s Web site at
https://www.electricity.doe.gov/1221.
ADDRESSES: Written comments via mail
should be submitted to:
Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability, OE–20, Attention:
EPACT 1221 Comments, U.S.
Department of Energy, Forestall
Building, Room 6H–050, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585.
Note: U.S. Postal Service mail sent to the
Department continues to be delayed by
several weeks due to security screening.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
Electronic submission is therefore
encouraged. Copies of written comments
received and other relevant documents and
information may be reviewed at https://
www.electricity.doe.gov/1221.
Ms.
Poonum Agrawal, Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE–20,
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–1411,
poonum.agrawal@hq.doe.gov, or Lot
Cooke, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–76, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–
0503, lot.cooke@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Background
A. Overview
The Nation’s electric system includes
over 150,000 miles of interconnected
high-voltage transmission lines that link
generators to load centers.1 The electric
system has been built by electric
utilities over a period of 100 years,
primarily to serve local customers and
support reliability; the system generally
was not constructed with a primary
emphasis on moving large amounts of
power across multi-state regions.2 Due
to a doubling of electricity demand and
generation over the past three decades
and the advent of wholesale electricity
markets, transfers of large amounts of
electricity across the grid have increased
significantly in recent years. The
increase in regional electricity transfers
saves electricity consumers billions of
dollars,3 but significantly increases
transmission facility loading.
Investment in new transmission
facilities has not kept pace with the
increasing economic and operational
importance of transmission service.4
Today, congestion in the transmission
system impedes economically efficient
electricity transactions and in some
cases threatens the system’s safe and
reliable operation.5 The Department has
estimated that this congestion costs
consumers several billion dollars per
year by forcing wholesale electricity
purchasers to buy from higher-cost
suppliers.6 That estimate did not
1 North American Electric Reliability Council,
Electricity Supply and Demand Database (2003)
available at https://www.nerc.com/esd.
2 Edison Electric Institute, Survey of
Transmission Investment at 1 (May 2005).
3 Department of Energy, National Transmission
Grid Study, at 19 (May 2002) available at https://
www.eh.doe.gov/ntgs/reports.html.
4 Id. at 7; see also Hirst, U.S. Transmission
Capacity Present Status and Future Prospects, 7
(June 2004).
5 National Transmission Grid Study, supra note 3,
at 10–20.
6 Id. at 16–18.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
include the reliability costs associated
with such bottlenecks.
The National Energy Policy (May
2001),7 the Department’s National
Transmission Grid Study (May 2002),8
and the Secretary of Energy’s Electricity
Advisory Board’s Transmission Grid
Solutions Report (September 2002),9
recommended that the Department
address regulatory obstacles in the
planning and construction of electric
transmission and distribution lines. In
response to these recommendations, the
Department held a ‘‘Workshop on
Designation of National Interest Electric
Transmission Bottlenecks’’ on July 14,
2004, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The
Department also issued a Federal
Register notice of inquiry on July 22,
2004.10 The purpose of the workshop
and the notice of inquiry was to learn
stakeholders’ views concerning
transmission bottlenecks, identify how
designation of such bottlenecks may
benefit the users of the grid and
electricity consumers, and recognize key
bottlenecks. In its plans for
implementation of subsection 1221(a),
the Department notes that it has
considered the comments received via
the notice and the workshop.
B. Summary of Relevant Provisions
From the Statute
On August 8, 2005, the President
signed into law the Energy Policy Act of
2005, Public Law 109–58, (the ‘‘Act’’).
Title XII of the Act, entitled ‘‘The
Electricity Modernization Act of 2005’’
includes provisions relating to the siting
of interstate electric transmission
facilities and promoting advanced
power system technologies. Subsection
1221(a) of the Act amends the Federal
Power Act (‘‘FPA’’) by adding a new
section 216 which requires the Secretary
of Energy (the ‘‘Secretary’’) to conduct a
nationwide study of electric
transmission congestion (‘‘congestion
study’’), and issue a report based on the
study in which the Secretary may
designate ‘‘any geographic area
experiencing electric energy
transmission capacity constraints or
congestion that adversely affects
7 The National Energy Policy Development Group
Report, available at https://www.energy.gov/engine/
content.do?BT_CODE=ADAP.
8 National Transmission Grid Study, supra note 3.
9 Department of Energy Electricity Advisory
Board, Transmission Grid Solutions, available at
https://www.eab.energy.gov/
index.cfm?fuseaction=home.publications.
10 Designation of National Interest Electric
Transmission Bottlenecks, 69 FR 43833 (July 22,
2004) also available at https://
www.electricity.doe.gov/bottlenecks.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5655-5660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1404]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Intent To Prepare the Tank Closure and Waste Management
Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, WA
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to
prepare a new environmental impact statement (EIS) for its Hanford Site
(Hanford) near Richland, Washington, pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021. The new
EIS, to be titled the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental
Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM
EIS), will implement a Settlement Agreement announced on January 9,
2006, among DOE, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)
and the State of Washington Attorney General's office. The Agreement
serves as settlement of NEPA claims in the case State of Washington v.
Bodman (Civil No. 2:03-cv-05018-AAM), which addressed the Final Hanford
Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program EIS, Richland,
Washington (HSW EIS, DOE/EIS-0286, January 2004).
Ecology will continue its role as a Cooperating Agency in the
preparation of the TC & WM EIS. Ecology already was acting in that
capacity during the ongoing preparation of the EIS for Retrieval,
Treatment and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of the Single-Shell
Tanks at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC EIS, DOE/EIS-0356,
Notice of Intent [NOI] at 68 FR 1052, January 8, 2003). The TC & WM EIS
will revise, update and reanalyze groundwater impacts previously
addressed in the HSW EIS. That is, the TC & WM EIS will provide a
single, integrated analysis of groundwater at Hanford for all waste
types addressed in the HSW EIS and the TC EIS. As a result, the TC & WM
EIS will include a reanalysis of onsite disposal alternatives for
Hanford's low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low-level
radioactive waste (MLLW) and LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites. The TC
& WM EIS will revise and update other potential impact areas previously
addressed in the HSW EIS as appropriate. Finally, the TC & WM EIS will
incorporate existing analyses from the HSW EIS that do not affect and
are not directly affected by the waste disposal alternatives after
review or revision as appropriate. DOE will continue its ongoing
analysis of alternatives for the retrieval, treatment, storage, and
disposal of underground tank wastes and closure of underground single-
shell tanks (SST). In addition, DOE plans to include the ongoing Fast
Flux Test Facility Decommissioning EIS (FFTF EIS, DOE/EIS-0364, NOI at
69 FR 50178, August 13, 2004) in the scope of the new TC & WM EIS, in
order to provide an integrated presentation of currently foreseeable
activities related to waste management and cleanup at Hanford.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, DOE will not ship
offsite waste to Hanford for storage, processing, or disposal until a
Record of Decision (ROD) is issued pursuant to the TC & WM EIS, except
under certain limited exemptions as provided in the Settlement
Agreement.
DOE is soliciting comments on the proposed scope of the new TC & WM
EIS. Comments previously submitted in response to the 2003 NOI for the
TC EIS and the 2004 NOI for the FFTF EIS are being considered and need
not be resubmitted.
[[Page 5656]]
DATES: DOE invites Federal agencies, American Indian tribal nations,
state and local governments, and the public to comment on the scope of
the planned TC & WM EIS. DOE will consider all comments received by
March 6, 2006, as well as comments received after that date to the
extent practicable. DOE plans to hold public meetings at the following
locations:
Hood River, Oregon; February 21, 2006.
Portland, Oregon; February 22, 2006.
Seattle, Washington; February 23, 2006.
Richland, Washington, February 28, 2006.
The public meetings will address the scope of the planned TC & WM
EIS. DOE will provide additional notification of the meeting times and
locations through newspaper advertisements and other appropriate media.
ADDRESSES: To submit comments on the scope of the TC & WM EIS or to
request copies of the references listed herein, including references
listed in Appendix A, contact: Mary Beth Burandt, Document Manager,
Office of River Protection, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box
450, Mail Stop H6-60, Richland, WA 99352. Electronic mail:
TC&WMEIS@saic.com. Fax: 509-376-3661. Telephone and voice mail: 509-
373-9160.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on DOE's NEPA process,
contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and
Compliance (EH-42), 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.
This NOI will be available on DOE's NEPA Web site at https://
www.eh.doe.gov/nepa and the TC & WM EIS Web site at https://
www.hanford.gov/orp/ (click on Public Involvement).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Hanford Site is located in southeastern Washington State along
the Columbia River, and is approximately 586 square miles in size.
Hanford's mission included defense-related nuclear research,
development, and weapons production activities from the early 1940s to
approximately 1989. During that period, Hanford operated a plutonium
production complex with nine nuclear reactors and associated processing
facilities. These activities created a wide variety of chemical and
radioactive wastes. Hanford's mission now is focused on the cleanup of
those wastes and ultimate closure of Hanford. To this end, DOE manages
several types of radioactive wastes at Hanford: (1) High-level
radioactive waste (HLW) as defined under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
[42 U.S.C. 10101]; (2) transuranic (TRU) waste, which is waste
containing alpha-particle-emitting radionuclides with atomic numbers
greater than uranium (i.e., 92) and half-lives greater than 20 years in
concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste; (3) LLW,
which is radioactive waste that is neither HLW nor TRU waste; and (4)
MLLW, which is LLW containing hazardous constituents as defined under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.).
At present, DOE is constructing a Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) in
the 200-East Area of the site. The WTP will separate waste stored in
Hanford's underground tanks into HLW and low-activity waste (LAW)
fractions. HLW will be treated in the WTP and stored at Hanford until
it can be shipped to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Immobilized LAW waste would be treated in the WTP and disposed of at
Hanford as decided in the ROD issued in 1997 (62 FR 8693), pursuant to
the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,
Final EIS (TWRS EIS, DOE/EIS-0189, August 1996). DOE is processing
Hanford's contact-handled TRU waste (which does not require special
protective shielding) for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, consistent with the 1998 RODs (63 FR
3624 and 63 FR 3629) for treatment and disposal of TRU waste under the
Final Waste Management Programmatic EIS for Managing Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (WM PEIS, DOE/
EIS-0200) and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WIPP SEIS-II, DOE/EIS-
0026-S-2, September 1997). DOE is disposing of Hanford's LLW and MLLW
onsite, consistent with the ROD for treatment and disposal of these
wastes under the WM PEIS (65 FR 10061). This ROD also designates
Hanford as a regional disposal site for LLW and MLLW from other DOE
sites.
In January 2003, DOE issued an NOI (68 FR 1052) to prepare the TC
EIS (DOE/EIS-0356). The proposed scope of the TC EIS included closure
of the 149 underground SSTs and newly available information on
supplemental treatment for the LAW from all 177 tanks, which contain a
total of approximately 53 million gallons of waste.
In March 2003, Ecology initiated litigation on issues related to
importation, treatment, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste
generated offsite as a result of nuclear defense and research
activities. The Court enjoined shipment of offsite TRU waste to Hanford
for processing and storage pending shipment to WIPP.
In January 2004, DOE issued the HSW EIS and a ROD (69 FR 39449),
which addressed ongoing solid waste management operations, and
announced DOE's decision to dispose of Hanford and a limited volume of
offsite LLW and MLLW in a new Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200-
East Area of Hanford. DOE also decided to continue sending Hanford's
MLLW offsite for treatment and to modify Hanford's T-Plant for
processing remote-handled TRU waste and MLLW (which require protective
shielding).
Ecology amended its March 2003 complaint in 2004, challenging the
adequacy of the HSW EIS analysis of offsite waste importation. In May
2005, the Court granted a limited discovery period, continuing the
injunction against shipping offsite wastes to Hanford, including LLW
and MLLW (State of Washington v. Bodman [Civil No. 2:03-cv-05018-AAM]).
In July 2005, while preparing responses to discovery requests from
Ecology, Battelle Memorial Institute, DOE's contractor who assisted in
preparing the HSW EIS, advised DOE of several differences in
groundwater analyses between the HSW EIS and its underlying data.
DOE promptly notified the Court and the State and, in September
2005, convened a team of DOE experts in quality assurance and
groundwater analysis, as well as transportation and human health and
safety impacts analysis, to conduct a quality assurance review of the
HSW EIS. The team completed its Report of the Review of the Hanford
Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Data Quality, Control
and Management Issues, January 2006 (hereafter referred to as the
Quality Review).
Because both Ecology and DOE have a shared interest in the
effective cleanup of Hanford, DOE and Ecology announced a Settlement
Agreement ending the NEPA litigation on January 9, 2006. The Agreement
is intended to resolve Ecology's concerns about HSW EIS groundwater
analyses and to address other concerns about the HSW EIS, including
those identified in the Quality Review.
The Agreement calls for an expansion of the TC EIS to provide a
single, integrated set of analyses that will include all waste types
analyzed in the HSW EIS (LLW, MLLW, and TRU
[[Page 5657]]
waste). The expanded EIS will be renamed the TC & WM EIS. Pending
finalization of the TC & WM EIS, the HSW EIS will remain in effect to
support ongoing waste management activities at Hanford (including
transportation of TRU waste to WIPP) in accordance with applicable
regulatory requirements. The Agreement also stipulates that when the TC
& WM EIS has been completed, it will supersede the HSW EIS. Until that
time, DOE will not rely on HSW EIS groundwater analyses for decision-
making, and DOE will not import offsite waste to Hanford, with certain
limited exemptions as specified in the Agreement.
DOE and Ecology have mutual responsibilities for accomplishing
cleanup of Hanford, as well as continuing ongoing waste management
activities consistent with applicable Federal and state laws and
regulations. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order
(also called the Tri-Party Agreement [TPA]) among the state, DOE, and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contains various
enforceable milestones that apply to waste management activities. DOE
also is required to comply with applicable requirements of RCRA and the
state's Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1976 as amended (Chapter
70.105 Revised Code of Washington). To carry out proposals for future
actions and obtain necessary permits, each agency must comply with the
applicable provisions of NEPA and the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) respectively. The agencies have revised their
Memorandum of Understanding for the TC EIS (effective March 25, 2003),
which identified Ecology as a Cooperating Agency in the preparation of
the TC EIS. The Memorandum of Understanding revision is consistent with
the Settlement Agreement and provides for Ecology's continuing
participation as a Cooperating Agency in preparation of the TC & WM EIS
to assist both agencies in meeting their respective responsibilities
under NEPA and SEPA.
II. Purpose and Need for Action
Recognizing the potential risks to human health and the environment
from Hanford tank wastes, DOE needs to retrieve waste from the 149 SSTs
and 28 double-shell tanks (DST), treat and dispose of the waste, and
close the SST farms in a manner that complies with Federal and
Washington State requirements. Some waste from tanks and LLW and MLLW
from Hanford and other DOE sites that do not have appropriate
facilities must be disposed of to facilitate cleanup of Hanford and
these sites.
III. Proposed Action
DOE proposes to retrieve and treat waste from 177 underground tanks
and ancillary equipment and dispose of this waste in compliance with
applicable regulatory requirements. Vitrified HLW waste would be stored
onsite until it can be disposed of in the proposed repository at Yucca
Mountain. DOE proposes to provide additional treatment capacity for the
tank LAW that can supplement the planned WTP capacity in fulfillment of
DOE's obligations under the TPA in as timely a manner as possible. DOE
would dispose of Hanford's immobilized LAW, LLW and MLLW, and LLW and
MLLW from other DOE sites, in lined trenches onsite. These trenches
would be closed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
DOE also proposes to complete the final decontamination and
decommissioning of the FFTF. DOE decided, in January 2001, (ROD at 66
FR 7877) that the permanent closure of FFTF was to be resumed with no
new missions, based on the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research
and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States,
Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (DOE/EIS-0310,
December 2000).
IV. Proposed Scope of the TC & WM EIS
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, DOE intends to prepare
a single, comprehensive EIS addressing tank waste retrieval, treatment,
storage, and disposal; tank closure; and management of all waste types
analyzed in the HSW EIS as an integrated document for public and agency
review and reference. The TC & WM EIS will update, revise, or reanalyze
resource areas (such as groundwater and transportation) from the HSW
EIS as necessary to make them current and reflect the waste inventories
and analytical assumptions being used for environmental impact
assessment in the TC & WM EIS. All updated analyses would be included
in the revised quantitative groundwater and other cumulative impact
analyses in the TC & WM EIS.
The proposed scope of the TC & WM EIS includes alternatives for
onsite disposal of LLW, MLLW, and LAW; transportation of offsite LLW
and MLLW to Hanford for disposal; and current or revised information
for ongoing operations, such as those involving Hanford's Central Waste
Complex, that were included in the HSW EIS.
DOE proposes to retain all of the scope identified in the 2003 NOI
for the TC EIS as modified by public scoping comments. Proposed
modifications to the alternatives identified in the 2003 NOI are
provided in Section VI. That is, the new TC & WM EIS would address
management of the approximately 53 million gallons of waste 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 1 to 1.16 million gallons) grouped in 18 tank farms, and
approximately 60 smaller miscellaneous underground storage tanks, along
with ancillary equipment.
DOE proposes to retain all of the scope identified in its August
2004 NOI to evaluate alternatives for the final disposition of the FFTF
and proposes to integrate that scope into the TC & WM EIS. The TC & WM
EIS will thus provide an integrated presentation of currently
foreseeable activities related to waste management and cleanup at
Hanford.
V. Potential Decisions To Be Made
DOE plans to make decisions on the following topics.
Retrieval of Tank Waste--A reasonable waste retrieval
range is comprised of three levels: 90 percent, 99 percent, and 99.9
percent. The 99 percent retrieval is the goal established by the TPA
(Milestone M-45-00); 90 percent retrieval evaluates a risk analysis of
the tank farms as defined in the M-45-00, Appendix H, process; and 99.9
percent retrieval reflects uses of multiple retrieval technologies to
support clean closure of the tank farms.
Treatment of Tank Waste--WTP waste treatment capability
can be augmented by supplemental treatment technologies and
constructing new treatment facilities that are part of, or separate
from, the WTP. The two primary choices that could fulfill DOE's TPA
commitments are to treat all waste in an expanded WTP or provide
supplemental treatment to be used in conjunction with, but separate
from, the WTP. DOE has conducted preliminary tests on three
supplemental treatment technologies--cast stone (a form of grout),
steam reforming, and bulk vitrification--to determine if one or more
could be used to provide the additional, supplemental waste treatment
capability needed to complete waste treatment.
Disposal of Treated Tank Waste--Onsite disposal includes
treated tank waste such as immobilized LAW and
[[Page 5658]]
waste generated from closure activities that meets onsite disposal
criteria; the decision to be made involves the onsite location of
disposal facilities. Decisions to be made related to offsite disposal
include the length of time and facilities required for storage of
immobilized high-level radioactive waste (IHLW) prior to disposal at
the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
Storage of Tank Waste--Depending on the alternative being
analyzed, storing tank waste for different lengths of time may be
necessary. This may require the construction, operation, and
deactivation of waste transfer infrastructures, including waste
receiver facilities (below-grade lag storage and minimal waste
treatment facilities), waste transfer line upgrades, and new or
replacement DSTs. Also depending on the alternative, construction and
operation of additional immobilized HLW storage vaults, melter pads,
and TRU waste storage facilities needed to store treated tank waste.
Closure of SSTs--Decisions to be made include closing the
SSTs by clean closure, selective clean closure/landfill closure, and
landfill closure with or without any soil contamination removal.
Decisions regarding barriers (engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C
barrier or Hanford barrier) to prevent water intrusion will be made. A
closure configuration for the original 28 DSTs will be evaluated in the
TC & WM EIS for engineering reasons related to barrier placement for
the SSTs. This evaluation also is provided to aid Ecology in evaluating
the impacts which might result in closing DSTs to a debris rule
standard. However, DOE is deferring a decision on closure of DSTs and
decommissioning of the WTP until a later date when the mission for
those facilities is nearing completion.
Disposal of Hanford's and DOE Offsite LLW and MLLW--The
decision to be made concerns the onsite location of disposal facilities
for Hanford's waste and other DOE sites' LLW and MLLW. DOE committed in
the HSW EIS ROD that henceforth LLW would be disposed of in lined
trenches. Thus, the decision would concern whether to dispose of the
waste in the 200-West Area or at the Integrated Disposal Facility in
the 200-East Area.
Final Decontamination and Decommissioning of the FFTF--The
decision would identify the final end state for the above-ground,
below-ground, and ancillary support structures.
VI. Potential Range of Alternatives
Six alternatives were originally proposed for TC EIS and are listed
below. The initial scope of the TC EIS was provided in the January 2003
NOI and at each public scoping meeting.
No Action Alternative, which was to implement the 1997
TWRS EIS ROD;
Implement the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD with Modifications;
Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste
Disposal;
Clean Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste
Disposal;
Accelerated Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Waste
Disposal; and
Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal.
Onsite disposal would include immobilized LAW, LLW, and MLLW
resulting from tank retrieval and treatment. Offsite disposal of HLW
would occur at Yucca Mountain. No determination has been made as to
whether any of the tanks contain TRU waste. If it is determined that
any tank waste is TRU waste, offsite disposal at WIPP would be
appropriate, provided the required approvals from EPA and the New
Mexico Environment Department were obtained.
As a result of the 2003 scoping for the TC EIS, a number of changes
are being made to those identified in the NOI. The major changes are:
The No Action Alternative was modified to address a
traditional ``no action'' rather than the action from the TWRS EIS ROD;
The alternative addressing implementation of the 1997 TWRS
EIS ROD was modified to address both the currently planned
vitrification capacity and the currently planned capacity supplemented
with additional vitrification capacity as the supplemental treatment;
A partial tank removal option was added, which analyzes
leaving some of the SSTs in place and exhuming the SSTs completely in
the SX and BX tank farms;
The Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite
Waste Disposal Alternative has been modified to more clearly evaluate
the No Separations (of HLW and LAW waste) with Onsite Storage and
Offsite Disposal Alternative; and
A suboption has been added to both the All Vitrification
with Separations and All Vitrification/No Separations (of HLW and LAW
waste) Alternatives to address closure of the cribs and trenches
proximal to tanks within identified waste management areas in place as
opposed to removing them.
For Hanford and offsite LLW and MLLW analyzed in the HSW EIS, DOE
proposes to simplify the alternatives. Both waste types would be
disposed of in lined trenches. DOE plans to update the volumes to be
disposed of, approximating those volumes for offsite waste in the 2004
HSW EIS ROD, and to update the waste information. DOE also intends to
update the transportation analysis of shipping offsite waste to Hanford
for disposal. The onsite disposal alternatives are:
Construction of a new disposal facility in the 200-West
Area burial grounds; and
Construction of new LLW and MLLW capacity in the
Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200-East Area.
For the FFTF, the 2004 NOI identified three alternatives as listed
below.
No Action--actions consistent with previous DOE NEPA
decisions would be completed; final decommissioning would not occur.
Entombment--above-ground structures would be
decontaminated and dismantled, below-ground structures would be grouted
and left in place.
Removal--above-ground structures would be decontaminated
and dismantled, below-ground structures would be removed and disposed
of at Hanford.
VII. Potential Environmental Issues for Analysis
The following issues have been tentatively identified for analysis
in the TC & WM EIS. This list is presented to facilitate comment on the
scope of the TC & WM EIS, but is not intended to be all-inclusive or to
predetermine potential impacts of any alternative.
Effects on the public and onsite workers of radiological
and nonradiological material releases during normal operations and
reasonably foreseeable accidents;
Long-term risks to human populations resulting from waste
disposal and residual tank system wastes;
Effects on air and water quality of normal operations and
reasonably foreseeable accidents, including long-term impacts on
groundwater;
Cumulative effects, including impacts of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at Hanford, including past
discharges to cribs and trenches, groundwater remediation activities,
activities subject to TPA requirements and cleanup activities under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act;
Effects on endangered species, archaeological/cultural/
historical sites, floodplains and wetlands, and priority habitat;
Effects of on- and offsite transportation and of
reasonably
[[Page 5659]]
foreseeable transportation accidents; and
Socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities.
VIII. Public Scoping
DOE invites Federal agencies, American Indian tribal nations, state
and local governments, and the general public to comment on the scope
of the planned TC & WM EIS. Information on the scoping comment period
is provided in the DATES section above. Comments previously submitted
in response to the 2003 NOI for the TC EIS and the 2004 NOI for the
FFTF EIS are being considered and need not be resubmitted.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2006.
John Spitaleri Shaw,
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health.
Appendix A--Related National Environmental Policy Act Documents
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, Washington; 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, Washington; 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, Washington; Record of
Decision,'' Federal Register.
62 FR 8693, 1997, ``Record of Decision for the Tank Waste
Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,'' Federal
Register.
63 FR 3624, 1998, ``Record of Decision for the Department of
Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase,'' Federal
Register.
63 FR 3629, 1998, ``Record of Decision for the Department of
Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of
Transuranic Waste,'' Federal Register.
65 FR 10061, 2000, ``Record of Decision for the Department of
Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low-
Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Amendment to the Record of
Decision for the Nevada Test Site,'' Federal Register.
69 FR 39449, 2004, ``Record of Decision for the Solid Waste
Program, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington: Storage and Treatment
of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level
Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste, and Storage, Processing, and
Certification of Transuranic Waste for Shipment to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant, Federal Register.
DOE/EA-0479, 1990, Collecting Crust Samples from Level Detectors
in Tank 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-0993, 1995, Shutdown of the Fast Flux Test Facility,
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington and Finding of No Significant
Impact.
DOE/EA-0981, 1995, Environmental Assessment--Solid Waste
Retrieval Complex, Enhanced Radioactive and Mixed Waste Storage
Facility, Infrastructure Upgrades, and Central Waste Support
Complex, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of
Energy, Richland Operations Office, 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, Hanford Site, Richland,
Washington, 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, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0212, 1995, Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank
Wastes--Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of
Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, and
Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0189, 1996, Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington, Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S.
Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland,
Washington, and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington.
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, Richland Operations
Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0189-SA3, 2001, Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste
Remediation System, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations
Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0200, 1997, Final Waste Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC.
DOE/EIS-0026-S-2, 1997, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal
Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement II, U.S.
Department of Energy, Carlsbad, New Mexico.
DOE/EIS-0222, 1999, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan
Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland
Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS-0310, 2000, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy
Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the
United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility.
DOE/EIS-0250, 2002, Final 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, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, North Las
Vegas, Nevada.
DOE/EIS-0287, 2002, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities
Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of
Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
DOE/EIS-0286, 2004, Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and
Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement, Richland,
Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office,
Richland, Washington.
[[Page 5660]]
DOH Publication 320-031, 2004, Final Environmental Impact
Statement--Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site,
Richland, Washington, Washington State Department of Health,
Olympia, Washington, and Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, Washington.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2006, Report of the Review of the
Hanford Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Data
Quality, Control and Management Issues, Washington, DC.
[FR Doc. E6-1404 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
