Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, 75913-75919 [2013-29734]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite
10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703)
603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
After consideration of the relevant
matter presented, the Committee has
determined that the product listed
below is no longer suitable for
procurement by the Federal Government
under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR
51–2.4.
Addition
On 6/28/2013 (78 FR 38952–38953),
the Committee for Purchase From
People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled published notice of proposed
addition to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material
presented to it concerning capability of
qualified nonprofit agency to provide
the service and impact of the addition
on the current or most recent
contractors, the Committee has
determined that the service listed below
is suitable for procurement by the
Federal Government under 41 U.S.C.
8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
I certify that the following action will
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The major factors considered for this
certification were:
1. The action will not result in
additional reporting, recordkeeping or
other compliance requirements for small
entities.
2. The action may result in
authorizing small entities to furnish the
product to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory
alternatives which would accomplish
the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in
connection with the product deleted
from the Procurement List.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
I certify that the following action will
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The major factors considered for this
certification were:
1. The action will not result in any
additional reporting, recordkeeping or
other compliance requirements for small
entities other than the small
organization that will provide the
service to the Government.
2. The action will result in
authorizing small entities to provide the
service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory
alternatives which would accomplish
the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in
connection with the service proposed
for addition to the Procurement List.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
End of Certification
Accordingly, the following service is
added to the Procurement List:
Service
Service Type/Location: Custodial and
Landscaping Service, GSA, PBS,
Region 7, Tornillo-Guadalupe Land
Port of Entry, 1400 Lower Island
Road, Tornillo, TX
NPA: Training, Rehabilitation, &
Development Institute, Inc., San
Antonio, TX
Contracting Activity: General Services
Administration, Fort Worth, TX
Deletion
On 11/1/2013 (78 FR 65618), the
Committee for Purchase From People
Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
published notice of proposed deletion
from the Procurement List.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:32 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
End of Certification
Accordingly, the following product is
deleted from the Procurement List:
Product
NSN: 7930–01–367–0989—Cleaner,
Water Soluble
NPA: Association for the Blind and
Visually Impaired—Goodwill
Industries of Greater Rochester,
Rochester, NY
Contracting Activity: General Services
Administration, Fort Worth, TX
Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013–29751 Filed 12–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Final Tank Closure and Waste
Management Environmental Impact
Statement for the Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington
Department of Energy.
Record of Decision.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This is the first in a series of
Records of Decision (RODs) to be issued
by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
pursuant to the Final Tank Closure and
Waste Management Environmental
Impact Statement for the Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington (TC&WM EIS,
DOE/EIS–0391, December 2012). In this
EIS, DOE considered alternatives for
proposed actions in three major areas:
(1) Storing, retrieving, and treating
radioactive waste from 177 underground
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75913
storage tanks (149 Single-Shell Tanks
[SSTs] and 28 Double Shell Tanks
[DSTs]) at Hanford, and closure of the
149 SSTs; (2) decommissioning of the
Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) and its
auxiliary facilities; and (3) continued
and expanded waste management
operations on site, including the
disposal of Hanford’s low-level
radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed lowlevel radioactive waste (MLLW), and
limited volumes of LLW and MLLW
from other DOE sites. The Final
TC&WM EIS includes No Action
alternatives to the proposed actions in
each of the three major areas, as
required under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
DOE’s decisions described herein
pertain to all three major areas. DOE
intends to issue subsequent RODs as
identified under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
For copies of this ROD, the
Final TC&WM EIS, or any related NEPA
documents, please contact:
Ms. Mary Beth Burandt, NEPA
Document Manager, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of River Protection,
P.O. Box 1178, Richland, Washington
99352, 1–509–372–8828, mary_e_
burandt@orp.doe.gov.
This ROD and the Final TC&WM EIS
are available on the DOE NEPA Web site
at: www.energy.gov/nepa and on the
Hanford Web site at: https://
www.hanford.gov/
index.cfm?page=1117&.
ADDRESSES:
For
further information about the Final
TC&WM EIS and ROD, contact Ms.
Burandt as listed above.
For general information on DOE’s
NEPA process, contact:
Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office
of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC–
54, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC 20585–0103,
Telephone: (202) 586–4600, or leave a
message at 1–800–472–2756, or email
askNEPA@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
The Hanford site, located in
southeastern Washington State along the
Columbia River, is approximately 586
square miles in size. Hanford’s mission
from the early 1940s to approximately
1989 included defense-related nuclear
research, development, and weapons
production activities. These activities
created a wide variety of chemical and
radioactive wastes. Hanford’s mission
now is focused on the cleanup and
remediation of those wastes and
ultimate closure of the site. An
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
75914
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
important part of the mission includes
the retrieval and treatment of waste
from 177 underground radioactive waste
storage tanks, including 149 SSTs and
28 DSTs, and closure of the SSTs.
Hanford’s mission also includes
radioactive waste management on the
site and decommissioning and closure
of the FFTF, a nuclear test reactor that
has been designated for closure (66 FR
7877, January 26, 2001).
The Final EIS implements the January
6, 2006, Settlement Agreement (as
amended on June 5, 2008) signed by
DOE, the Washington State Department
of Ecology (Ecology), the Washington
State Attorney General’s Office, and the
U.S. Department of Justice. That
agreement settles NEPA claims made 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 Environmental Impact
Statement, Richland, Washington (HSW
EIS, DOE/EIS–0286, February 13, 2004).
The agreement also stipulates that the
TC&WM EIS and its RODs supersede the
HSW EIS and its ROD (69 FR 39449,
June 30, 2004).
In addition, this TC&WM EIS ROD
amends the 1997 Tank Waste
Remediation System ROD (TWRS ROD,
62 FR 8693, February 26, 1997).
Information on the 1997 TWRS ROD
and three subsequent TWRS EIS
Supplement Analyses 1 can be found in
the Final TC&WM EIS (Chapter 1,
Section 1.2.3). In the third TWRS
Supplement Analysis, DOE determined
that Phase I of the TWRS project, the
initial demonstration facility, was not
substantially different from the facilities
identified in the Phased Implementation
Alternative selected in the TWRS EIS
ROD. The TWRS ROD is hereby
amended, and the Phase II facility will
not be constructed. The TC&WM EIS
analysis of supplemental treatment
capacity for low-activity waste (LAW)
from chemical separation of the tank
waste is consistent with the Phase I
concept as stated in the TWRS ROD.
To support its decision making for the
needed actions described below, DOE
prepared the TC&WM EIS pursuant to
NEPA and in accordance with the
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) and DOE NEPA implementing
regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508; 10
1 DOE/EIS–0189–SA1 ‘‘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’’ May 1997
DOE/EIS–0189–SA2 ‘‘Supplement Analysis for the
Tank Waste Remediation System’’ May 1998 DOE/
EIS–0189–SA3 ‘‘Supplement Analysis for the Tank
Waste Remediation System’’ March 2001
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:32 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
CFR Part 1021). The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and Ecology
were cooperating agencies on the
TC&WM EIS. DOE held a public
comment period on the Draft TC&WM
EIS, extending from October 30, 2009,
through May 3, 2010, with public
hearings in Washington, Oregon, and
Idaho. DOE considered all public
comments received in preparing the
Final TC&WM EIS, which was issued in
December 2012 and includes DOE’s
responses to those comments.
In September 2013, DOE issued a
Draft Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval,
Treatment, and Disposition Framework
(Framework). The Framework is not a
proposal or a decision document.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
DOE needs to accomplish the
following objectives:
• Safely retrieve and treat radioactive,
hazardous, and mixed tank waste; close
the SST system; and store and/or
dispose of the waste generated from
these activities. Further, DOE needs to
treat the waste and close the SST system
in a manner that complies with
applicable Federal and Washington
State laws and DOE directives to protect
human health and the environment.
Long-term actions are required to
permanently reduce the risk to human
health and the environment posed by
waste in the 149 SSTs and 28 DSTs.
• Decommission FFTF and its
support facilities at Hanford, manage
waste associated with decommissioning
the facilities, and manage disposition of
the radioactively contaminated bulk
sodium inventory at Hanford. These
actions are necessary to facilitate
cleanup at Hanford in compliance with
Federal, state, and local laws and
regulations.
• Expand or upgrade existing waste
storage, treatment, and disposal capacity
at Hanford to support ongoing and
planned waste management activities
for LLW and MLLW generated at
Hanford and from other DOE sites; some
tank waste; and FFTF decommissioning
waste.
Alternatives Considered
Tank Closure
Under the Tank Closure Alternatives,
DOE evaluated each of the primary tank
closure components, specifically,
storage, retrieval, treatment, and
disposal of tank waste and closure of the
SST system.
• Alternative 1: No Action.
Alternative 1 is based on the No Action
Alternative presented in the TWRS EIS,
updated to reflect actions taken (interim
stabilization of the SSTs) and new
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
information developed since the TWRS
EIS was issued, including additional
consideration of the past leak inventory
associated with the Hanford 200-East
and 200-West Area tank farms.
• Alternative 2: Implement the TWRS
EIS ROD with Modifications. Alternative
2 considers all vitrification treatment
with retrieval of 99 percent of the waste
from SSTs in accordance with the
TWRS EIS ROD and the three
supplement analyses completed through
2001. Two sub-alternatives were
separately evaluated. Under Alternative
2A, waste would be treated using the
existing Waste Treatment Plant (WTP)
configuration, but the SST system
would not be closed. Under Alternative
2B, WTP current configuration capacity
for producing vitrified, i.e.,
immobilized, LAW glass (referred to
herein as ILAW) from WTP would be
expanded; technetium-99 would be
removed from the WTP LAW stream
during the pretreatment process 2 and
the SST system would be closed as
landfill closure under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and covered with an engineered,
modified RCRA Subtitle C barrier, a
multi-layer barrier designed to provide
500-year protection.
• Alternative 3: Existing WTP
Vitrification with Supplemental
Treatment Technology; Landfill Closure.
Alternative 3 includes retrieval of 99
percent of the waste from SSTs. Under
Alternative 3A, the waste would be
treated using the existing WTP
configuration supplemented with
thermal treatment capacity (bulk
vitrification). Under Tank Closure
Alternative 3B, the waste would be
treated using the existing WTP
configuration supplemented with
nonthermal treatment capacity (cast
stone). Under Alternative 3B,
technetium-99 would be removed from
the LAW stream during pretreatment
and incorporated into the high-level
radioactive waste (HLW) stream for
immobilization and off-site disposal.
Under Alternative 3C, the waste would
be treated using the existing WTP
configuration supplemented with
thermal treatment capacity (steam
reforming). The SST system would be
closed as a landfill and covered with an
engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C
barrier. There would be separate
treatment of candidate tank mixed
transuranic (TRU) waste 3 under all
2 Under Tank Closure Alternatives 2 through 6
and the sub-alternatives within them, the contents
of the cesium (Cs) and strontium (Sr) capsules
currently stored on site would be treated in the
WTP.
3 For Tank Closure Alternatives 3 through 5, the
TC&WM EIS evaluated treatment of the tank waste
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices
three sub-alternatives, as described in
the TC&WM EIS.
• Alternative 4: Existing WTP
Vitrification with Supplemental
Treatment Technologies; Selective
Clean Closure/Landfill Closure.
Alternative 4 includes retrieval of 99.9
percent of the waste from SSTs. Waste
would be treated using the existing WTP
configuration supplemented with
thermal treatment capacity (bulk
vitrification) and nonthermal treatment
capacity (cast stone). There would be
separate treatment of the candidate tank
mixed TRU waste, as described in the
TC&WM EIS. Under this alternative,
technetium-99 removal would not occur
as part of WTP pretreatment. Tank farms
BX and SX would be clean closed,
which means the tanks, ancillary
equipment, and contaminated soil
would be removed, and the remaining
tank farms would be closed as landfills
and covered with an engineered
modified RCRA Subtitle C barrier.
• Alternative 5: Expanded WTP
Vitrification with Supplemental
Treatment Technologies; Landfill
Closure. Alternative 5 includes retrieval
of 90 percent of the waste from SSTs.
WTP current configuration capacity for
producing ILAW glass would be
expanded and supplemented with
thermal treatment capacity (bulk
vitrification) and nonthermal treatment
capacity (cast stone). Under this
alternative, no technetium-99 removal
would occur as part of WTP
pretreatment; however, a sulfate
removal process would allow higher
waste loading in the ILAW glass. There
would be separate treatment of the
candidate tank mixed TRU waste as
described in the TC&WM EIS. The SST
system would be closed as a landfill and
covered with an engineered Hanford
barrier, a multi-layer barrier designed to
provide 1,000-year protection.
• Alternative 6: All Waste as Vitrified
HLW. Under Alternative 6, all vitrified
waste produced in the WTP would be
managed as immobilized HLW (IHLW).
Alternative 6A includes retrieval of 99.9
percent of the waste from SSTs and
vitrification in the WTP using an
expanded IHLW production capacity.
The SST system would be clean closed.4
Alternative 6B includes retrieval of 99.9
percent of the waste from SSTs,
pretreatment in the WTP, separation
into HLW and LAW streams, and
vitrification into IHLW and ILAW glass.
stream associated with the candidate TRU waste as
both TRU waste and HLW.
4 Clean closure means the removal or remediation
of all hazardous waste from a given RCRA-regulated
unit so that further regulatory control under RCRA
Subtitle C is not necessary to protect human health
and the environment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:32 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
Both vitrified waste streams would be
managed as HLW. The SST system
would be clean closed. Alternative 6C
includes retrieval of 99 percent of the
waste from the SSTs. Like Alternative
6B, this waste would be pretreated in
the WTP, and vitrified into IHLW and
ILAW glass. Both vitrified waste streams
would be managed as HLW. The SST
system would be closed as a landfill and
covered with an engineered modified
RCRA Subtitle C barrier. Under all Tank
Closure Alternative 6 sub-alternatives
listed above (6A, 6B, and 6C), the
resulting IHLW and ILAW glass would
be stored in IHLW Interim Storage
Modules and managed as IHLW pending
ultimate disposition.
Fast Flux Test Facility Decommissioning
• FFTF Alternative 1: No Action.
Under Alternative 1, the FFTF Reactor
Containment Building (RCB), along with
the rest of the buildings within the 400
Area Property Protected Area, would be
maintained under 100 years of
administrative controls (site security
and management). Activities under the
Environmental Assessment, Sodium
Residuals Reaction/Removal and Other
Deactivation Work Activities (DOE/EA–
1547, March 2006) would be completed.
The reactor vessel, piping systems, and
tanks would be left in place under an
inert gas blanket and Remote Handled
Special Components (RH–SCs) would be
stored. Spent nuclear fuel would be
removed, and systems not associated
with maintaining safety-related
functions would be deactivated or deenergized and isolated according to the
deactivation plans.
• FFTF Alternative 2: Entombment.
Under Alternative 2, all above-grade
structures around the main FFTF RCB
and two adjacent support facilities
would be dismantled. Demolition waste
would be consolidated in below-grade
spaces and stabilized with grout.
RH–SCs would be removed and treated
at either Hanford or the Idaho National
Laboratory (INL), and then be disposed
of at Hanford in an Integrated Disposal
Facility (IDF) or at the Nevada National
Security Site, depending on the
treatment option selected. An
engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C
barrier would be constructed over the
filled area. For both FFTF Alternative 2
and 3 Hanford’s bulk sodium inventory
would be converted to a caustic sodium
hydroxide solution for reuse at Hanford.
• FFTF Alternative 3: Removal.
Under Alternative 3, all above-grade
structures around the main RCB and the
two adjacent support facilities would be
dismantled. The RCB would be
demolished to grade and the support
facilities to below grade. Contaminated
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75915
demolition waste would be disposed of
at Hanford in an IDF. The reactor vessel,
its internal piping and equipment, and
its attached depleted-uranium shielding
would be filled with grout, removed,
packed, and disposed of in an IDF. All
other radioactively contaminated
equipment and hazardous materials also
would be removed for disposal.
Waste Management
• Alternative 1: No Action.
Alternative 1 evaluates continued
storage of LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste
at the Central Waste Complex (CWC),
Waste Receiving and Processing Facility
(WRAP), and T Plant in the 200-West
Area, with no expanded storage capacity
required. At the CWC, the LLW and
MLLW would be processed for disposal
in Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial
Grounds (LLBGs) Trenches 31 and 34.
These trenches are the only lined
trenches in the LLBGs and would
receive on-site ‘‘non-CERCLA,’’ 5 nontank LLW and MLLW until this waste
stream is no longer generated. TRU
waste would be shipped to and
disposed of in the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New
Mexico.
• Alternative 2: Disposal in IDF, 200East Area Only. Alternative 2 evaluates
continued storage and processing of
LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste using
existing and expanded capabilities at
the CWC, WRAP, and T Plant. In Waste
Management Alternative 2, disposal of
LLW and MLLW in LLBGs Trenches 31
and 34 would continue until they are
filled. Routine shipments of TRU waste
for disposal at WIPP would continue.
Also under Alternative 2, DOE analyzed
the construction and operation of an IDF
in 200-East, and the proposed River
Protection Project Disposal Facility
(RPPDF) would be constructed and
operated in the 200 Area. The IDF-East
would accept waste from tank treatment
operations, onsite non-CERCLA sources,
FFTF decommissioning, waste
management, and MLLW and LLW from
other DOE sites. Waste from tank farm
cleanup operations would be disposed
of in the proposed RPPDF. After closure,
these disposal facilities would be
covered with engineered modified
RCRA Subtitle C barriers.
• Waste Management Alternative 3:
Disposal in IDF, 200-East and 200-West
Areas. Alternative 3 is similar to
Alternative 2 for Waste Management,
except in Alternative 3, an IDF would
5 ‘‘Non-CERCLA’’ waste refers to remediation
waste not regulated under the Comprehensive
Environmental Restoration, Compensation and
Liability Act. CERCLA waste is disposed of in the
existing Environmental Restoration Disposal
Facility on site.
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
75916
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices
also be constructed and operated in the
200-West Area. IDF-East would be used
for disposal of tank waste only; IDFWest would be used for disposal of onsite waste not generated from
remediation activities and off-site LLW
and MLLW, as well as FFTF
decommissioning and waste
management wastes. After closure, these
disposal facilities would be covered
with engineered modified RCRA
Subtitle C barriers.
Environmentally Preferred Alternatives
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Tank Closure
SST Closure—Clean closure is the
environmentally preferred alternative
when considering only long-term
groundwater impacts, e.g., impacts that
may be incurred during the period after
closure of a facility. In terms of land
resources, clean closure may allow
future use of the tank system area, but,
unlike all other Tank Closure
alternatives, would require significant
new, permanent land disturbance for
new facilities to treat, store, and dispose
of waste. The Tank Closure No Action
alternative is the environmentally
preferred alternative when considering
only short-term impacts, e.g., those that
may be incurred during the operational
period through facility closure. Such
impacts include worker dose, land
disturbance, and electrical use. Clean
closure of the SST system compared
with landfill closure would have the
following potentially adverse short-term
impacts: total land commitments would
increase twofold, electrical use would
increase by one order of magnitude,
geologic resource requirements would
increase as much as fivefold, sagebrush
habitat affected would increase by as
much as two orders of magnitude,
radiation worker population dose from
normal operations would increase over
twofold, LLW and MLLW generation
volumes would increase threefold, and
total Occupational Safety and Health
Administration recordable cases would
increase as much as fivefold.
FFTF
FFTF Alternative 2 Entombment and
Alternative 3 Removal are both
environmentally preferred. The longterm analysis shows that the inventory
remaining for the two alternatives is
relatively small. Results for both
alternatives show the groundwater
impacts for the constituents of concern
to be below the maximum contaminant
levels under the Safe Drinking Water
Act at the fence line of the FFTF facility.
Short-term impacts for the land, water,
transportation and socioeconomic
analysis areas would be slightly smaller
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:32 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
for FFTF Alternative 2 Entombment.
However, the air analysis and
construction impacts would be slightly
larger for the FFTF Alternative 2
Entombment.
Waste Management
Waste Management Alternatives 2 and
3 are both environmentally preferred.
Short-term environmental impacts are
projected to be very similar for these
two waste management alternatives
with no differences between impact
areas. Long-term impacts analysis
indicates that IDF-West may not
perform as well as IDF-East, even when
the infiltration rate is assumed to be
equal for both facilities.
Preferred Alternatives
In accordance with CEQ guidance, the
preferred alternative is the alternative
that the agency believes would fulfill its
statutory mission while giving
consideration to environmental,
economic, technical, and other factors.
DOE identified its preferred alternative
for each of the three major sets of
actions evaluated in the Final TC&WM
EIS. The preferred alternatives are
identified in the Final TC&WM EIS
Summary, Section S.7, Preferred
Alternative, TC&WM EIS Chapter 2,
Section 2.12, and a Federal Register
notice referenced below, and
summarized in the following
paragraphs.
As stated in the Final TC&WM EIS, for
the actions related to tank waste
retrieval, treatment and closure, DOE
prefers Tank Closure Alternative 2B,
without removing technetium in the
Pretreatment Facility. Tank Closure
Alternative 2B includes 99 percent
retrieval of waste by volume from the
SSTs; leak detection monitoring and
routine maintenance; new and existing
storage facilities; operations and
necessary maintenance, waste transfers
and associated operations, and upgrades
to existing tanks or construction of
waste receipt facilities. Tank waste
treatment includes pretreatment of all
tank waste, with separation into LAW
and HLW. New evaporation capacity,
upgrades to the Effluent Treatment
Facility (ETF), new transfer lines and
processing of both vitrified LAW and
secondary waste for disposal are part of
tank waste treatment. Disposal activities
include disposal of LAW on site and
construction of IHLW Interim Storage
Modules. SST closure operations
include filling the tanks and ancillary
equipment with grout to immobilize the
residual waste. Disposal of
contaminated equipment and soil would
occur on site. Decisions on the extent of
soil removal or treatment,, would be
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
made on a tank farm or waste
management area basis through the
RCRA closure permitting process. The
tanks would be stabilized, and an
engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C
barrier put in place followed by postclosure care.
DOE does not have a preferred
alternative regarding supplemental
treatment for LAW; DOE believes it is
beneficial to study further the potential
cost, safety, and environmental
performance of supplemental treatment
technologies. When DOE is ready to
identify its preferred alternative
regarding supplemental treatment for
LAW, it will provide a notice of its
preferred alternative in the Federal
Register.
DOE identified its preference to
consider options for retrieving, treating,
and disposing of the candidate TRU
waste evaluated in the TC&WM EIS and
further clarified this preference in a
Federal Register notice issued March
11, 2013 (78 FR 15358). As stated in that
notice, DOE prefers to retrieve, treat,
package, characterize and certify the
wastes that are properly and legally
classified as mixed TRU waste for
disposal at WIPP. Initiating retrieval of
tank waste for disposition as mixed TRU
waste would be contingent on, among
other things, DOE’s obtaining the
applicable and necessary permits,
ensuring that the WIPP Waste
Acceptance Criteria and all other
applicable regulatory requirements are
met, and making a determination that
the waste is properly classified as mixed
TRU waste. DOE is not deciding to
implement its preferred or any other
alternative associated with this matter
in this ROD.
As stated in the Final TC&WM EIS, for
FFTF Decommissioning, DOE’s
preference is for Alternative 2
Entombment, which would remove all
above-grade structures, including the
reactor building. Below-grade structures
would remain in place and be filled
with grout to immobilize the remaining
radioactive and hazardous constituents,
then covered with an RCRA-compliant
barrier. The RH–SCs would be
processed at INL and returned to
Hanford, while bulk sodium inventories
would be processed at Hanford for use
in the WTP.
For waste management, DOE’s
preference is for a single IDF in 200East; the RPPDF is also included, as are
upgrades to several waste management
facilities as described above. The
disposal facilities would be closed with
RCRA-compliant barriers. As stated in
the Final TC&WM EIS, DOE would
continue to defer the importation of offsite waste at Hanford, at least until the
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
WTP is operational. Any future decision
to import off-site waste will be subject
to appropriate NEPA review. The
limitations and exemptions defined in
DOE’s January 6, 2006, Settlement
Agreement with the State of Washington
(as amended on June 5, 2008) in the case
of State of Washington v. Bodman (Civil
No. 2:03–cv–05018–AAM), will remain
in place.
Public Comments on the Final TC&WM
EIS
DOE received six letters regarding the
Final TC&WM EIS, which were
considered in developing this ROD.
These letters were from the following
organizations: Confederated Tribes and
Bands of the Yakama Nation; the Nez
Perce Tribe; the Oregon Department of
Energy; the Hanford Advisory Board;
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10; and a joint letter signed by
the Natural Resource Defense Council,
Hanford Challenge and Southwest
Research and Information Center. Many
of these comments are similar to those
previously provided on the Draft
TC&WM EIS and were discussed in the
Comment Response Document of the
Final TC&WM EIS.
The Confederated Tribes and Bands of
the Yakama Nation disagreed with
DOE’s position on: Open and unclaimed
lands at Hanford; the reliance on
barriers and institutional controls to
reduce risk; closure of the tank farms;
DOE’s application and consideration of
the Tribal Scenarios; and groundwater
modeling. DOE recognizes the concerns
with long-term site use and restrictions
which may be required to protect longterm human health and the
environment. DOE reviewed several
closure configurations in the TC&WM
EIS and made its decision based on a
thorough evaluation of both short-and
long-term risks, technical practicability
and cost. DOE evaluated three different
tribal exposure scenarios in the Final
TC&WM EIS. One represented an
exposure scenario agreed to between
DOE and the three Tribes (the
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe,
and the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)) in
January 2005, which was evaluated in
the Draft TC&WM EIS. In response to
public comment from the Tribes, DOE
revisited two other Tribal scenarios, the
Yakama Nation Exposure Scenario for
Hanford Site Risk Assessment,
September 2007; and the Exposure
Scenario for the CTUIR Traditional
Subsistence Lifeways, September 2004.
With respect to Tribal concerns about
groundwater modeling, such as
unproductive portions of the aquifer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:32 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
and uncertainty in selected actions,
DOE carefully considered the comments
and, as a result, made appropriate
changes to inventory and data reporting
and presentation as described in the
Supplement Analysis of the ‘‘Draft Tank
Closure and Waste Management
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington’’
(DOE/EIS–0391–SA–01, February 2012).
The Yakama Nation expressed concern
over unaccounted and unexplained
revenue needs for supplemental
technologies and future funding
constraints. DOE has provided cost
estimates of the alternatives evaluated
in the TC&WM EIS (Section 2.11) to
inform and support funding requests in
the future. The Yakama Nation also
expressed concern that there was no
preferred alternative for the WTP
secondary waste stream. DOE did
include secondary waste streams in the
Final EIS preferred alternative.
The Oregon Department of Energy
expressed dissatisfaction with many of
DOE’s responses in the Final TC&WM
EIS to their comments during the public
comment period on the Draft TC&WM
EIS and stated that DOE had
misrepresented the comments. The
dissatisfaction largely appears to be
related to DOE’s rejection of Oregon’s
proposal to analyze a new tank waste
alternative. In considering Oregon’s
comments, DOE concluded, as
acknowledged in Oregon’s letter, that
Oregon’s proposal merely contained a
different combination of very similar
actions to those DOE was already
analyzing in other alternatives. That is,
DOE concluded that the alternatives
evaluated in the TC&WM EIS included
all of the elements in the Oregon
proposal except in cases such as soil
remediation beneath the tanks,
remediation of cribs and trenches, and
use of iron phosphate glass and
fractional crystallization to remove
hazardous constituents. DOE notes that
remediation actions such as those for
contaminated groundwater at Hanford
are ongoing in accordance with
CERCLA. DOE included its assumptions
about the efficacy of such remediation
actions in Chapter 7 and Appendix U of
the Final TC&WM EIS for the purposes
of analysis only in order to better inform
specific tank-related decisions. In the
Final TC&WM EIS, DOE explained in its
response to Oregon’s comment
regarding iron phosphate and fractional
crystallization that these technologies
were not sufficiently mature for
practical consideration in the
evaluations. On the other hand, DOE
added a number of features of the
Oregon proposal to the Final TC&WM
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75917
EIS: additional tank waste storage
capacity, dry storage of cesium and
strontium capsules, on-site interim
storage of IHLW and the concept of riskbased decisions on tank farm closures.
The letter from Oregon also included
comments on Ecology’s views on a
number of issues, and DOE will work
with Oregon and Ecology to consider
Oregon’s perspectives in developing
tank-related strategies that are
appropriately protective of health and
the environment at Hanford.
EPA’s comments on the Final
TC&WM EIS included support for many
aspects of DOE’s preferred alternative
for tank closure, accompanied by
concern regarding treatment of
contamination in the vadose zone and
potential impacts to groundwater. EPA
recommended that DOE consider
including opportunities for public
comment in developing a Mitigation
Action Plan. EPA also expressed a need
for additional NEPA analyses for a
future decision on supplemental
treatment of LAW. In the Final TC&WM
EIS, DOE included changes as a result
of comments received during the 185day public comment period, including
mitigation actions which could be
taken. Mitigation actions, such as
potential soil remediation for SST
closure identified in the Final TC&WM
EIS preferred alternative that are subject
to RCRA permitting, will involve a
public comment process. When DOE is
ready to identify its preferred alternative
regarding supplemental treatment for
LAW, DOE intends to follow established
NEPA regulations and guidance and
conduct the appropriate NEPA review.
The Nez Perce Tribe expressed
concerns regarding the NEPA process in
relation to DOE policies associated with
consultation and communication with
the Tribes. The Nez Perce Tribe
acknowledged its involvement in the
EIS development process and that the
Tribe offered many perspectives on the
document. The Nez Perce expressed
concerns that DOE did not effectively
utilize DOE’s policies to consult with
the Tribe, asked how DOE Order 144.1,
Department of Energy American Indian
Tribal Government Interactions and
Policy, was implemented in the EIS
process and expressed concern that DOE
was ‘‘checking the box’’ during the EIS
process. DOE recognizes there may be
differing perspectives among the parties
on the level of consultation needed for
various activities. In preparing the Final
TC&WM EIS, DOE focused on the
Tribal-specific meetings and specific
Tribal concerns. Information on
communication and consultation with
the Nez Perce Tribe can be found in
Appendix C of the Final TC&WM EIS,
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
75918
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices
while Appendix Q and Appendix W
contain information on the Tribal
Scenarios analyzed. DOE agrees with
the Nez Perce that the Hanford Advisory
Board (HAB) was not a direct Tribal
forum, but DOE believes the Board
provided opportunities for discussion of
the EIS on a broad range of topics, and
DOE considered Tribal participation
and membership on the Board to be an
important element of DOE’s dialogue
with stakeholders.
The HAB requested that DOE not
issue a ROD for 90 days to allow it time
to review the final EIS. Other comments
included support for a decision to build
a second LAW plant and discontinue
funding for bulk vitrification, cast stone
and steam reforming technologies. The
HAB expressed its view that
supplemental waste treatment is needed
to protect the groundwater and meet
environmental regulations. In its tank
closure preferred alternative, DOE has
identified the process it will follow
when it is ready to make a supplemental
treatment decision. See the ‘‘Preferred
Alternative’’ section. DOE agrees with
the HAB’s goals for protecting health
and the environment at Hanford and
will continue to work with the HAB in
achieving these goals.
The Natural Resource Defense
Council, Hanford Challenge and
Southwest Research and Information
Center submitted a joint letter regarding
DOE’s March 11 Federal Register notice
of its preferred alternative related to
candidate TRU tank waste. DOE will
address the letter at the appropriate
time, i.e., should DOE be ready to issue
a ROD addressing these wastes.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Decision
This is the first in a series of RODs
that DOE intends to issue pursuant to
the Final TC&WM EIS. Decisions
announced in this ROD pertain to each
of the three main areas analyzed in the
EIS, i.e. tank closure, FFTF, and waste
management, as follows.
Tank Closure
This TC&WM EIS ROD amends the
1997 TWRS EIS ROD concerning the
decision to construct the WTP. Under
this TC&WM EIS ROD, DOE will not
construct the Phase II plant described in
the 1997 TWRS ROD due to technical
and financial impracticability as
analyzed in the 2001 TWRS Supplement
Analysis.
DOE has decided to implement Tank
Closure Alternative 2B, ‘‘Expanded
WTP Vitrification and Landfill
Closure,’’ without supplemental
treatment at WTP and without
technetium-99 removal in the WTP
Pretreatment facility. Additionally, DOE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:32 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
is not deciding on treatment of the
cesium and strontium capsules in this
ROD; when DOE is ready to make a
decision, it will conduct an appropriate
NEPA review and notify the public.
This ROD includes decisions
involving the following major activities
from Tank Closure Alternative 2B:
Retrieval of 99 percent of the tank waste
by volume; use of liquid-based retrieval
systems; leak detection monitoring and
routine maintenance; new waste
receiver facilities, as needed; additional
storage facilities for canisters;
operations and necessary maintenance,
waste transfers and associated
operations such as use of the ‘‘hose in
hose’’ transfer lines or installation of
new transfer lines, where needed; and
upgrades to existing DST and SST
systems, which includes piping and
other ancillary equipment as needs are
identified. Tank waste treatment
includes pretreatment of all tank waste,
with separation into LAW and HLW.
New evaporation capacity, upgrades to
the ETF, new transfer lines and
processing of both vitrified LAW and
secondary waste for disposal are
included in this decision. Disposal
activities include disposal of LAW
onsite and construction of enough IHLW
Interim Storage Modules to store all the
IHLW generated by WTP treatment prior
to disposal. SST closure operations
include filling the tanks and ancillary
equipment with grout to immobilize the
residual waste. Disposal of
contaminated equipment and soil will
occur on site. The tanks will be grouted
and contaminated soil may be removed.
The SSTs will be landfill-closed, which
means they will be stabilized, and an
engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C
barrier put in place followed by postclosure care.
FFTF
DOE has decided to implement FFTF
Alternative 2 Entombment. The RH–SCs
will have the sodium residuals removed
by treatment at INL and returned to
Hanford for disposal in the IDF. Bulk
sodium inventories located at Hanford
will be converted to caustic sodium
hydroxide in a Sodium Reaction Facility
at Hanford, and then stored for ultimate
use in the WTP.
Waste Management
DOE has decided to implement Waste
Management Alternative 2, which
includes disposal of LLW and MLLW at
IDF-East from tank treatment operations,
waste generated from WTP and ETF
operations, on-site non-CERCLA
sources, FFTF decommissioning waste
and on-site waste management waste.
DOE will construct and operate the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
RPPDF for disposal of tank closure
waste, as needed. Waste management
activities will include continued
operations at existing facilities as well
as expansion of treatment capabilities at
CWC, WRAP, and T plant. DOE will
defer a decision on importing waste
from other DOE sites (with limited
exceptions as described in the
Settlement Agreement with Ecology) for
disposal at Hanford at least until the
WTP is operational.
Basis for the Decision
Consistent with the TWRS EIS ROD,
DOE has determined that it is necessary
to retrieve the 53 million gallons of
waste from the tanks to meet regulatory
requirements, avoid future long-term
releases to the groundwater, and reduce
health impacts to potential inadvertent
intruders into the waste if
administrative control were lost. DOE
has determined, consistent with the
current design and permit that the
construction of WTP and treatment of
the tank waste should proceed without
technetium-99 removal in the WTP
Pretreatment Facility. DOE has also
determined that the tradeoffs regarding
short-term impacts and resources,
including worker exposure, and
technical uncertainties outweigh the
potential groundwater benefits that may
be obtained by clean closure of the SST
system. Therefore, DOE has determined
landfill closure of the SST system,
which would include corrective/
mitigation actions that may require soil
removal or treatment of the vadose zone,
is a more appropriate approach for SST
system closure than clean closure.
DOE will implement FFTF
Alternative 2, Entombment, because this
alternative fulfills the programmatic
objectives for closure of the FFTF
facilities, it is the more cost effective of
the two alternatives, and it is also the
environmentally preferred alternative.
Implementation of FFTF Alternative 2
would result in very low impacts to
human health and the environment.
In order to treat the tank waste in
WTP and implement FFTF Alternative 2
disposal, capacity is needed for waste
generated during those activities. For
economic and operational efficiencies,
DOE has decided to operate one IDF
located in the 200-East Area, instead of
two separate IDFs in 200-East and 200West. In order to process waste
generated during cleanup, upgrades to
site infrastructure such as CWC, WRAP,
and T plant will be implemented as
cleanup progresses and needs for these
upgrades are identified. The IDF
disposal capacity is needed to dispose
of waste from tank waste treatment and
FFTF disposition activities.
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices
Mitigation Measures
In the Final Hanford Comprehensive
Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact
Statement (Hanford Comprehensive
Land-Use Plan EIS (DOE/EIS–0222,
September 1, 1999) DOE identified
specific mitigation measures, policies,
and management controls that direct
land use at Hanford. DOE committed to
these mitigation measures, as
documented in the Hanford
Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS ROD
(64 FR 61615 November 12, 1999),
which were reaffirmed in the
Supplement Analysis, Hanford
Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS
(EIS–0222–SA–02, June 2, 2008) and in
the amended ROD (73 FR 55824,
September 26, 2008). These mitigation
measures will continue to be
implemented, as applicable, for the tank
waste retrieval and treatment activities
discussed in the TC&WM EIS. The
TC&WM EIS did not identify any
mitigation measures for the short-term
resource areas that are needed in
addition to those in the Supplement
Analysis, Hanford Comprehensive Land
Use Plan EIS and its amended ROD.
DOE has continued to evaluate
potential mitigation measures for the
contaminated soil at Hanford for several
years. Most recently, DOE published the
Long-Range Deep Vadose Zone Program
Plan in October 2010. This program
plan summarizes the current state of
knowledge regarding deep vadose zone
remediation challenges beneath the
Central Plateau at Hanford and DOE’s
approach to solving these challenges.
The challenges to implementing deep
vadose zone remediation are the result
of contaminant depth and spread; the
presence of multiple contaminants and
comingled waste chemistries; physical,
chemical, and biological fate and
transport mechanisms; uncertain
contaminant behavior; limited
availability and effectiveness of cleanup
remedies; and the unknown efficacy of
remediation performance over the
periods and spatial scales needed for
making decisions.
Nevertheless, all practicable means to
avoid or minimize environmental harm
for the decisions identified have been
adopted. DOE will prepare and
implement a Mitigation Action Plan to
address long-term impact areas. Longterm mitigation measures related to SST
closure will be refined and presented in
the TC&WM EIS Mitigation Action Plan,
which will be posted on the Hanford
and DOE NEPA Web sites identified in
ADDRESSES. DOE will periodically
revisit and update the Mitigation Action
Plan as appropriate prior to initiating
actions pursuant to this ROD.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:32 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6,
2013.
David Huizenga,
Senior Advisor for Environmental
Management.
[FR Doc. 2013–29734 Filed 12–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–9012–5]
Environmental Impact Statements;
Notice of Availability
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal
Activities, General Information (202)
564–7146 or https://www.epa.gov/
compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact
Statements filed 12/02/2013 through
12/06/2013 pursuant to 40 CFR
1506.9.
Notice
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act
requires that EPA make public its
comments on EISs issued by other
Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters
on EISs are available at: https://
www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/
eisdata.html.
EIS No. 20130356, Final EIS, FRA, MS,
Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning
and Environmental Study, Review
Period Ends: 01/13/2014, Contact:
John Winkle 202–493–6067
EIS No. 20130357, Final EIS, FHWA,
VA, Interstate 66 Corridor Tier 1 Final
Environmental Impact Statement and
Tier 1 Record of Decision, Contact:
John Simkins 804–775–3347. Under
MAP–21 section 1319, FHWA has
issued a single FEIS and ROD.
Therefore, the 30-day wait/review
period under NEPA does not apply to
this action
EIS No. 20130358, Final EIS, FHWA,
VA, Interstate 64 Peninsula, from
Interstate 95 in the City of Richmond
to Interstate 664, Review Period Ends:
01/27/2014, Contact: John Simkins
804–775–3320
EIS No. 20130359, Final EIS, AFS, CA,
Kelsey Peak Timber Sale and
Fuelbreak Project, Review Period
Ends: 01/27/2014, Contact: Jeff Jones
707–441–3553
EIS No. 20130360, Final EIS, USFS, AZ,
Rosemont Copper Project, Proposed
Mining Operation, Review Period
Ends: 01/29/2014, Contact: Mindy
Vogel 520–388–8300
EIS No. 20130361, Draft Supplement,
USACE, MN, NorthMet Mining
Project and Land Exchange, Comment
Period Ends: 03/13/2014, Contact:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75919
Douglas Bruner 651–290–5378. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
Forest Service are joint lead agencies
for the above project.
EIS No. 20130362, Final EIS, USFS, MT,
Montana Snowbowl Expansion,
Review Period Ends: 01/21/2014,
Contact: Tami Paulsen 406–329–3731
EIS No. 20130363, Draft EIS, DOI, 00,
PROGRAMMATIC—Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill Natural Resources
Damage Assessment, Phase III Early
Restoration Plan, Comment Period
Ends: 02/04/2014, Contact: Nanciann
Regalado 678–296–6805
EIS No. 20130364, Final EIS, USFS, OR,
Tollgate Fuels Reduction, Review
Period Ends: 01/13/2014, Contact:
Kimpton Cooper 509–522–6009
EIS No. 20130365, Draft EIS, NMFS, CA,
Bay Delta Conservation Plan,
Comment Period Ends: 04/14/2014,
Contact: Ryan Wulff 916–930–3733
The U.S. Department of the Interior’s
Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of
Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries
Service are joint lead agencies for the
above project.
EIS No. 20130366, Draft EIS, USACE,
LA, PROGRAMMATIC—Southwest
Coastal Louisiana Project, Comment
Period Ends: 01/27/2014, Contact:
Nathan Dayan 504–862–2530
Dated: December 10, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office
of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013–29770 Filed 12–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Sunshine Act Meetings
Pursuant to the provisions of the
‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5
U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that
the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation’s Board of Directors met in
open session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday,
December 10, 2013, to consider the
following matters:
Discussion Agenda: Memorandum
and resolution re: The Resolution of
Systemically Important Financial
Institutions: The Single Point of Entry
Strategy.
In calling the meeting, the Board
determined, on motion of Vice
Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded
by Director Jeremiah O. Norton
(Appointive), concurred in by Director
Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the
Currency), Director Richard Cordray
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75913-75919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29734]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact
Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is the first in a series of Records of Decision (RODs) to
be issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to the Final
Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for
the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC&WM EIS, DOE/EIS-0391,
December 2012). In this EIS, DOE considered alternatives for proposed
actions in three major areas: (1) Storing, retrieving, and treating
radioactive waste from 177 underground storage tanks (149 Single-Shell
Tanks [SSTs] and 28 Double Shell Tanks [DSTs]) at Hanford, and closure
of the 149 SSTs; (2) decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test Facility
(FFTF) and its auxiliary facilities; and (3) continued and expanded
waste management operations on site, including the disposal of
Hanford's low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low-level
radioactive waste (MLLW), and limited volumes of LLW and MLLW from
other DOE sites. The Final TC&WM EIS includes No Action alternatives to
the proposed actions in each of the three major areas, as required
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DOE's decisions
described herein pertain to all three major areas. DOE intends to issue
subsequent RODs as identified under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
ADDRESSES: For copies of this ROD, the Final TC&WM EIS, or any related
NEPA documents, please contact:
Ms. Mary Beth Burandt, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of River Protection, P.O. Box 1178, Richland, Washington
99352, 1-509-372-8828, mary_e_burandt@orp.doe.gov.
This ROD and the Final TC&WM EIS are available on the DOE NEPA Web
site at: www.energy.gov/nepa and on the Hanford Web site at: https://www.hanford.gov/index.cfm?page=1117&.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the
Final TC&WM EIS and ROD, contact Ms. Burandt as listed above.
For general information on DOE's NEPA process, contact:
Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance,
GC-54, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585-0103, Telephone:
(202) 586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756, or email
askNEPA@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Hanford site, located in southeastern Washington State along
the Columbia River, is approximately 586 square miles in size.
Hanford's mission from the early 1940s to approximately 1989 included
defense-related nuclear research, development, and weapons production
activities. These activities created a wide variety of chemical and
radioactive wastes. Hanford's mission now is focused on the cleanup and
remediation of those wastes and ultimate closure of the site. An
[[Page 75914]]
important part of the mission includes the retrieval and treatment of
waste from 177 underground radioactive waste storage tanks, including
149 SSTs and 28 DSTs, and closure of the SSTs. Hanford's mission also
includes radioactive waste management on the site and decommissioning
and closure of the FFTF, a nuclear test reactor that has been
designated for closure (66 FR 7877, January 26, 2001).
The Final EIS implements the January 6, 2006, Settlement Agreement
(as amended on June 5, 2008) signed by DOE, the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology), the Washington State Attorney
General's Office, and the U.S. Department of Justice. That agreement
settles NEPA claims made 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 Environmental Impact
Statement, Richland, Washington (HSW EIS, DOE/EIS-0286, February 13,
2004). The agreement also stipulates that the TC&WM EIS and its RODs
supersede the HSW EIS and its ROD (69 FR 39449, June 30, 2004).
In addition, this TC&WM EIS ROD amends the 1997 Tank Waste
Remediation System ROD (TWRS ROD, 62 FR 8693, February 26, 1997).
Information on the 1997 TWRS ROD and three subsequent TWRS EIS
Supplement Analyses \1\ can be found in the Final TC&WM EIS (Chapter 1,
Section 1.2.3). In the third TWRS Supplement Analysis, DOE determined
that Phase I of the TWRS project, the initial demonstration facility,
was not substantially different from the facilities identified in the
Phased Implementation Alternative selected in the TWRS EIS ROD. The
TWRS ROD is hereby amended, and the Phase II facility will not be
constructed. The TC&WM EIS analysis of supplemental treatment capacity
for low-activity waste (LAW) from chemical separation of the tank waste
is consistent with the Phase I concept as stated in the TWRS ROD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOE/EIS-0189-SA1 ``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'' May 1997 DOE/EIS-0189-SA2
``Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation System'' May
1998 DOE/EIS-0189-SA3 ``Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste
Remediation System'' March 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To support its decision making for the needed actions described
below, DOE prepared the TC&WM EIS pursuant to NEPA and in accordance
with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and DOE NEPA
implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508; 10 CFR Part 1021).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ecology were cooperating
agencies on the TC&WM EIS. DOE held a public comment period on the
Draft TC&WM EIS, extending from October 30, 2009, through May 3, 2010,
with public hearings in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. DOE considered
all public comments received in preparing the Final TC&WM EIS, which
was issued in December 2012 and includes DOE's responses to those
comments.
In September 2013, DOE issued a Draft Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval,
Treatment, and Disposition Framework (Framework). The Framework is not
a proposal or a decision document.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
DOE needs to accomplish the following objectives:
Safely retrieve and treat radioactive, hazardous, and
mixed tank waste; close the SST system; and store and/or dispose of the
waste generated from these activities. Further, DOE needs to treat the
waste and close the SST system in a manner that complies with
applicable Federal and Washington State laws and DOE directives to
protect human health and the environment. Long-term actions are
required to permanently reduce the risk to human health and the
environment posed by waste in the 149 SSTs and 28 DSTs.
Decommission FFTF and its support facilities at Hanford,
manage waste associated with decommissioning the facilities, and manage
disposition of the radioactively contaminated bulk sodium inventory at
Hanford. These actions are necessary to facilitate cleanup at Hanford
in compliance with Federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Expand or upgrade existing waste storage, treatment, and
disposal capacity at Hanford to support ongoing and planned waste
management activities for LLW and MLLW generated at Hanford and from
other DOE sites; some tank waste; and FFTF decommissioning waste.
Alternatives Considered
Tank Closure
Under the Tank Closure Alternatives, DOE evaluated each of the
primary tank closure components, specifically, storage, retrieval,
treatment, and disposal of tank waste and closure of the SST system.
Alternative 1: No Action. Alternative 1 is based on the No
Action Alternative presented in the TWRS EIS, updated to reflect
actions taken (interim stabilization of the SSTs) and new information
developed since the TWRS EIS was issued, including additional
consideration of the past leak inventory associated with the Hanford
200-East and 200-West Area tank farms.
Alternative 2: Implement the TWRS EIS ROD with
Modifications. Alternative 2 considers all vitrification treatment with
retrieval of 99 percent of the waste from SSTs in accordance with the
TWRS EIS ROD and the three supplement analyses completed through 2001.
Two sub-alternatives were separately evaluated. Under Alternative 2A,
waste would be treated using the existing Waste Treatment Plant (WTP)
configuration, but the SST system would not be closed. Under
Alternative 2B, WTP current configuration capacity for producing
vitrified, i.e., immobilized, LAW glass (referred to herein as ILAW)
from WTP would be expanded; technetium-99 would be removed from the WTP
LAW stream during the pretreatment process \2\ and the SST system would
be closed as landfill closure under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and covered with an engineered, modified RCRA
Subtitle C barrier, a multi-layer barrier designed to provide 500-year
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Under Tank Closure Alternatives 2 through 6 and the sub-
alternatives within them, the contents of the cesium (Cs) and
strontium (Sr) capsules currently stored on site would be treated in
the WTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 3: Existing WTP Vitrification with
Supplemental Treatment Technology; Landfill Closure. Alternative 3
includes retrieval of 99 percent of the waste from SSTs. Under
Alternative 3A, the waste would be treated using the existing WTP
configuration supplemented with thermal treatment capacity (bulk
vitrification). Under Tank Closure Alternative 3B, the waste would be
treated using the existing WTP configuration supplemented with
nonthermal treatment capacity (cast stone). Under Alternative 3B,
technetium-99 would be removed from the LAW stream during pretreatment
and incorporated into the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) stream for
immobilization and off-site disposal. Under Alternative 3C, the waste
would be treated using the existing WTP configuration supplemented with
thermal treatment capacity (steam reforming). The SST system would be
closed as a landfill and covered with an engineered modified RCRA
Subtitle C barrier. There would be separate treatment of candidate tank
mixed transuranic (TRU) waste \3\ under all
[[Page 75915]]
three sub-alternatives, as described in the TC&WM EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For Tank Closure Alternatives 3 through 5, the TC&WM EIS
evaluated treatment of the tank waste stream associated with the
candidate TRU waste as both TRU waste and HLW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 4: Existing WTP Vitrification with
Supplemental Treatment Technologies; Selective Clean Closure/Landfill
Closure. Alternative 4 includes retrieval of 99.9 percent of the waste
from SSTs. Waste would be treated using the existing WTP configuration
supplemented with thermal treatment capacity (bulk vitrification) and
nonthermal treatment capacity (cast stone). There would be separate
treatment of the candidate tank mixed TRU waste, as described in the
TC&WM EIS. Under this alternative, technetium-99 removal would not
occur as part of WTP pretreatment. Tank farms BX and SX would be clean
closed, which means the tanks, ancillary equipment, and contaminated
soil would be removed, and the remaining tank farms would be closed as
landfills and covered with an engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C
barrier.
Alternative 5: Expanded WTP Vitrification with
Supplemental Treatment Technologies; Landfill Closure. Alternative 5
includes retrieval of 90 percent of the waste from SSTs. WTP current
configuration capacity for producing ILAW glass would be expanded and
supplemented with thermal treatment capacity (bulk vitrification) and
nonthermal treatment capacity (cast stone). Under this alternative, no
technetium-99 removal would occur as part of WTP pretreatment; however,
a sulfate removal process would allow higher waste loading in the ILAW
glass. There would be separate treatment of the candidate tank mixed
TRU waste as described in the TC&WM EIS. The SST system would be closed
as a landfill and covered with an engineered Hanford barrier, a multi-
layer barrier designed to provide 1,000-year protection.
Alternative 6: All Waste as Vitrified HLW. Under
Alternative 6, all vitrified waste produced in the WTP would be managed
as immobilized HLW (IHLW). Alternative 6A includes retrieval of 99.9
percent of the waste from SSTs and vitrification in the WTP using an
expanded IHLW production capacity. The SST system would be clean
closed.\4\ Alternative 6B includes retrieval of 99.9 percent of the
waste from SSTs, pretreatment in the WTP, separation into HLW and LAW
streams, and vitrification into IHLW and ILAW glass. Both vitrified
waste streams would be managed as HLW. The SST system would be clean
closed. Alternative 6C includes retrieval of 99 percent of the waste
from the SSTs. Like Alternative 6B, this waste would be pretreated in
the WTP, and vitrified into IHLW and ILAW glass. Both vitrified waste
streams would be managed as HLW. The SST system would be closed as a
landfill and covered with an engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C
barrier. Under all Tank Closure Alternative 6 sub-alternatives listed
above (6A, 6B, and 6C), the resulting IHLW and ILAW glass would be
stored in IHLW Interim Storage Modules and managed as IHLW pending
ultimate disposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Clean closure means the removal or remediation of all
hazardous waste from a given RCRA-regulated unit so that further
regulatory control under RCRA Subtitle C is not necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast Flux Test Facility Decommissioning
FFTF Alternative 1: No Action. Under Alternative 1, the
FFTF Reactor Containment Building (RCB), along with the rest of the
buildings within the 400 Area Property Protected Area, would be
maintained under 100 years of administrative controls (site security
and management). Activities under the Environmental Assessment, Sodium
Residuals Reaction/Removal and Other Deactivation Work Activities (DOE/
EA-1547, March 2006) would be completed. The reactor vessel, piping
systems, and tanks would be left in place under an inert gas blanket
and Remote Handled Special Components (RH-SCs) would be stored. Spent
nuclear fuel would be removed, and systems not associated with
maintaining safety-related functions would be deactivated or de-
energized and isolated according to the deactivation plans.
FFTF Alternative 2: Entombment. Under Alternative 2, all
above-grade structures around the main FFTF RCB and two adjacent
support facilities would be dismantled. Demolition waste would be
consolidated in below-grade spaces and stabilized with grout. RH-SCs
would be removed and treated at either Hanford or the Idaho National
Laboratory (INL), and then be disposed of at Hanford in an Integrated
Disposal Facility (IDF) or at the Nevada National Security Site,
depending on the treatment option selected. An engineered modified RCRA
Subtitle C barrier would be constructed over the filled area. For both
FFTF Alternative 2 and 3 Hanford's bulk sodium inventory would be
converted to a caustic sodium hydroxide solution for reuse at Hanford.
FFTF Alternative 3: Removal. Under Alternative 3, all
above-grade structures around the main RCB and the two adjacent support
facilities would be dismantled. The RCB would be demolished to grade
and the support facilities to below grade. Contaminated demolition
waste would be disposed of at Hanford in an IDF. The reactor vessel,
its internal piping and equipment, and its attached depleted-uranium
shielding would be filled with grout, removed, packed, and disposed of
in an IDF. All other radioactively contaminated equipment and hazardous
materials also would be removed for disposal.
Waste Management
Alternative 1: No Action. Alternative 1 evaluates
continued storage of LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste at the Central Waste
Complex (CWC), Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (WRAP), and T
Plant in the 200-West Area, with no expanded storage capacity required.
At the CWC, the LLW and MLLW would be processed for disposal in Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds (LLBGs) Trenches 31 and 34.
These trenches are the only lined trenches in the LLBGs and would
receive on-site ``non-CERCLA,'' \5\ non-tank LLW and MLLW until this
waste stream is no longer generated. TRU waste would be shipped to and
disposed of in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad,
New Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Non-CERCLA'' waste refers to remediation waste not
regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Restoration,
Compensation and Liability Act. CERCLA waste is disposed of in the
existing Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility on site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2: Disposal in IDF, 200-East Area Only.
Alternative 2 evaluates continued storage and processing of LLW, MLLW,
and TRU waste using existing and expanded capabilities at the CWC,
WRAP, and T Plant. In Waste Management Alternative 2, disposal of LLW
and MLLW in LLBGs Trenches 31 and 34 would continue until they are
filled. Routine shipments of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP would
continue. Also under Alternative 2, DOE analyzed the construction and
operation of an IDF in 200-East, and the proposed River Protection
Project Disposal Facility (RPPDF) would be constructed and operated in
the 200 Area. The IDF-East would accept waste from tank treatment
operations, onsite non-CERCLA sources, FFTF decommissioning, waste
management, and MLLW and LLW from other DOE sites. Waste from tank farm
cleanup operations would be disposed of in the proposed RPPDF. After
closure, these disposal facilities would be covered with engineered
modified RCRA Subtitle C barriers.
Waste Management Alternative 3: Disposal in IDF, 200-East
and 200-West Areas. Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 for Waste
Management, except in Alternative 3, an IDF would
[[Page 75916]]
also be constructed and operated in the 200-West Area. IDF-East would
be used for disposal of tank waste only; IDF-West would be used for
disposal of on-site waste not generated from remediation activities and
off-site LLW and MLLW, as well as FFTF decommissioning and waste
management wastes. After closure, these disposal facilities would be
covered with engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C barriers.
Environmentally Preferred Alternatives
Tank Closure
SST Closure--Clean closure is the environmentally preferred
alternative when considering only long-term groundwater impacts, e.g.,
impacts that may be incurred during the period after closure of a
facility. In terms of land resources, clean closure may allow future
use of the tank system area, but, unlike all other Tank Closure
alternatives, would require significant new, permanent land disturbance
for new facilities to treat, store, and dispose of waste. The Tank
Closure No Action alternative is the environmentally preferred
alternative when considering only short-term impacts, e.g., those that
may be incurred during the operational period through facility closure.
Such impacts include worker dose, land disturbance, and electrical use.
Clean closure of the SST system compared with landfill closure would
have the following potentially adverse short-term impacts: total land
commitments would increase twofold, electrical use would increase by
one order of magnitude, geologic resource requirements would increase
as much as fivefold, sagebrush habitat affected would increase by as
much as two orders of magnitude, radiation worker population dose from
normal operations would increase over twofold, LLW and MLLW generation
volumes would increase threefold, and total Occupational Safety and
Health Administration recordable cases would increase as much as
fivefold.
FFTF
FFTF Alternative 2 Entombment and Alternative 3 Removal are both
environmentally preferred. The long-term analysis shows that the
inventory remaining for the two alternatives is relatively small.
Results for both alternatives show the groundwater impacts for the
constituents of concern to be below the maximum contaminant levels
under the Safe Drinking Water Act at the fence line of the FFTF
facility. Short-term impacts for the land, water, transportation and
socioeconomic analysis areas would be slightly smaller for FFTF
Alternative 2 Entombment. However, the air analysis and construction
impacts would be slightly larger for the FFTF Alternative 2 Entombment.
Waste Management
Waste Management Alternatives 2 and 3 are both environmentally
preferred. Short-term environmental impacts are projected to be very
similar for these two waste management alternatives with no differences
between impact areas. Long-term impacts analysis indicates that IDF-
West may not perform as well as IDF-East, even when the infiltration
rate is assumed to be equal for both facilities.
Preferred Alternatives
In accordance with CEQ guidance, the preferred alternative is the
alternative that the agency believes would fulfill its statutory
mission while giving consideration to environmental, economic,
technical, and other factors. DOE identified its preferred alternative
for each of the three major sets of actions evaluated in the Final
TC&WM EIS. The preferred alternatives are identified in the Final TC&WM
EIS Summary, Section S.7, Preferred Alternative, TC&WM EIS Chapter 2,
Section 2.12, and a Federal Register notice referenced below, and
summarized in the following paragraphs.
As stated in the Final TC&WM EIS, for the actions related to tank
waste retrieval, treatment and closure, DOE prefers Tank Closure
Alternative 2B, without removing technetium in the Pretreatment
Facility. Tank Closure Alternative 2B includes 99 percent retrieval of
waste by volume from the SSTs; leak detection monitoring and routine
maintenance; new and existing storage facilities; operations and
necessary maintenance, waste transfers and associated operations, and
upgrades to existing tanks or construction of waste receipt facilities.
Tank waste treatment includes pretreatment of all tank waste, with
separation into LAW and HLW. New evaporation capacity, upgrades to the
Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF), new transfer lines and processing of
both vitrified LAW and secondary waste for disposal are part of tank
waste treatment. Disposal activities include disposal of LAW on site
and construction of IHLW Interim Storage Modules. SST closure
operations include filling the tanks and ancillary equipment with grout
to immobilize the residual waste. Disposal of contaminated equipment
and soil would occur on site. Decisions on the extent of soil removal
or treatment,, would be made on a tank farm or waste management area
basis through the RCRA closure permitting process. The tanks would be
stabilized, and an engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C barrier put in
place followed by post-closure care.
DOE does not have a preferred alternative regarding supplemental
treatment for LAW; DOE believes it is beneficial to study further the
potential cost, safety, and environmental performance of supplemental
treatment technologies. When DOE is ready to identify its preferred
alternative regarding supplemental treatment for LAW, it will provide a
notice of its preferred alternative in the Federal Register.
DOE identified its preference to consider options for retrieving,
treating, and disposing of the candidate TRU waste evaluated in the
TC&WM EIS and further clarified this preference in a Federal Register
notice issued March 11, 2013 (78 FR 15358). As stated in that notice,
DOE prefers to retrieve, treat, package, characterize and certify the
wastes that are properly and legally classified as mixed TRU waste for
disposal at WIPP. Initiating retrieval of tank waste for disposition as
mixed TRU waste would be contingent on, among other things, DOE's
obtaining the applicable and necessary permits, ensuring that the WIPP
Waste Acceptance Criteria and all other applicable regulatory
requirements are met, and making a determination that the waste is
properly classified as mixed TRU waste. DOE is not deciding to
implement its preferred or any other alternative associated with this
matter in this ROD.
As stated in the Final TC&WM EIS, for FFTF Decommissioning, DOE's
preference is for Alternative 2 Entombment, which would remove all
above-grade structures, including the reactor building. Below-grade
structures would remain in place and be filled with grout to immobilize
the remaining radioactive and hazardous constituents, then covered with
an RCRA-compliant barrier. The RH-SCs would be processed at INL and
returned to Hanford, while bulk sodium inventories would be processed
at Hanford for use in the WTP.
For waste management, DOE's preference is for a single IDF in 200-
East; the RPPDF is also included, as are upgrades to several waste
management facilities as described above. The disposal facilities would
be closed with RCRA-compliant barriers. As stated in the Final TC&WM
EIS, DOE would continue to defer the importation of off-site waste at
Hanford, at least until the
[[Page 75917]]
WTP is operational. Any future decision to import off-site waste will
be subject to appropriate NEPA review. The limitations and exemptions
defined in DOE's January 6, 2006, Settlement Agreement with the State
of Washington (as amended on June 5, 2008) in the case of State of
Washington v. Bodman (Civil No. 2:03-cv-05018-AAM), will remain in
place.
Public Comments on the Final TC&WM EIS
DOE received six letters regarding the Final TC&WM EIS, which were
considered in developing this ROD. These letters were from the
following organizations: Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Nation; the Nez Perce Tribe; the Oregon Department of Energy; the
Hanford Advisory Board; Environmental Protection Agency Region 10; and
a joint letter signed by the Natural Resource Defense Council, Hanford
Challenge and Southwest Research and Information Center. Many of these
comments are similar to those previously provided on the Draft TC&WM
EIS and were discussed in the Comment Response Document of the Final
TC&WM EIS.
The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation disagreed
with DOE's position on: Open and unclaimed lands at Hanford; the
reliance on barriers and institutional controls to reduce risk; closure
of the tank farms; DOE's application and consideration of the Tribal
Scenarios; and groundwater modeling. DOE recognizes the concerns with
long-term site use and restrictions which may be required to protect
long-term human health and the environment. DOE reviewed several
closure configurations in the TC&WM EIS and made its decision based on
a thorough evaluation of both short-and long-term risks, technical
practicability and cost. DOE evaluated three different tribal exposure
scenarios in the Final TC&WM EIS. One represented an exposure scenario
agreed to between DOE and the three Tribes (the Confederated Tribes and
Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)) in January 2005,
which was evaluated in the Draft TC&WM EIS. In response to public
comment from the Tribes, DOE revisited two other Tribal scenarios, the
Yakama Nation Exposure Scenario for Hanford Site Risk Assessment,
September 2007; and the Exposure Scenario for the CTUIR Traditional
Subsistence Lifeways, September 2004. With respect to Tribal concerns
about groundwater modeling, such as unproductive portions of the
aquifer and uncertainty in selected actions, DOE carefully considered
the comments and, as a result, made appropriate changes to inventory
and data reporting and presentation as described in the Supplement
Analysis of the ``Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental
Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington'' (DOE/EIS-
0391-SA-01, February 2012). The Yakama Nation expressed concern over
unaccounted and unexplained revenue needs for supplemental technologies
and future funding constraints. DOE has provided cost estimates of the
alternatives evaluated in the TC&WM EIS (Section 2.11) to inform and
support funding requests in the future. The Yakama Nation also
expressed concern that there was no preferred alternative for the WTP
secondary waste stream. DOE did include secondary waste streams in the
Final EIS preferred alternative.
The Oregon Department of Energy expressed dissatisfaction with many
of DOE's responses in the Final TC&WM EIS to their comments during the
public comment period on the Draft TC&WM EIS and stated that DOE had
misrepresented the comments. The dissatisfaction largely appears to be
related to DOE's rejection of Oregon's proposal to analyze a new tank
waste alternative. In considering Oregon's comments, DOE concluded, as
acknowledged in Oregon's letter, that Oregon's proposal merely
contained a different combination of very similar actions to those DOE
was already analyzing in other alternatives. That is, DOE concluded
that the alternatives evaluated in the TC&WM EIS included all of the
elements in the Oregon proposal except in cases such as soil
remediation beneath the tanks, remediation of cribs and trenches, and
use of iron phosphate glass and fractional crystallization to remove
hazardous constituents. DOE notes that remediation actions such as
those for contaminated groundwater at Hanford are ongoing in accordance
with CERCLA. DOE included its assumptions about the efficacy of such
remediation actions in Chapter 7 and Appendix U of the Final TC&WM EIS
for the purposes of analysis only in order to better inform specific
tank-related decisions. In the Final TC&WM EIS, DOE explained in its
response to Oregon's comment regarding iron phosphate and fractional
crystallization that these technologies were not sufficiently mature
for practical consideration in the evaluations. On the other hand, DOE
added a number of features of the Oregon proposal to the Final TC&WM
EIS: additional tank waste storage capacity, dry storage of cesium and
strontium capsules, on-site interim storage of IHLW and the concept of
risk-based decisions on tank farm closures. The letter from Oregon also
included comments on Ecology's views on a number of issues, and DOE
will work with Oregon and Ecology to consider Oregon's perspectives in
developing tank-related strategies that are appropriately protective of
health and the environment at Hanford.
EPA's comments on the Final TC&WM EIS included support for many
aspects of DOE's preferred alternative for tank closure, accompanied by
concern regarding treatment of contamination in the vadose zone and
potential impacts to groundwater. EPA recommended that DOE consider
including opportunities for public comment in developing a Mitigation
Action Plan. EPA also expressed a need for additional NEPA analyses for
a future decision on supplemental treatment of LAW. In the Final TC&WM
EIS, DOE included changes as a result of comments received during the
185-day public comment period, including mitigation actions which could
be taken. Mitigation actions, such as potential soil remediation for
SST closure identified in the Final TC&WM EIS preferred alternative
that are subject to RCRA permitting, will involve a public comment
process. When DOE is ready to identify its preferred alternative
regarding supplemental treatment for LAW, DOE intends to follow
established NEPA regulations and guidance and conduct the appropriate
NEPA review.
The Nez Perce Tribe expressed concerns regarding the NEPA process
in relation to DOE policies associated with consultation and
communication with the Tribes. The Nez Perce Tribe acknowledged its
involvement in the EIS development process and that the Tribe offered
many perspectives on the document. The Nez Perce expressed concerns
that DOE did not effectively utilize DOE's policies to consult with the
Tribe, asked how DOE Order 144.1, Department of Energy American Indian
Tribal Government Interactions and Policy, was implemented in the EIS
process and expressed concern that DOE was ``checking the box'' during
the EIS process. DOE recognizes there may be differing perspectives
among the parties on the level of consultation needed for various
activities. In preparing the Final TC&WM EIS, DOE focused on the
Tribal-specific meetings and specific Tribal concerns. Information on
communication and consultation with the Nez Perce Tribe can be found in
Appendix C of the Final TC&WM EIS,
[[Page 75918]]
while Appendix Q and Appendix W contain information on the Tribal
Scenarios analyzed. DOE agrees with the Nez Perce that the Hanford
Advisory Board (HAB) was not a direct Tribal forum, but DOE believes
the Board provided opportunities for discussion of the EIS on a broad
range of topics, and DOE considered Tribal participation and membership
on the Board to be an important element of DOE's dialogue with
stakeholders.
The HAB requested that DOE not issue a ROD for 90 days to allow it
time to review the final EIS. Other comments included support for a
decision to build a second LAW plant and discontinue funding for bulk
vitrification, cast stone and steam reforming technologies. The HAB
expressed its view that supplemental waste treatment is needed to
protect the groundwater and meet environmental regulations. In its tank
closure preferred alternative, DOE has identified the process it will
follow when it is ready to make a supplemental treatment decision. See
the ``Preferred Alternative'' section. DOE agrees with the HAB's goals
for protecting health and the environment at Hanford and will continue
to work with the HAB in achieving these goals.
The Natural Resource Defense Council, Hanford Challenge and
Southwest Research and Information Center submitted a joint letter
regarding DOE's March 11 Federal Register notice of its preferred
alternative related to candidate TRU tank waste. DOE will address the
letter at the appropriate time, i.e., should DOE be ready to issue a
ROD addressing these wastes.
Decision
This is the first in a series of RODs that DOE intends to issue
pursuant to the Final TC&WM EIS. Decisions announced in this ROD
pertain to each of the three main areas analyzed in the EIS, i.e. tank
closure, FFTF, and waste management, as follows.
Tank Closure
This TC&WM EIS ROD amends the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD concerning the
decision to construct the WTP. Under this TC&WM EIS ROD, DOE will not
construct the Phase II plant described in the 1997 TWRS ROD due to
technical and financial impracticability as analyzed in the 2001 TWRS
Supplement Analysis.
DOE has decided to implement Tank Closure Alternative 2B,
``Expanded WTP Vitrification and Landfill Closure,'' without
supplemental treatment at WTP and without technetium-99 removal in the
WTP Pretreatment facility. Additionally, DOE is not deciding on
treatment of the cesium and strontium capsules in this ROD; when DOE is
ready to make a decision, it will conduct an appropriate NEPA review
and notify the public.
This ROD includes decisions involving the following major
activities from Tank Closure Alternative 2B: Retrieval of 99 percent of
the tank waste by volume; use of liquid-based retrieval systems; leak
detection monitoring and routine maintenance; new waste receiver
facilities, as needed; additional storage facilities for canisters;
operations and necessary maintenance, waste transfers and associated
operations such as use of the ``hose in hose'' transfer lines or
installation of new transfer lines, where needed; and upgrades to
existing DST and SST systems, which includes piping and other ancillary
equipment as needs are identified. Tank waste treatment includes
pretreatment of all tank waste, with separation into LAW and HLW. New
evaporation capacity, upgrades to the ETF, new transfer lines and
processing of both vitrified LAW and secondary waste for disposal are
included in this decision. Disposal activities include disposal of LAW
onsite and construction of enough IHLW Interim Storage Modules to store
all the IHLW generated by WTP treatment prior to disposal. SST closure
operations include filling the tanks and ancillary equipment with grout
to immobilize the residual waste. Disposal of contaminated equipment
and soil will occur on site. The tanks will be grouted and contaminated
soil may be removed. The SSTs will be landfill-closed, which means they
will be stabilized, and an engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C barrier
put in place followed by post-closure care.
FFTF
DOE has decided to implement FFTF Alternative 2 Entombment. The RH-
SCs will have the sodium residuals removed by treatment at INL and
returned to Hanford for disposal in the IDF. Bulk sodium inventories
located at Hanford will be converted to caustic sodium hydroxide in a
Sodium Reaction Facility at Hanford, and then stored for ultimate use
in the WTP.
Waste Management
DOE has decided to implement Waste Management Alternative 2, which
includes disposal of LLW and MLLW at IDF-East from tank treatment
operations, waste generated from WTP and ETF operations, on-site non-
CERCLA sources, FFTF decommissioning waste and on-site waste management
waste. DOE will construct and operate the RPPDF for disposal of tank
closure waste, as needed. Waste management activities will include
continued operations at existing facilities as well as expansion of
treatment capabilities at CWC, WRAP, and T plant. DOE will defer a
decision on importing waste from other DOE sites (with limited
exceptions as described in the Settlement Agreement with Ecology) for
disposal at Hanford at least until the WTP is operational.
Basis for the Decision
Consistent with the TWRS EIS ROD, DOE has determined that it is
necessary to retrieve the 53 million gallons of waste from the tanks to
meet regulatory requirements, avoid future long-term releases to the
groundwater, and reduce health impacts to potential inadvertent
intruders into the waste if administrative control were lost. DOE has
determined, consistent with the current design and permit that the
construction of WTP and treatment of the tank waste should proceed
without technetium-99 removal in the WTP Pretreatment Facility. DOE has
also determined that the tradeoffs regarding short-term impacts and
resources, including worker exposure, and technical uncertainties
outweigh the potential groundwater benefits that may be obtained by
clean closure of the SST system. Therefore, DOE has determined landfill
closure of the SST system, which would include corrective/mitigation
actions that may require soil removal or treatment of the vadose zone,
is a more appropriate approach for SST system closure than clean
closure.
DOE will implement FFTF Alternative 2, Entombment, because this
alternative fulfills the programmatic objectives for closure of the
FFTF facilities, it is the more cost effective of the two alternatives,
and it is also the environmentally preferred alternative.
Implementation of FFTF Alternative 2 would result in very low impacts
to human health and the environment.
In order to treat the tank waste in WTP and implement FFTF
Alternative 2 disposal, capacity is needed for waste generated during
those activities. For economic and operational efficiencies, DOE has
decided to operate one IDF located in the 200-East Area, instead of two
separate IDFs in 200-East and 200-West. In order to process waste
generated during cleanup, upgrades to site infrastructure such as CWC,
WRAP, and T plant will be implemented as cleanup progresses and needs
for these upgrades are identified. The IDF disposal capacity is needed
to dispose of waste from tank waste treatment and FFTF disposition
activities.
[[Page 75919]]
Mitigation Measures
In the Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental
Impact Statement (Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS (DOE/EIS-
0222, September 1, 1999) DOE identified specific mitigation measures,
policies, and management controls that direct land use at Hanford. DOE
committed to these mitigation measures, as documented in the Hanford
Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS ROD (64 FR 61615 November 12, 1999),
which were reaffirmed in the Supplement Analysis, Hanford Comprehensive
Land-Use Plan EIS (EIS-0222-SA-02, June 2, 2008) and in the amended ROD
(73 FR 55824, September 26, 2008). These mitigation measures will
continue to be implemented, as applicable, for the tank waste retrieval
and treatment activities discussed in the TC&WM EIS. The TC&WM EIS did
not identify any mitigation measures for the short-term resource areas
that are needed in addition to those in the Supplement Analysis,
Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan EIS and its amended ROD.
DOE has continued to evaluate potential mitigation measures for the
contaminated soil at Hanford for several years. Most recently, DOE
published the Long-Range Deep Vadose Zone Program Plan in October 2010.
This program plan summarizes the current state of knowledge regarding
deep vadose zone remediation challenges beneath the Central Plateau at
Hanford and DOE's approach to solving these challenges. The challenges
to implementing deep vadose zone remediation are the result of
contaminant depth and spread; the presence of multiple contaminants and
comingled waste chemistries; physical, chemical, and biological fate
and transport mechanisms; uncertain contaminant behavior; limited
availability and effectiveness of cleanup remedies; and the unknown
efficacy of remediation performance over the periods and spatial scales
needed for making decisions.
Nevertheless, all practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm for the decisions identified have been adopted. DOE
will prepare and implement a Mitigation Action Plan to address long-
term impact areas. Long-term mitigation measures related to SST closure
will be refined and presented in the TC&WM EIS Mitigation Action Plan,
which will be posted on the Hanford and DOE NEPA Web sites identified
in ADDRESSES. DOE will periodically revisit and update the Mitigation
Action Plan as appropriate prior to initiating actions pursuant to this
ROD.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 2013.
David Huizenga,
Senior Advisor for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 2013-29734 Filed 12-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
