Amended Record of Decision for Offsite Secondary Waste Treatment and Disposal From the Hanford Site, Washington, 6241-6243 [2023-01962]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Notices Include Docket No. ARV–221214A–JA in the subject line of the message. ACTION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUMMARY: Gabriel Mounce or Melissa Ortiz, AFRL/ RV ORTA, 3550 Aberdeen Ave SE, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117–5776; or Email: AFRL.RDOX.OrgBox@us.af.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Abstract of Patent Application(s) A reversible electrochemical mirror is disclosed. The reversible electrochemical mirror includes a layer of transparent conducting oxide (TCO), a cation exchange membrane disposed on the layer of TCO, and a mesh layer which may include silver disposed on the cation exchange membrane. The mirror also includes a voltage source connected to the TCO layer and the mesh layer, the voltage source being configured to electrochemically deposit and dissolve silver on the TCO. A method of reversibly controlling reflectance and transmission of a mirror and a method for forming a reversible electrochemical mirror are disclosed. Intellectual Property International Application No. PCT/ US22/77021, filed 26 September 2022 and entitled Reversible Electrochemical Mirror using Catio Conducting Membrane. The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license. Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Publication of Housing Price Inflation Adjustment Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD). Jkt 259001 Dated: January 26, 2023. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 2023–01992 Filed 1–30–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Amended Record of Decision for Offsite Secondary Waste Treatment and Disposal From the Hanford Site, Washington This is an amendment to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) 2013 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS–0391, December 2012) (TC&WM EIS). In accordance with DOE’s implementing procedures for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), DOE prepared a supplement analysis (DOE/EIS–0391–SA–03; SA), which evaluated DOE’s proposal to transport and treat certain solid and SUMMARY: BILLING CODE 5001–10–P 16:46 Jan 30, 2023 The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, as codified at 50 U.S.C. app. 3951, prohibits a landlord from evicting a Service member (or the Service member’s family) from a residence during a period of military service, except by court order. The law as originally passed by Congress applied to dwellings with monthly rents of $2,400 or less. The law requires the DoD to adjust this amount annually to reflect inflation and to publish the new amount in the Federal Register. Applying the inflation adjustment for the calendar year 2023, the maximum monthly rental amount for 50 U.S.C. app. 3951 (a)(1)(A)(ii) as of January 1, 2023, will be $9,106.46. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy. ACTION: Amended record of decision. [FR Doc. 2023–01910 Filed 1–30–23; 8:45 am] VerDate Sep<11>2014 The DoD is announcing the 2023 rent threshold under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Applying the inflation adjustment, the maximum monthly rental amount as of January 1, 2023, is $9,106.46. DATES: This housing price inflation adjustment is effective January 1, 2023. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colonel Patrick Schwomeyer, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, (703) 692– 8170. AGENCY: Tommy W. Lee, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. AGENCY: Notice of housing price inflation adjustment. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6241 liquid secondary wastes at licensed and permitted commercial treatment facilities off the Hanford Site. DOE also proposes to potentially dispose of some of these secondary wastes (after treatment) offsite at a licensed and permitted commercial disposal facility. This action would be implemented on an interim basis until such time as an enhanced onsite treatment capability is available for Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) operations (estimated to be approximately 10 years). This amended ROD addresses the differences in the planned management of secondary wastes from that addressed by the 2013 TC&WM EIS ROD document. ADDRESSES: For copies of this amended ROD, the original ROD, subsequent amended RODs, the SA (DOE/EIS– 0391–SA–03), the TC&WM EIS, or any related NEPA documents, please contact Mr. Douglas Chapin, Hanford Site NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 550, MSIN H5–30, Richland, Washington 99352; telephone: (509) 373–9396; or email, Douglas.Chapin@rl.doe.gov. This amended ROD, the original ROD, subsequent amended RODs, the SA, and the TC&WM EIS are also available on DOE’s NEPA website at https:// www.energy.gov/nepa and the Hanford website at https://www.hanford.gov/ index.cfm?page=1117&. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the TC&WM EIS, contact Mr. Chapin, as listed above. For general information on DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) NEPA process, contact Mr. William Ostrum, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0103; telephone: (202) 586– 2513; or email, William.Ostrum@ hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In the TC&WM EIS, DOE analyzed 11 alternatives for the retrieval, treatment, storage, and disposal of tank wastes, followed by the closure of the singleshell waste storage tanks (SSTs) at the Hanford Site and three alternatives for waste management.1 In the 2013 TC&WM EIS ROD, DOE selected Tank Closure Alternative 2B, which would, among other things: (1) retrieve 99 percent of the waste from the SSTs; (2) 1 The three other alternatives analyzed in the TC&WM EIS concerned Fast Flux Test Facility decommissioning, which is not the subject of this ROD. E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 6242 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Notices khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES treat tank waste, including pretreatment of tank waste with separation into lowactivity waste (LAW) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW); and (3) dispose of the vitrified LAW and secondary waste 2 and construct immobilized HLW (IHLW) interim storage modules to store the IHLW prior to disposal.3 The 2013 ROD also stated, ‘‘Tank waste treatment includes pretreatment of all tank waste, with separation into LAW and HLW. New evaporation capacity, upgrades to the ETF [Effluent Treatment Facility], new transfer lines and processing of both vitrified LAW and secondary waste for disposal are included in this decision.’’ For waste management, the 2013 ROD further stated, ‘‘DOE has decided to implement Waste Management Alternative 2, which includes disposal of LLW [low-level radioactive waste] and MLLW [mixed low-level radioactive waste] at IDF [Integrated Disposal Facility]-East from tank treatment operations.’’ This alternative was identified in the 2013 ROD as the environmentally preferred waste management alternative. The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), as analyzed in the TC&WM EIS, would start processing tank waste by sending it to the Pretreatment Facility, where it would be separated into HLW and LAW. The process would then send each of these waste streams to the HLW Vitrification Facility and the LAW Vitrification Facility, respectively, for further treatment. The WTP, as analyzed in the TC&WM EIS, also contained an analytical laboratory (LAB) and 22 other support facilities referred to collectively as the ‘‘balance of facilities’’ (BOF). When DOE issued the ROD in 2013, its plan was to start operation of all the WTP facilities at the same time. Due to technical issues with the WTP Pretreatment Facility and HLW Vitrification Facility, only the LAW Vitrification Facility, LAB, and BOF 2 Secondary waste, as described in the TC&WM EIS, is generated as a result of other activities, e.g., waste retrieval or waste treatment, that is not further treated by the WTP or supplemental treatment facilities and includes liquid and solid wastes. Liquid-waste sources could include process condensates, scrubber wastes, spent reagents from resins, offgas and vessel vent wastes, vessel washes, floor drain and sump wastes, and decontamination solutions. Solid-waste sources could include worn filter membranes, spent ion exchange resins, failed or worn equipment, debris, analytical laboratory waste, high-efficiency particulate air filters, spent carbon adsorbent, and other process-related wastes. Not all the secondary waste, volumes, or waste types described in the TC&WM EIS are encompassed by this amended ROD. Secondary wastes addressed in this amended ROD consist of LLW and MLLW. 3 For the complete list of activities covered in the ROD, see 78 FR 75918. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Jan 30, 2023 Jkt 259001 have been completed and are preparing for operations. To begin treating waste as soon as practicable, DOE decided to use the DFLAW approach, which is a sequenced approach that will treat a portion of the tank waste first. The decision to implement the DFLAW approach was included in an amended ROD (84 FR 424; January 28, 2019). Supplement Analysis of Offsite Treatment and Disposal of Hanford Secondary Waste As a result of projected increases in the volumes of secondary waste and the lack of sufficient secondary waste treatment capability and capacity on the Hanford Site once LAW Vitrification Facility operations begin using the DFLAW approach, DOE proposes to transport and treat certain secondary waste at licensed and permitted commercial treatment facilities that are located off the Hanford Site. In addition, DOE proposes to potentially dispose of some of these secondary wastes (after treatment) offsite at licensed and permitted commercial disposal facilities. This Proposed Action (both offsite treatment and potential offsite disposal) would be implemented on an interim basis until such time as an enhanced onsite treatment capability is available for DFLAW operations (estimated to be approximately 10 years). The annual estimated volumes of secondary waste that could be transported offsite for treatment and disposal would include: • Approximately 8,300 cubic meters of LLW and MLLW (solid and liquid) would be treated at Perma-Fix Northwest (PFNW), a licensed and permitted commercial treatment facility in Richland, Washington, and disposed of at the IDF on the Hanford Site. • Approximately 18 cubic meters of MLLW (solid and liquid) would be treated at Perma- Fix Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. (DSSI), a licensed and permitted commercial treatment facility in Kingston, Tennessee, and disposed of at the Waste Control Specialists Federal Waste Facility (WCS FWF) in Andrews County, Texas. • Approximately 332 cubic meters of MLLW (primarily liquids), some of which would be treated at PFNW and disposed of at the IDF, and some of which would be treated at WCS and disposed of at the WCS FWF. To address the proposal, DOE prepared an SA in accordance with DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures at 10 CFR 1021.314. The TC&WM EIS acknowledged that secondary waste could be managed through a combination of onsite and offsite PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 treatment capabilities. The TC&WM EIS analyzed the disposal of grouted secondary waste at the IDF. DOE has been implementing a moderate amount of offsite treatment (an average of 73 to 145 cubic meters per year of dangerous waste and MLLW) and disposal since publication of the 2013 ROD. The increased volume of offsite treatment and disposal of LLW and MLLW under the Proposed Action evaluated in the SA would not represent a substantive change relevant to environmental concerns from the Proposed Action evaluated in the TC&WM EIS. The TC&WM EIS evaluated potential environmental impacts from the emission of criteria pollutants, toxic pollutants, and greenhouse gases. The incremental increase in emissions related to the transportation of secondary waste for treatment and disposal would add less than 1 percent to the values presented in the TC&WM EIS. Transportation of secondary wastes offsite for treatment (and potential subsequent disposal), as opposed to the onsite treatment options evaluated in the TC&WM EIS, would essentially transfer the potential normal operational health impacts from the Hanford workforce to workers at commercial treatment and disposal facilities, given that the scopes of work would be similar in nature regardless of location. Additionally, the Proposed Action would not introduce any unique facility accidents that had not been evaluated either in the TC&WM EIS or in the commercial facility permitting or licensing process. Accordingly, radiological impacts and accident risk resulting from the Proposed Action would be comparable to that presented in the TC&WM EIS for treatment/ disposal activities originally proposed for the Hanford Site. While the TC&WM EIS did not anticipate a large increase in the amount of secondary waste sent offsite for treatment and potential disposal, it did acknowledge that it could occur. The estimated health risks to the public and transportation crews are low for the approximate 10-year Proposed Action period. The majority of the treated secondary waste would be disposed of at the IDF, consistent with the analysis in the TC&WM EIS. Approximately 350 cubic meters of secondary waste could be disposed of annually at the WCS FWF.4 In both instances, the stabilized waste 4 The offsite disposal volume, following treatment by macro-encapsulation or solidification, will be approximately 580 cubic meters annually for an approximate total of 5,800 cubic meters over 10 years. E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2023 / Notices form would be verified to meet the facilities’ waste acceptance criteria and would be well within the volume and curie limits for the facilities. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Decision AGENCY: Based on the analysis in the SA, DOE determined that the Proposed Action for secondary waste management does not represent a substantial change to the proposal evaluated in the TC&WM EIS or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns that would require preparation of a supplemental EIS. DOE therefore determined that no further NEPA analysis was required. There are no additional mitigation measures required beyond those commitments in the 2013 TC&WM EIS ROD. As stated in that ROD, all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted. DOE’s decision is to transport and treat certain solid and liquid secondary wastes at licensed and permitted commercial treatment facilities off the Hanford Site. DOE’s decision is also to dispose of some of these secondary wastes (after treatment) offsite at the WCS FWF, a licensed and permitted commercial disposal facility. This action will be implemented on an interim basis until such time as an enhanced onsite treatment capability is available for DFLAW operations (estimated to be approximately 10 years). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Signing Authority This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 25, 2023, by William I. White, Senior Advisor for Environmental Management, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. Signed in Washington, DC, on January 26, 2023. Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy. [FR Doc. 2023–01962 Filed 1–30–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Jan 30, 2023 Jkt 259001 Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities; Secretarial Determination National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Notice. On December 29, 2022, the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) issued a determination revoking the general authorizations for exports of controlled nuclear technology and assistance to Colombia and Egypt under DOE’s regulation on Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities. Accordingly, DOE is publishing this determination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Katie Strangis, Deputy Director, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control (NPAC), National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586–8623; Mr. Thomas Reilly, Office of the General Counsel, GC–74, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586–3417; or Mr. Zachary Stern, Office of the General Counsel, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586–8627. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 29, 2022, the Secretary issued a determination revoking the general authorizations for exports to Colombia and Egypt of controlled nuclear technology and assistance. The text of the determination is reprinted below. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2077) (AEA), enables peaceful nuclear trade by helping to assure that nuclear technologies exported from the United States will not be used for non-peaceful purposes. Part 810 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (part 810) implements section 57 b.(2) of the AEA, pursuant to which the Secretary has granted a general authorization for certain categories of activities which the Secretary has found to be non-inimical to the interest of the United States— including assistance or transfers of technology to the ‘‘generally authorized destinations’’ listed in appendix A to part 810. Section 810.10 authorizes the Secretary to revoke any general or specific authorization. SUMMARY: Signing Authority This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 25, 2023, PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6243 by Katie D. Strangis, Deputy Director, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, National Nuclear Security Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. Signed in Washington, DC on January 26, 2023. Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy. Appendix Set forth below is the full text of the Secretarial Determination: Determination and Revocation of General Authorizations Pursuant to Department of Energy Regulations at 10 CFR Part 810 Regarding Exports of Nuclear Technology and Assistance to Colombia and Egypt Having considered the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) recommendation of revocation, I have determined pursuant to 10 CFR 810.10(c) that general authorizations for exports of Part 810—controlled nuclear technology and assistance to Colombia and Egypt no longer meet the non-inimicality standard specified in section 57 b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Whether a destination is determined to be generally or specifically authorized depends on a number of factors, including the existence of a bilateral peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement (‘‘123 agreement’’) with the United States. The U.S.-Colombia 123 Agreement expired on September 17, 2013. The U.S.-Egypt 123 Agreement expired on December 31, 2021. In the absence of 123 agreements with Colombia and Egypt, I have determined that the general authorizations for exports of Part 810—controlled nuclear technology and assistance to Colombia and Egypt no longer meet the non-inimicality standard. I therefore revoke the general authorizations for exports to Colombia and Egypt of Part 810—controlled nuclear technology and assistance, in accordance with 10 CFR 810.10. Accordingly, as of the date on which this determination is issued, all exports of Part 810-controlled nuclear technology and assistance to Colombia and Egypt that are not eligible for a general authorization listed in 10 CFR 810.6(b)–(g) shall require specific authorization pursuant to 10 CFR 810.7(a). E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6241-6243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01962]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Amended Record of Decision for Offsite Secondary Waste Treatment 
and Disposal From the Hanford Site, Washington

AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Amended record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is an amendment to the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) 
2013 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Tank Closure and Waste 
Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, 
Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS-0391, December 2012) (TC&WM EIS). In 
accordance with DOE's implementing procedures for the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), DOE prepared a supplement analysis 
(DOE/EIS-0391-SA-03; SA), which evaluated DOE's proposal to transport 
and treat certain solid and liquid secondary wastes at licensed and 
permitted commercial treatment facilities off the Hanford Site. DOE 
also proposes to potentially dispose of some of these secondary wastes 
(after treatment) offsite at a licensed and permitted commercial 
disposal facility. This action would be implemented on an interim basis 
until such time as an enhanced onsite treatment capability is available 
for Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) operations (estimated to be 
approximately 10 years). This amended ROD addresses the differences in 
the planned management of secondary wastes from that addressed by the 
2013 TC&WM EIS ROD document.

ADDRESSES: For copies of this amended ROD, the original ROD, subsequent 
amended RODs, the SA (DOE/EIS-0391-SA-03), the TC&WM EIS, or any 
related NEPA documents, please contact Mr. Douglas Chapin, Hanford Site 
NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 550, MSIN 
H5-30, Richland, Washington 99352; telephone: (509) 373-9396; or email, 
[email protected]. This amended ROD, the original ROD, 
subsequent amended RODs, the SA, and the TC&WM EIS are also available 
on DOE's NEPA website at https://www.energy.gov/nepa and the Hanford 
website at https://www.hanford.gov/index.cfm?page=1117&.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the 
TC&WM EIS, contact Mr. Chapin, as listed above. For general information 
on DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM) NEPA process, contact 
Mr. William Ostrum, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Environmental Management, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 
Washington, DC 20585-0103; telephone: (202) 586-2513; or email, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the TC&WM EIS, DOE analyzed 11 alternatives for the retrieval, 
treatment, storage, and disposal of tank wastes, followed by the 
closure of the single-shell waste storage tanks (SSTs) at the Hanford 
Site and three alternatives for waste management.\1\ In the 2013 TC&WM 
EIS ROD, DOE selected Tank Closure Alternative 2B, which would, among 
other things: (1) retrieve 99 percent of the waste from the SSTs; (2)

[[Page 6242]]

treat tank waste, including pretreatment of tank waste with separation 
into low-activity waste (LAW) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW); 
and (3) dispose of the vitrified LAW and secondary waste \2\ and 
construct immobilized HLW (IHLW) interim storage modules to store the 
IHLW prior to disposal.\3\ The 2013 ROD also stated, ``Tank waste 
treatment includes pretreatment of all tank waste, with separation into 
LAW and HLW. New evaporation capacity, upgrades to the ETF [Effluent 
Treatment Facility], new transfer lines and processing of both 
vitrified LAW and secondary waste for disposal are included in this 
decision.'' For waste management, the 2013 ROD further stated, ``DOE 
has decided to implement Waste Management Alternative 2, which includes 
disposal of LLW [low-level radioactive waste] and MLLW [mixed low-level 
radioactive waste] at IDF [Integrated Disposal Facility]-East from tank 
treatment operations.'' This alternative was identified in the 2013 ROD 
as the environmentally preferred waste management alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The three other alternatives analyzed in the TC&WM EIS 
concerned Fast Flux Test Facility decommissioning, which is not the 
subject of this ROD.
    \2\ Secondary waste, as described in the TC&WM EIS, is generated 
as a result of other activities, e.g., waste retrieval or waste 
treatment, that is not further treated by the WTP or supplemental 
treatment facilities and includes liquid and solid wastes. Liquid-
waste sources could include process condensates, scrubber wastes, 
spent reagents from resins, offgas and vessel vent wastes, vessel 
washes, floor drain and sump wastes, and decontamination solutions. 
Solid-waste sources could include worn filter membranes, spent ion 
exchange resins, failed or worn equipment, debris, analytical 
laboratory waste, high-efficiency particulate air filters, spent 
carbon adsorbent, and other process-related wastes. Not all the 
secondary waste, volumes, or waste types described in the TC&WM EIS 
are encompassed by this amended ROD. Secondary wastes addressed in 
this amended ROD consist of LLW and MLLW.
    \3\ For the complete list of activities covered in the ROD, see 
78 FR 75918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), as analyzed in 
the TC&WM EIS, would start processing tank waste by sending it to the 
Pretreatment Facility, where it would be separated into HLW and LAW. 
The process would then send each of these waste streams to the HLW 
Vitrification Facility and the LAW Vitrification Facility, 
respectively, for further treatment. The WTP, as analyzed in the TC&WM 
EIS, also contained an analytical laboratory (LAB) and 22 other support 
facilities referred to collectively as the ``balance of facilities'' 
(BOF). When DOE issued the ROD in 2013, its plan was to start operation 
of all the WTP facilities at the same time.
    Due to technical issues with the WTP Pretreatment Facility and HLW 
Vitrification Facility, only the LAW Vitrification Facility, LAB, and 
BOF have been completed and are preparing for operations. To begin 
treating waste as soon as practicable, DOE decided to use the DFLAW 
approach, which is a sequenced approach that will treat a portion of 
the tank waste first. The decision to implement the DFLAW approach was 
included in an amended ROD (84 FR 424; January 28, 2019).

Supplement Analysis of Offsite Treatment and Disposal of Hanford 
Secondary Waste

    As a result of projected increases in the volumes of secondary 
waste and the lack of sufficient secondary waste treatment capability 
and capacity on the Hanford Site once LAW Vitrification Facility 
operations begin using the DFLAW approach, DOE proposes to transport 
and treat certain secondary waste at licensed and permitted commercial 
treatment facilities that are located off the Hanford Site. In 
addition, DOE proposes to potentially dispose of some of these 
secondary wastes (after treatment) offsite at licensed and permitted 
commercial disposal facilities. This Proposed Action (both offsite 
treatment and potential offsite disposal) would be implemented on an 
interim basis until such time as an enhanced onsite treatment 
capability is available for DFLAW operations (estimated to be 
approximately 10 years). The annual estimated volumes of secondary 
waste that could be transported offsite for treatment and disposal 
would include:
     Approximately 8,300 cubic meters of LLW and MLLW (solid 
and liquid) would be treated at Perma-Fix Northwest (PFNW), a licensed 
and permitted commercial treatment facility in Richland, Washington, 
and disposed of at the IDF on the Hanford Site.
     Approximately 18 cubic meters of MLLW (solid and liquid) 
would be treated at Perma- Fix Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. 
(DSSI), a licensed and permitted commercial treatment facility in 
Kingston, Tennessee, and disposed of at the Waste Control Specialists 
Federal Waste Facility (WCS FWF) in Andrews County, Texas.
     Approximately 332 cubic meters of MLLW (primarily 
liquids), some of which would be treated at PFNW and disposed of at the 
IDF, and some of which would be treated at WCS and disposed of at the 
WCS FWF.
    To address the proposal, DOE prepared an SA in accordance with 
DOE's NEPA implementing procedures at 10 CFR 1021.314. The TC&WM EIS 
acknowledged that secondary waste could be managed through a 
combination of onsite and offsite treatment capabilities. The TC&WM EIS 
analyzed the disposal of grouted secondary waste at the IDF. DOE has 
been implementing a moderate amount of offsite treatment (an average of 
73 to 145 cubic meters per year of dangerous waste and MLLW) and 
disposal since publication of the 2013 ROD. The increased volume of 
offsite treatment and disposal of LLW and MLLW under the Proposed 
Action evaluated in the SA would not represent a substantive change 
relevant to environmental concerns from the Proposed Action evaluated 
in the TC&WM EIS.
    The TC&WM EIS evaluated potential environmental impacts from the 
emission of criteria pollutants, toxic pollutants, and greenhouse 
gases. The incremental increase in emissions related to the 
transportation of secondary waste for treatment and disposal would add 
less than 1 percent to the values presented in the TC&WM EIS.
    Transportation of secondary wastes offsite for treatment (and 
potential subsequent disposal), as opposed to the onsite treatment 
options evaluated in the TC&WM EIS, would essentially transfer the 
potential normal operational health impacts from the Hanford workforce 
to workers at commercial treatment and disposal facilities, given that 
the scopes of work would be similar in nature regardless of location. 
Additionally, the Proposed Action would not introduce any unique 
facility accidents that had not been evaluated either in the TC&WM EIS 
or in the commercial facility permitting or licensing process. 
Accordingly, radiological impacts and accident risk resulting from the 
Proposed Action would be comparable to that presented in the TC&WM EIS 
for treatment/disposal activities originally proposed for the Hanford 
Site.
    While the TC&WM EIS did not anticipate a large increase in the 
amount of secondary waste sent offsite for treatment and potential 
disposal, it did acknowledge that it could occur. The estimated health 
risks to the public and transportation crews are low for the 
approximate 10-year Proposed Action period.
    The majority of the treated secondary waste would be disposed of at 
the IDF, consistent with the analysis in the TC&WM EIS. Approximately 
350 cubic meters of secondary waste could be disposed of annually at 
the WCS FWF.\4\ In both instances, the stabilized waste

[[Page 6243]]

form would be verified to meet the facilities' waste acceptance 
criteria and would be well within the volume and curie limits for the 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The offsite disposal volume, following treatment by macro-
encapsulation or solidification, will be approximately 580 cubic 
meters annually for an approximate total of 5,800 cubic meters over 
10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision

    Based on the analysis in the SA, DOE determined that the Proposed 
Action for secondary waste management does not represent a substantial 
change to the proposal evaluated in the TC&WM EIS or significant new 
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns that 
would require preparation of a supplemental EIS. DOE therefore 
determined that no further NEPA analysis was required.
    There are no additional mitigation measures required beyond those 
commitments in the 2013 TC&WM EIS ROD. As stated in that ROD, all 
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been 
adopted. DOE's decision is to transport and treat certain solid and 
liquid secondary wastes at licensed and permitted commercial treatment 
facilities off the Hanford Site. DOE's decision is also to dispose of 
some of these secondary wastes (after treatment) offsite at the WCS 
FWF, a licensed and permitted commercial disposal facility. This action 
will be implemented on an interim basis until such time as an enhanced 
onsite treatment capability is available for DFLAW operations 
(estimated to be approximately 10 years).

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 25, 
2023, by William I. White, Senior Advisor for Environmental Management, 
pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That 
document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way 
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on January 26, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-01962 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.