[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1932]


[Federal Register: January 28, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Intent To Prepare Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System 
Environmental Impact Statements, Richland, WA

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare two Environmental Impact 
Statements (EISs) for proposed actions at the Hanford Site, Richland, 
Washington. One EIS will address the proposed Tank Waste Remediation 
System (TWRS) activities, and the second will address the proposed 
construction of six new tanks for the storage of high-level radioactive 
waste as an interim action to the TWRS EIS.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to 
prepare two EISs pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in accordance with the Council 
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the 
procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the DOE 
implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021), and to conduct a series of 
public scoping meetings. It is intended that the TWRS EIS cover all 
TWRS activities that are ripe for decision. In addition, DOE proposes 
to prepare an EIS for the construction and operation of six new storage 
tanks as an interim action while the TWRS EIS is being prepared, 
consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 1506.1. The public scoping 
period being announced in this NOI provides an opportunity for the 
public to comment on the scope of issues to be addressed in both the 
TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS.
    The TWRS program is conducted in concert with the Hanford Federal 
Facility Agreement and Consent Order (also called the Tri-Party 
Agreement or TPA) among DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The 
scope of the TWRS Program includes: Resolution of high-level 
radioactive waste tank safety issues; management of high-level waste 
tank farm operations; upgrading the tank farm infrastructure; waste 
characterization; storage of wastes generated from Hanford cleanup 
activities; tank farm waste retrieval, conditioning (e.g., evaporation/ 
dilution), pretreatment (e.g., radionuclide separation), and 
immobilization (e.g., vitrification); construction of new high-level 
waste tanks; storage of immobilized high-activity waste; storage/
disposal of immobilized low-activity waste; management of encapsulated 
strontium and cesium; and technology development.
    DOE has identified the immediate need for additional interim high-
level waste storage capacity to support the resolution of safety issues 
associated with ``Watchlist'' tanks as identified pursuant to ``Safety 
Measures for Waste Tanks at Hanford Nuclear Reservation,'' section 3137 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, P.L. 
101-510. As an interim action to the TWRS EIS, the new tanks EIS will 
address the proposed construction and operation of six new underground 
storage tanks to support the resolution of safety issues concerning the 
high-level waste in existing tanks.
    In March 1993, DOE completed a rebaselining of the TWRS program to 
ensure that the program to remediate Hanford tank wastes is 
comprehensive, integrated and technically sound. Subsequently, the TPA 
was renegotiated and revised. Public meetings on the revised TPA were 
held in several locations statewide during November 1993. The revised 
TPA is expected to be signed by all parties on January 25, 1994.
    The proposed TWRS program actions constitute a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the environment and, accordingly, DOE has 
developed a strategy for providing the appropriate NEPA reviews for the 
actions. The strategy consists of a TWRS EIS for the overall proposed 
action to treat, store, and dispose of Hanford's stored high-level tank 
waste, and an EIS for the new tanks as an interim action. In addition, 
separate NEPA reviews for other interim actions may need to be 
initiated during preparation of the TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS. 
Such interim actions would include activities needed to maintain the 
current waste management system; collect data and resolve urgent 
pretreatment issues; and protect both the workers, the public and the 
environment. The TWRS EIS will address the cumulative impacts of the 
TWRS program including the new tanks and other interim actions.
    In December 1987 the DOE completed the ``Final Environmental Impact 
Statement on the Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic 
and Tank Wastes'' (HDW EIS), which addressed the environmental 
consequences of alternatives for disposal of wastes generated during 
national defense activities and stored at the Hanford site. A Record of 
Decision (ROD) issued in April 1988 has formed the basis for DOE's 
programs to manage these wastes at the Hanford site.
    In the HDW EIS ROD, DOE deferred final disposal decisions for the 
tank wastes contained in single-shell tanks (SSTs), pending further 
evaluations in a supplemental EIS. However, to meet regulatory 
requirements, DOE's current planning basis is to retrieve SST waste, 
and to integrate double-shell tank (DST) and SST waste management 
activities leading to final disposal. Because DOE now proposes to 
integrate SST and DST waste management programs, the TWRS EIS described 
in this NOI will replace the previously planned supplement to the HDW 
EIS.
    The TWRS EIS will address the DOE's proposal for the management, 
treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste currently stored in the 
existing 149 SSTs and 28 DSTs and other wastes to be generated during 
future decontamination and decommissioning activities at Hanford. DOE 
recognizes that removal of waste from the tanks may trigger Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) treatment and disposal 
requirements to complete closure of the tanks. However, the impacts of 
tank closure cannot be meaningfully evaluated at this time. DOE will 
conduct an appropriate NEPA review, such as an EIS to support tank 
closure, in the future.
    The planned interim action EIS will address the construction of six 
new tanks and associated new transfer lines, and the tank operations. 
For the purposes of this interim action EIS, operations considered 
would be limited to the retrieval, pH adjustment or alkalinity control, 
and storage of wastes from the Watchlist safety tanks. The primary 
focus of the EIS would be the resolution of safety issues related to 
the three tanks that are on the Watchlist because of hydrogen 
generation (241-SY-101, 241-SY-103 and 241-AN-104), but the tanks may 
also be used to alleviate safety concerns in other Watchlist tanks (50 
tanks are currently on the Watchlist). Further decisions regarding the 
retrieval, treatment and disposal of wastes from the Watchlist tanks 
will be the subject of the TWRS EIS.

DATES: DOE invites all interested parties to submit written comments or 
suggestions concerning the scope of the issues to be addressed, 
alternatives to be analyzed, and the environmental impacts to be 
assessed in the TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS, during a 45-day comment 
period ending March 14, 1994. The public is also invited to attend 
scoping meetings in which oral comments will be received on the 
proposed TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS. Oral and written comments will 
be considered equally in preparation of the EISs. Written comments must 
be postmarked by March 14, 1994. Comments postmarked after that date 
will be considered to the extent practicable. Oral and written comments 
will be received at public scoping meetings to be held on the dates and 
at the locations given below:


                                                                        
                                                                        
Richland, Washington.  February 14, 1994....  Hanford House--Red Lion   
                                               802 George Washington    
                                               Way. Richland, WA 99352  
Hood River, Oregon...  February 16, 1994....  The Hood River Inn/Best   
                                               Western 1108 East Marina 
                                               Way Hood River, OR 97031.
Portland, Oregon.....  February 17, 1994....  Bonneville Power          
                                               Administration           
                                               Auditorium, 911 N.E. 11th
                                               Avenue Portland, OR      
                                               97204.                   
Seattle, Washington..  February 22, 1994....  The Mountaineer's 300     
                                               Third Ave. West Seattle, 
                                               WA 98105.                
Spokane, Washington..  February 24, 1994....  Spokane Convention Center 
                                               334 West Spokane Falls   
                                               Blvd. Spokane, WA 99201. 

    Each scoping session will begin with a welcome and introduction of 
DOE officials, followed by short presentations by DOE officials on the 
EIS process, the Hanford TWRS program and the proposed interim actions. 
Individuals and organization spokespersons will then have an 
opportunity to present oral comments to DOE representatives. The agenda 
will be repeated twice a day at each location, in afternoon and evening 
sessions. The hours for the sessions are: 1 pm to 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm 
to 10 pm.
    Requests to speak at these meetings may be made by calling the 
toll-free telephone number, 1-800-500-1660, by 3 p.m. the day before 
the meeting or by writing to Donald Alexander (see ADDRESSES, below).
    The meetings will be chaired by a presiding officer but will not be 
conducted as evidentiary hearings; speakers will not be cross-examined 
although the presiding officer and DOE representatives present may ask 
clarifying questions. Individuals requesting to speak on behalf of an 
organization must identify the organization. A 5-minute limit will be 
imposed on each individual speaker except that a speaker representing 
an organization (one per organization) will be given a 10-minute limit. 
These limits are to ensure that all who wish to speak have an 
opportunity to do so. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter and 
will become part of the scoping meeting record.
    Persons who have not submitted a request to speak in advance of the 
scoping meetings may register at the meetings and will be called on to 
speak on a first-come first-served basis as time permits. Written 
comments will also be accepted at the meetings, and speakers are 
encouraged to provide written versions of their oral comments for the 
record.
    DOE will review scoping comments to determine their applicability 
to the two proposed EISs. Records of, and responses to, the scoping 
comments will be provided as appropriate in either the Implementation 
Plan (IP) for the TWRS EIS or the IP for the new tanks EIS. The IPs 
will provide guidance for preparation of the TWRS and new tanks EISs 
and establish their scopes and content (10 CFR 1021.312). The IPs will 
be issued prior to the release of the draft EISs and copies will be 
available for inspection in public reading room locations to be 
announced.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the TWRS EIS and the new 
tanks EIS, questions concerning the tank waste program, requests for 
speaking times, and requests for copies of the IPs and/or the Draft 
EISs (DEISs) should be directed to the designated contact below. If any 
additional DEISs are prepared for other interim actions, their 
availability will be announced in the Federal Register and opportunity 
will be provided for public review and comment as required by CEQ and 
DOE regulations. Any interim action DEISs may also be obtained from the 
designated contact below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald H. Alexander, Attn: Scoping 
Comments, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 550, Richland, WA 
99352, Telephone: 509-372-2453 or 1-800-500-1660.
    For information on the DOE NEPA process, contact: Carol M. 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight (EH-25), U.S. Department 
of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 
Telephone: 202-586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Federal government created the Hanford Site, near Richland, 
Washington, in 1943, as part of the Manhattan Project, to produce 
plutonium for national defense. Metallic uranium fuel was irradiated in 
nuclear reactors and then the fuel was chemically processed to recover 
plutonium. Plutonium production at the Hanford Site stopped in 1988.
    Processing of reactor fuel and other waste management activities 
created a wide variety of radioactive wastes, including high-level 
wastes that have been stored in underground tanks. The high-level 
wastes came from many different processes and sources, and they have 
been processed and transferred among tanks so that chemical and 
physical characteristics of the wastes vary greatly among tanks and 
even within individual tanks. Typically, the tank wastes are highly 
radioactive and chemically hazardous.
    SSTs have one steel wall, surrounded by reinforced concrete; they 
were constructed between 1944 and 1964 and received waste until 1980. 
The capacity of most SSTs is 0.5 million gallons (Mgal) to 1.0 Mgal. 
The tanks are situated below grade and are covered with 6 to 10 feet of 
earth.
    Waste in SSTs consists of liquids, sludges, and saltcake, i.e., 
crusty solids made of crystallized salts. Some of the liquids in the 
SSTs are contained in the pores of the sludges and saltcake, and some 
liquids are free standing in the tanks.
    There are 149 SSTs storing about 36 Mgal of waste. This waste is 
comprised of approximately 0.6 Mgal of free-standing liquid, 23.2 Mgal 
of saltcake, and 12.5 Mgal of sludge. About half of the SSTs have 
leaked or are assumed to have leaked. Approximately 0.6 to 0.9 Mgal of 
waste has leaked or spilled into the nearby soil. Over the years, much 
of the liquid stored in SSTs has evaporated or been pumped to DSTs.
    There are 28 one Mgal DSTs at Hanford. The DSTs were constructed 
between 1970 and 1986. Most of these tanks are designed for up to 50 
years of storage. DSTs have a second steel containment wall. The space 
between the two walls is monitored for leaks. DOE has used the DSTs 
since 1970 and none has been known to leak. The DSTs are used to treat 
and store a variety of liquid radioactive wastes from the SSTs and from 
various Hanford Site processes. The wastes are stored in tanks based 
upon composition, level of radioactivity, or origin. The DSTs now 
contain about 25 Mgal of waste.
    In the 1960s and 1970s, radioactive strontium and cesium were 
extracted from wastes in some SSTs. The strontium and cesium were 
converted to salt forms and placed in double-walled capsules. Most of 
the 610 strontium capsules and 1323 cesium capsules are stored at 
Hanford. Some capsules were shipped offsite for beneficial use as heat 
or radiation sources. Because the capsules were only leased from DOE, 
it is anticipated that they will be returned to Hanford.
    In the April 1988 HDW EIS ROD, DOE decided to proceed with 
preparing the DST waste for final disposal because it was readily 
retrievable. Wastes were to be processed in a pretreatment facility 
(planned to be the Hanford B-Plant and AR Vault) to separate DST waste 
into two portions. The larger portion would be low activity waste, and 
a much smaller portion would be highly radioactive. The low activity 
waste was to be mixed with a cement-like material to form grout. The 
grout was to be poured into large, lined, concrete, near-surface, 
underground vaults where it would solidify.
    The high activity waste fraction was to be made into a borosilicate 
glass and poured into stainless-steel canisters (approximately 0.6 m 
diameter by 3 m long) at the proposed Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant 
(HWVP). The canisters were to be stored there until a geologic 
repository was ready to receive this waste.
    Existing and future DST wastes were to be characterized for 
hazardous chemical constituents as well as other constituents that 
might affect glass or grout formulations before processing. This 
characterization would also help ensure that proper treatment, in 
accordance with hazardous waste regulations, occurred before disposal 
of the waste.
    The HDW EIS ROD also called for storage of cesium and strontium 
capsules to continue until a geologic repository is ready to receive 
this waste for disposal. Before shipment to the repository, the 
capsules would be packaged to meet repository acceptance criteria.
    In the HDW EIS ROD, DOE decided to conduct additional development 
and evaluation before making decisions on final disposal of SST wastes. 
This development and evaluation effort was to focus both on methods to 
retrieve and process SST wastes for disposal and to stabilize and 
isolate the wastes near-surface. SST waste would continue to be stored 
and monitored. Before a decision on the final disposal of the wastes 
could be made, the alternatives were to be analyzed in a supplement to 
the HDW EIS.
    Several significant changes have occurred subsequent to the HDW 
EIS. These include the identification of significant waste tank safety 
issues; the DOE, EPA and Ecology signing the TPA; the elimination of B-
Plant from consideration as a waste pretreatment facility; the delay of 
the HWVP; and the proposal to treat SST waste with DST waste. These 
changes resulted in DOE's proposal to integrate all Hanford tank waste 
remediation efforts. As a result, resolving waste tank safety issues, 
planning for SST waste retrieval, and developing pretreatment 
facilities have become major elements of the proposed Hanford tank 
waste remediation program.

Purpose and Need for Agency

ACTION:
    DOE needs to take action to treat, store, and dispose of Hanford's 
stored high-level tank waste and encapsulated strontium and cesium and 
to reduce the overall potential risks posed by the tank wastes. This 
entails addressing four major programmatic elements: Retrieval, 
pretreatment, immobilization, and storage/disposal. More specifically, 
these programmatic elements include:
     Retrieval of SST and DST wastes.
     Conditioning (e.g., evaporation/dilution) of wastes.
     Waste pretreatment.
     New infrastructure such as facilities, tanks, and transfer 
lines.
     Production of a stabilized high-activity waste form.
     Interim storage for the stabilized high-activity waste 
form.
     Production and disposal of a stabilized low-activity waste 
form.
     Management of encapsulated strontium and cesium inventory.
    DOE also needs to address closure of tanks (including disposal of 
tanks, piping, ancillary facilities, and contaminated soil). Although 
tank closure is included in the TPA, closure is not included in the 
proposed action for the TWRS EIS because the impacts of tank closure 
cannot be meaningfully evaluated at this time. DOE will conduct an 
appropriate NEPA review, such as preparing a tank closure EIS, in the 
future.

TWRS EIS Alternatives

    A number of alternatives can be constructed from the range of 
options available for the four major subcomponents of the TWRS, which 
are retrieval, pretreatment, immobilization and storage/disposal. 
Combinations of these options comprise the range of reasonable 
alternatives currently envisioned for TWRS. The TPA establishes one 
specific case within the range of alternatives to be considered in the 
TWRS EIS. The TWRS EIS will also evaluate a number of other 
alternatives constructed from the range of options described for the 
four major subcomponents of the TWRS and a no-action alternative in 
order to adequately evaluate the full range of potential environmental 
impacts.

TPA Preferred Alternative

    On March 31, 1993, DOE, EPA, and Ecology agreed to enter into 
formal negotiations on matters relating to Hanford tank waste 
remediation, environmental restoration activities, cost control, and 
implementation and administration of the Hanford Federal Facility 
Agreement and Consent Order. The negotiations were concluded in 
September 1993, with tentative agreement on all matters under 
negotiation. The revised TPA received public review during November 
1993, and the TPA was scheduled to be signed by the three parties on 
January 25, 1994. The full TPA covers subjects outside the purview of 
the TWRS program. The elements of the TPA which are within the scope of 
the TWRS program constitute elements of the preferred alternative for 
purposes of the TWRS EIS. Accordingly, the TPA preferred alternative 
consists of the following activities:
     Upgrading the infrastructure of the high-level waste tank 
farms to provide improved facility management and operation.
     Characterization of the wastes in all 177 SSTs and DSTs to 
facilitate treatment, immobilization and disposal.
     Construction and operation of additional DSTs (beyond the 
six tanks proposed in the interim action EIS noticed here) as necessary 
to support waste management and disposal.
     Stabilization of SST waste by removing and storing the 
pumpable liquids in DSTs, thus reducing the potential for leaks to the 
surrounding soil.
     Retrieval of the waste from SSTs and DSTs with priority on 
the SSTs. The retrieval criterion is removal of 99% of the waste from 
all SSTs on a tank-by-tank basis.
     Construction and operation of a waste pretreatment 
facility to treat the tank waste and to prepare the low-activity 
fraction for final processing. The high-activity fraction of the waste 
would be stored pending final processing. Separate complexes would be 
constructed to house enhanced sludge washing and cesium and strontium 
ion exchange processes. An evaporator would be included in the low-
activity waste pretreatment complex. These complexes could be stand-
alone facilities, a set of distributed facilities, or part of a central 
processing complex.
     Construction and operation of a low-activity waste 
vitrification plant of appropriate capacity. Bounding analysis may be 
used if definitive designs are not available. DOE would maintain in a 
standby condition the capability to restart the grout facility if its 
operation is necessary before new DSTs are available to provide tank 
space to resolve safety issues.
     Storage/disposal of the vitrified low-activity waste on-
site at Hanford.
     Construction and operation of a high-activity waste 
vitrification plant of appropriate capacity. Bounding analysis may be 
used if definitive designs are not available.
     Construction and operation of storage for vitrified high-
activity waste until a repository for permanent disposal is available.
     Existing cesium and strontium capsules would be either 
over-packed and stored, or dissolved and blended with the high-activity 
vitrification waste stream.

Additional Alternatives

    Additional alternatives will be constructed from the range of 
options described below in order to adequately evaluate the full range 
of potential environmental impacts.
Options for Retrieval
    Waste can be retrieved by hydraulic sluicing, pneumatic or 
mechanical systems. Hydraulic sluicing injects liquid into the tank to 
dislodge and mobilize or dissolve the waste. Pumps transfer the liquid 
and slurry out of the tank. Mechanical or pneumatic systems are placed 
in contact with the waste. This equipment conditions the waste and 
transfers it out of the tank. The retrieved waste is transferred to the 
pretreatment process.
Options for Pretreatment
    Pretreatment is performed to separate the waste into its high-
activity and low-activity components. One option is to perform no 
pretreatment. Another option is to limit the volume of waste going to a 
geologic repository by pretreating waste to accomplish some level of 
high- and low-activity waste separation. Two bounding alternatives for 
pretreating tank wastes have been identified, corresponding to the 
reasonable limits of waste pretreatment (such as evaporation, acid 
digestion, nuclide separation, ion exchange) to concentrate the 
radionuclides in a smaller volume. For purposes of this discussion, 
these bounds are referred to as ``minimal'' and ``extensive'' 
pretreatment. The pretreatment bounds may also influence the relative 
volumes of high- and low-activity wastes to be stabilized and stored/
disposed of. The pretreated waste would be transferred to the waste 
immobilization process.
    Minimal pretreatment would use sludge washing to separate the waste 
into a smaller volume fraction of high-activity waste (containing the 
majority of radionuclide activity), and a larger volume fraction of 
low-activity waste. The low-activity waste might be subjected to an 
evaporation step to reduce the volume resulting from the sludge washing 
process.
    Extensive pretreatment would use advanced solvent extraction 
methods to provide the maximum level of radionuclide partitioning. 
Hazardous nitrates, metals, and other selected chemicals would be 
removed from the low-activity waste stream, and the volume of the high-
activity waste fraction would be minimized.
Options for Immobilization
    The immobilization would stabilize the waste coming from the 
pretreatment process. Both the low-activity waste stream and the high-
activity waste stream would be stabilized. The stabilized waste would 
be transferred to storage or disposal.
    High-activity waste stabilization options include vitrification, 
ceramic forms and calcination. After stabilizing, the high-activity 
waste fraction would comply with any likely waste form criteria for 
geologic repository acceptance and transportation.
    Low-activity waste stabilization options include vitrification, 
glass cullet in a sulfur cement and cement polymer-based grout. The 
current plan provides that the encapsulated cesium and strontium would 
meet the waste form criteria for geologic repository acceptance and 
transportation. The first option is overpacking the capsules. If the 
repository waste form criteria cannot be achieved by overpacking, the 
capsules would be stabilized the same as the high-activity waste 
fraction above (e.g., vitrification, ceramic or calcination).
Options for Disposal/Storage
    The disposal options include disposal onsite, disposal offsite and 
interim storage pending disposal.
    High-activity waste disposal options include emplacement of the 
stabilized waste in an offsite geologic repository or in interim 
storage onsite pending availability of an offsite geologic repository.
    Low-activity waste disposal options depend on the stabilized waste 
form and include: Burial in onsite landfills in containers; burial in 
onsite vaults; burial onsite in steel culverts with liners and leachate 
collection; and soil melt slurry injection to a landfill. Some of these 
options would accommodate retrievability if desired.

No Action Alternative

    The no action alternative for TWRS would be continued storage of 
tank wastes and encapsulated cesium and strontium without preparation 
for disposal. However, the no action alternative includes continued 
maintenance, monitoring, and safety upgrades. No action also includes 
maintaining the low-activity waste grouting facility in a standby 
condition in case its operation is necessary before new DSTs are 
available to provide tank space to resolve safety issues. The no-
disposal action alternative was analyzed in the HDW EIS and the DOE 
intends to update the HDW EIS analyses in the TWRS EIS. The no action 
alternative is included to comply with the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 
1502.14(d)) for consideration of a no action alternative.

Interim Actions

    DOE plans to complete the TWRS EIS by approximately October 1996. 
DOE may need to undertake interim actions while the TWRS EIS is being 
prepared. Any interim actions undertaken would have to be independently 
justified because, for example, they are activities needed to maintain 
the current waste management system; collect data and resolve urgent 
pretreatment issues; or protect workers, the public and the 
environment. Any interim actions would be actions on which decisions 
were needed prior to the scheduled completion of the TWRS EIS. None of 
the interim actions would prejudice the ultimate decision to be made on 
the basis of the TWRS EIS because they would be needed regardless of 
which alternatives are selected in that EIS. As described previously in 
this notice, DOE has already identified the construction of new tank 
capacity needed to resolve tank safety issues (identified in the TPA as 
the Multi-function Waste Tank Facility) as an interim action, and is 
planning to prepare a separate EIS for that project. DOE plans to 
complete the new tanks EIS by September 1994 to support a near-term TPA 
milestone.
    Other interim actions may include system and infrastructure 
upgrades, replacement of the cross-site transfer system, waste 
characterization, technology development and demonstration activities 
including a compact processing unit, and initial retrieval or 
pretreatment and immobilization activities. These activities, if 
undertaken, would also require preparation of independent NEPA reviews 
while the TWRS EIS is in preparation.

Proposed Actions, New Tanks EIS

    The proposed new tanks would provide waste storage space needed for 
resolution of tank safety issues and would not be used for storage of 
newly generated high-level waste. The new tanks would be improved 
versions of the existing DSTs. Each tank would be constructed of double 
shell stainless steel surrounded by a concrete liner, and would have a 
1 million gallon capacity. All tanks would have leak detection 
monitoring systems and filtered ventilation systems. The EIS will 
address the construction of new tanks and associated new transfer 
lines, and the tank operations. For the purposes of this interim action 
EIS, operations considered would be limited to the retrieval, pH 
adjustment or alkalinity control, and storage of wastes from the 
Watchlist safety tanks. The primary focus of the EIS would be the 
resolution of safety issues related to the three tanks that are on the 
Watchlist because of hydrogen generation (241-SY-101, 241-SY-103 and 
241-AN-104), but the tanks may also be used to alleviate safety 
concerns in other Watchlist tanks (50 tanks are currently on the 
Watchlist). Further decisions regarding the disposition of these wastes 
will be addressed by the TWRS EIS.

Alternatives, New Tanks EIS

    The new tanks EIS will evaluate all reasonable alternatives. 
Alternatives which have been tentatively identified for possible 
evaluation in this EIS include but are not limited to the following:

TPA Preferred Alternative

    The TPA preferred alternative is to construct two DSTs in the 200 
West Area by 1997 and four DSTs in the 200 East Area by 1998. These new 
tanks would be utilized to store wastes retrieved from Watchlist tanks 
in order to resolve tank safety issues. Resolution of safety issues for 
these Watchlist tanks may include up to a three-to-one dilution of the 
wastes with water and/or caustic solutions. In order to achieve this 
dilution a combination of new and existing tank space would be used.

Construct Fewer Tanks

    Under this alternative, the need for additional tanks would be 
reduced using alternatives to retrieval for tank safety issue 
mitigation. An example would be the use of mixer pumps for mitigating 
the flammable gas safety issue.

No Action

    The EIS will also address the no action alternative, under which no 
additional underground high-level waste storage tanks would be built in 
the near term. No action would leave the safety issues for the 
Watchlist safety tanks unresolved.

Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues

    The issues listed below have been tentatively identified for 
analysis in both EISs. This list is presented to facilitate public 
comment on the scope of the EISs. It is not intended to be all-
inclusive or to predetermine the potential impacts of any of the 
alternatives.
    (1) Potential effects on the public and on-site workers from 
releases of radiological and nonradiological materials during normal 
operations and from reasonably postulated accidents;
    (2) Pollution prevention and waste minimization;
    (3) Potential effects on air and water quality and other 
environmental consequences of normal operations and potential 
accidents;
    (4) Potential cumulative effects of operations at the Hanford Site, 
including relevant impacts from other past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable activities at the site;
    (5) Potential effects on endangered species, floodplain/wetlands, 
archaeological/historical sites;
    (6) Potential effects on future decommissioning decisions;
    (7) Effects from normal transportation and postulated 
transportation accidents;
    (8) Potential socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities;
    (9) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects;
    (10) Short-term uses of the environment versus long-term 
productivity;
    (11) Potential irretrievable and irreversible commitment of 
resources.

Regulatory Framework

    The TPA sets milestones to achieve coordinated cleanup of the 
Hanford Site and provides a legal and procedural framework for 
regulatory compliance during cleanup. During the development of both 
EISs, DOE intends to fully comply with the TPA, as modified by the 
change control process.
    Federal and State laws that are of major importance to waste 
management activities at Hanford include the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; 
RCRA; the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act, Chapter 
70.105 RCW; and the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The Atomic 
Energy Act requires the management, processing, and use of radioactive 
materials in a manner that protects workers, public health, and the 
environment. RCRA and the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management 
Act establish requirements for management of hazardous waste, including 
generation, treatment, storage, transportation, and disposal. RCRA also 
requires cleanup of hazardous waste releases from past and present 
operations when the releases pose a threat to human health or the 
environment.

Related NEPA Documentation

    NEPA documents that have been or are being prepared for activities 
at Hanford include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (1) Final Environmental Impact Statement for Disposal of Hanford 
Defense High-Level Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland 
Washington, DOE/EIS-0113, Vol. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, December 1987. U.S. 
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. As discussed in the Background 
section of this notice, the HDW EIS analyzed the impacts of Hanford 
tank waste treatment and disposal.
    (2) Final Environmental Statement for Waste Management Operations, 
Hanford Reservation, Richland Washington, ERDA-1538, Vol.1 and 2, 1975. 
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C. 
This EIS analyzed the environmental impacts of Hanford Site waste 
management operations.
    (3) Hanford Remedial Action-Environmental Impact Statement. The 
HRA-EIS will assess the potential environmental consequences of 
alternatives for conducting a remedial action program at the Hanford 
Site for inactive hazardous, high- and low-level radioactive, 
transuranic and mixed-waste sites. DOE published a NOI to prepare the 
HRA-EIS on August 21, 1992 (47 FR 37959-37964) and intends to issue the 
draft HRA-EIS in 1994.
    (4) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management. The EM-PEIS will analyze the complex- 
wide environmental restoration and waste management issues and 
alternatives. DOE published the NOI to prepare the EM-PEIS on October 
22, 1990 (55 FR 42633) and issued the Implementation Plan on December 
23, 1993. The TWRS EIS will discuss its relationship to the EM-PEIS and 
how issues addressed in the EM-PEIS could affect the alternatives 
analyzed in the TWRS EIS.
    (5) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Reconfiguration 
of the Nuclear Weapons Complex (DP-PEIS). The DP-PEIS will analyze 
longterm reconfiguration strategies and evaluate those strategies 
against the consequences of maintaining existing defense production 
facilities. DOE published an Implementation Plan in February 1992. In 
July 1993, DOE published a revised NOI and intends to issue a revised 
Implementation Plan based on that NOI.
    (6) Tank Safety Environmental Assessments. DOE has completed eight 
environmental assessments and issued corresponding findings of no 
significant impact for activities to sample and characterize tank 
wastes or to modify tank equipment to improve safety conditions.
    (7) Stabilization Operations at the Plutonium Finishing Plant. In 
September 1993, DOE announced plans to prepare an EA for this proposed 
action and invited public comments on the scope. On the basis of 
comments, including those received at four public meetings, DOE is 
considering whether to prepare an EIS instead. Alternatives under 
consideration may generate liquid high-level wastes requiring storage 
in the Hanford tank farm.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 25th day of January, 1994.
Peter N. Brush,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 94-1932 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P