[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26668]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 27, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 

Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) To Clean 
Out and Deactivate the Hanford, Washington Plutonium Finishing Plant 
(PFP) Complex (Except for Storage Areas), To Stabilize PFP Plutonium-
Bearing Materials and To Store the Stabilized Material

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI).

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

SUMMARY: DOE announces its intent to prepare an EIS pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (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). DOE invites public comment and will conduct a series of public 
scoping meetings to provide an opportunity for the public and 
interested agencies to comment on the alternatives and the scope of 
issues to be addressed in the EIS.
    The proposed action would clean out inactive PFP complex facilities 
(except for storage areas), stabilize reactive residual plutonium-
bearing materials to a form suitable for long term storage, and store 
the stabilized material until DOE makes final storage and disposition 
decisions. The proposed action would minimize safety concerns, reduce 
the exposure of site workers to radiation, and reduce the risk to the 
public. Upon completion of the action, the PFP-complex would be 
deactivated to a state ready for potential decontamination and 
dismantlement (D&D) and/or potential future uses. Additional NEPA 
documentation will be prepared by DOE before any decision is made to 
D&D the PFP and/or to use it for other purposes. At this time, no 
future missions beyond continued vault storage have been identified for 
the PFP-complex. Future production of plutonium for defense purposes is 
not being proposed and is not part of Hanford's current mission. 
Existing vault storage of nuclear materials would continue pending 
future NEPA documentation and a DOE decision on the ultimate storage or 
disposition of the materials; on June 21, 1994, DOE issued a NOI to 
prepare a programmatic EIS on the storage and disposition of weapons-
usable fissile materials.

DATES: DOE invites all interested parties, including affected Federal, 
State and local agencies, Indian Nations, and the general public to 
submit 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 Plutonium Finishing Plant Cleanout EIS by 
December 12, 1994. To ensure that all relevant environmental issues are 
considered, the public, agencies, and organizations are also invited to 
attend public scoping workshops in which oral and written comments will 
be welcomed on the proposed PFP EIS. Oral and written comments will be 
given equal weight in the scoping process. Written comments must be 
postmarked by December 12, 1994 to ensure their consideration. Comments 
postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent 
practicable.
    Public scoping workshops to provide information and discuss and 
receive comments on the scope of the EIS will be held on the dates and 
at the locations given below:

Hood River, Oregon............  Date: Thursday, November 10, 1994.................  Hood River Inn, Best        
                                                                                     Western, 1108 E. Marina    
                                                                                     Way, Hood River, OR 97031, 
                                                                                     (503) 386-2200.            
Portland, Oregon..............  Date: Friday, November 11, 1994...................  Red Lion/Lloyd's Center,    
                                                                                     1000 Multnomah, Portland,  
                                                                                     OR 97204, (503) 281-6111.  
Richland, Washington..........  Date: Tuesday, November 15, 1994..................  O'Callahan's at the Shilo,  
                                                                                     50 Comstock, Richland, WA  
                                                                                     99352, (509) 946-4661.     
Seattle, Washington...........  Date: Thursday, November 17, 1994.................  Bellevue Hilton Hotel, 100  
                                                                                     112th Avenue, Bellevue, WA 
                                                                                     98004, (206) 455-3330.     
Spokane, Washington...........  Date: Monday, November 28, 1994...................  Cavanaugh's Inn at the Park,
                                                                                     W. 303 North River Drive,  
                                                                                     Spokane, WA 99352, (509)   
                                                                                     326-8000.                  
                                                                                                                

    Each public scoping workshop will begin with a welcome and brief 
overview of the proposed EIS and will include sub-workshops on specific 
items of interest in which the public can ask questions and provide 
comments to DOE officials. Notes will be taken in the sub-workshops to 
record public concerns for the official workshop record. Each workshop 
will conclude with a session that will be recorded by a public 
stenographer and will become part of the official workshop record. This 
portion of the workshop will be chaired by a presiding officer, but 
will not be conducted as an evidentiary hearing; speakers will not be 
cross-examined although the presiding officer and DOE representatives 
may ask clarifying questions. Individuals requesting to speak on behalf 
of an organization must identify the organization. In the interest of 
ensuring that all who wish to speak have an opportunity to do so, each 
individual speaker will be given a 5-minute limit except that a speaker 
representing an organization (one per organization) will be given a 10-
minute limit.
    The agenda will be repeated twice a day at each location, in 
afternoon and evening sessions. The hours for the sessions will be: 
12:30 PM-1:30 PM (workshop session), 1:30 PM-4:30 PM (formal scoping 
meeting), 5:30 PM-6:30 PM (workshop session), and 6:30 PM-9:30 PM 
(formal scoping meeting).

    Requests to speak at these workshops may be made by calling the 
toll-free telephone number, 1-800-516-3740 by 3:00 PM the day before 
the meeting or by writing to the DOE (see ADDRESSES below).

    Persons who have not submitted a request to speak in advance may 
register to do so at the workshops 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 proposed PFP cleanout EIS. An Implementation Plan (IP) for the 
PFP EIS will provide guidance for preparation of the PFP EIS and 
establish its scope and content (10 CFR 1021.312). The IP will briefly 
summarize the scoping comments received and their disposition. The IP 
will be issued prior to the release of the draft EIS and copies will be 
made available for inspection.

    Written comments on the scope of the PFP EIS, questions or comments 
concerning the PFP cleanout program, requests for speaking times at the 
public scoping meetings, and requests for copies of the IP and/or the 
Draft EIS (DEIS) should be directed to the designated Richland contacts 
below. ADDRESSES:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jim Mecca, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 550 (MSIN B1-42), 
Richland, WA 99352, Attention: NL Peters, Telephone: (509) 946-3683

Mr. Ben Burton, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 550 (MSIN B1-42), 
Richland, WA 99352, Telephone: (509) 946-3683

    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, D.C. 20585, 
Telephone: 202-586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

    EIS technical reports, background data, materials incorporated by 
reference, and other related documents are available either through the 
contacts listed above or at:

DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Ave. S.W., Washington, D.C.

DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State University, Tri-Cities 
Branch, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352.

and at the following DOE information repositories:

University of Washington, Suzzallo Library, Government Publication, 
Seattle, WA 98195
Gonzaga University, Foley Center, E. 502 Boone, Spokane, WA 99258
Portland State University, Branford Price Millar Library, SW Harrison 
and Park, Portland, OR 97207.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Federal government began operating the Hanford Site, near 
Richland, Washington, in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project to 
produce plutonium for national defense purposes. Metallic uranium fuel 
was irradiated in nuclear reactors at the Hanford Site to create 
plutonium, which was converted to plutonium nitrate and purified 
through chemical processing for use in nuclear weapons.
    Initial production of plutonium metal at the PFP complex began in 
July, 1949. The complex is located on Hanford's 200 West Area Plateau 
approximately 32 miles northwest of Richland, Washington. The complex 
includes production areas, reclamation processes, laboratories and 
plutonium storage vaults. Several defense missions were carried out 
within the PFP complex. As the need arose, processes were installed in 
the PFP to recover as much plutonium as possible and metal production 
capabilities were updated. Some of the process areas have been 
deactivated over the last 20 years; however, plutonium recovery 
activities continued until the production mission ended in 1989. Secure 
materials storage vaults have been in operation since the early 1960s.
    Today, operable areas of the complex include the Plutonium 
Reclamation Facility (PRF), the Remote Mechanical ``C'' (RMC) line plus 
process support and research laboratories, the secure storage vaults 
and support areas. About 240 employees work at the PFP.
    The DOE believes the continued presence of relatively large 
quantities of chemically reactive materials in their present form and 
location within the PFP poses an unacceptable long-term risk to the 
workers and the environment. Consequently, in 1993, DOE announced its 
proposal to operate certain processes in the PFP to stabilize those 
materials and to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to 
NEPA.
    As part of the NEPA process for the proposed EA, DOE conducted 
public meetings in the summer and fall of 1993 in Richland, WA; 
Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Hood River, OR; and Spokane, WA to discuss 
the proposal to stabilize the chemically reactive materials. As a 
result of the public comments received, DOE decided that an EIS would 
be the appropriate level of NEPA review. DOE also decided to expand the 
scope of review to include cleanout of the PFP (except for storage 
vaults) to a state where the facility would be ready for D&D and/or 
future uses.
    To alleviate immediate safety concerns, interim actions have been 
taken or are underway to minimize the amount of reactive residual 
materials left in process areas when the plutonium production mission 
ended in 1989. The range of interim actions includes transferring 
solutions into vented metal containers for safe storage, repackaging of 
certain solutions from plastic bottles to safer containers, cleanup of 
surface radioactive contamination to reduce worker exposure, and 
removal of portions of ventilation ductwork and piping which contain 
residual plutonium. The thermal stabilization of sludges is a proposed 
interim action being addressed by an EA currently in progress. Other 
interim actions could be proposed during the EIS preparation period to 
address other specific safety concerns. All interim actions are or will 
be covered by appropriate NEPA documentation.
    The proposed action would place the PFP complex in a state ready 
for potential D&D and/or a future mission while maintaining its current 
material storage capability.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    The DOE needs to take action to minimize safety concerns, reduce 
the exposure of Hanford Site workers to radiation, and reduce the risk 
to the public. The proposed action would clean out inactive PFP complex 
facilities (except storage areas), stabilize reactive residual material 
for long-term storage, and store the stabilized material pending a DOE 
decision on ultimate storage or disposition of fissile materials. Upon 
completion of the proposed action, the PFP complex would be in a state 
ready for D&D and/or future uses.

Preliminary Description of Cleanout Alternatives

    The following cleanout alternatives are currently being considered 
for detailed analysis in the EIS:

1. Wet Cleaning

    Contaminated equipment or facility surfaces would be sprayed with 
or soaked or immersed in nitric acid and rinsed with dilute acid. The 
rinse solutions would be collected in tankage and stabilized in a 
manner similar to other acid solutions. Acid washing could be enhanced 
for greater cleaning by using additives such as cerium or silver 
persulfate.

2. Mechanical Cleaning

    Methods for mechanical cleaning include abrasive blasting, wiping, 
scraping and brushing. Blasting would produce a fine powder containing 
plutonium which would be collected and stabilized in a manner similar 
to other solids, then stored in PFP vaults. Wiping or scraping would 
produce a similar powder, plus waste in the form of wiping materials 
(rags, paper, etc.) These methods require workers to be close to 
contaminated surfaces.

Preliminary Description of Stabilization Alternatives

    The PFP contains a variety of reactive plutonium-bearing materials 
that need to be stabilized for long-term storage pending DOE decisions 
on ultimate storage or disposition. Stabilized material has minimal 
chemical reactivity and generally would be in solid form with a low 
water or organic content to minimize radiolysis. Most of the reactive 
materials are in process areas and equipment. (A portion of the 
materials stored in PFP vaults must also continue to be repackaged and 
stabilized as necessary for long-term storage).
    For purposes of analysis, the reactive materials have been divided 
into groups. The materials in each group are expected to be amenable to 
the same stabilization process. The groups are as follows:

Nitrate solutions
Chloride solutions
Other solutions including organic solutions
Inorganic solids
Oxides
Metals and alloys
Combustibles (used rags, used filters, plastic forms)
Miscellaneous compounds

    Each of these groups contains materials which are chemically 
dissimilar to materials in other groups and may require separate 
stabilization processing. Therefore, the preferred stabilization 
alternative is likely to consist of more than a single process.
    The following stabilization alternatives are currently being 
considered for detailed analysis in the EIS.

1. Stabilization via Plutonium Reclamation Facility

    This alternative would involve the restart and operation of the 
Plutonium Reclamation Facility (PRF), portions of the Remote Mechanical 
C (RMC) line and two small glovebox processes that would convert and 
stabilize chemically reactive plutonium-bearing scrap for long-term 
storage.
    The PRF processes would be operated to convert certain plutonium-
bearing materials to an aqueous solution. These materials include the 
plutonium oxide powder, incinerator ash, and scrap solutions. These 
materials would be dissolved with various acids and other chemicals to 
produce an impure plutonium nitrate solution. The process would use a 
heavy organic solution to extract plutonium from other impurities.
    The plutonium nitrate solutions would be converted to solid 
plutonium oxide, which is suitable for long-term storage. The equipment 
for this conversion process would be remotely operated from a shielded 
control room. The process would involve mixing the nitrate feed with 
oxalic acid to form a plutonium oxalate precipitate. The precipitate 
would be filtered out of the liquid and thermally oxidized to plutonium 
oxide.

2. Direct Denitration

    This alternative would involve the operation of small scale 
equipment which could be installed within two to four existing 
gloveboxes in the RMC processing area.
    The denitration process would be operated to stabilize materials 
which can be dissolved in nitric acid to form a nitrate solution. 
Materials would first be dissolved to form the impure nitrate solution, 
then small amounts of solution would be heated slowly to evaporate the 
water. The temperature would be increased to form a calcined plutonium 
oxide powder with other impurities.

3. Alkaline Precipitation

    As in the case of the direct denitration alternative, this 
alternative would involve the operation of small scale equipment which 
could be installed in two to four existing gloveboxes in the RMC 
processing area.
    The alkaline precipitation process would use alkaline hydroxides or 
oxalate compounds to precipitate plutonium from solution. The 
precipitate would then be filtered and thermally oxidized to plutonium 
oxide.

4. Molten Salt Calcination

    This alternative would involve the operation of small- to medium-
scale equipment which could be installed in two existing gloveboxes 
plus a new glovebox in the RMC process area or in another suitable area 
of the PFP.
    The molten salt calcination process would use a gas-agitated pool 
of molten sodium carbonate to convert plutonium-bearing materials to 
plutonium oxide. The process could stabilize many types of materials 
including solutions (nitrates, chlorides, organics) and solids such as 
inorganic solids and combustibles. Some feeds would have to be 
pretreated prior to processing via size reduction or dissolution in 
various solutions.

No Action Alternative

    Under this alternative, residues would remain in certain process 
equipment, gloveboxes, process canyon areas and ductwork. Cleanout of 
the facility would not take place and the residual material would not 
be stabilized or stored. Vault storage would continue as an ongoing 
action under this alternative; the materials in the vaults would 
continue to be inventoried, repackaged, and stabilized as necessary. 
Interim actions would be completed, along with basic safety upgrades. 
Surveillance and maintenance would continue at present required levels.
    DOE does not intend to analyze in detail the potential alternative 
of cleaning out the PFP but not stabilizing the residual material 
(i.e., storing the material without stabilization). Such an alternative 
would present safety concerns, would not meet the purpose and need for 
the proposed action, and is therefore unreasonable.

Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues

    The issues listed below have been tentatively identified for 
analysis in the PFP EIS. This list is presented to facilitate public 
comment on the scope of the EIS. It is not intended to be all-inclusive 
or to predetermine the potential impacts of any of the alternatives.
    (1) Potential effects on the public and on-site workers from 
releases of radioactive and other hazardous materials during operations 
and from reasonably postulated accidents;
    (2) Potential waste from the proposal, including pollution 
prevention and waste minimization;
    (3) Potential effects on air and water quality and other 
environmental consequences of 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, 
and archaeological/historical sites;
    (6) Radiation exposure to workers;
    (7) Potential socioeconomic impacts, including environmental 
justice issues on surrounding communities;
    (8) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects;
    (9) Short-term uses of the environment versus long-term 
productivity; and
    (10) Potential irretrievable and irreversible commitments of 
resources.

Regulatory Framework

    Federal and State laws that are of major importance to 
environmental management activities at Hanford include the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954 as amended; the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act (RCRA); the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act, 
Chapter 70.105 RCW; the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992; and 
the Clean Air Act. 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 and mixed waste, including generation, 
treatment, storage, and disposal.
    DOE has submitted an air operating permit application to EPA and 
the permit is expected to be issued in the November 1995 timeframe; the 
requirements of the existing air quality permits for PFP are expected 
to encompass all the anticipated requirements of any new permit.

Related NEPA Documentation

    NEPA documents that have been or are being prepared for activities 
at Hanford or are related to the proposed action include, but are not 
limited to, the following:
    (1) (Draft) Environmental Assessment for Sludge Stabilization at 
the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/
EA-0978, draft dated September 1994. This draft environmental 
assessment evaluates a proposed interim action at the PFP to heat-
stabilize, and then store, chemically-reactive, plutonium-bearing 
sludge from certain unshielded gloveboxes, to allay immediate safety 
concerns. A draft Environmental Assessment was sent to the affected 
States and Indian Nations for review on September 20, 1994.
    (2) Final Environmental Impact Statement for Disposal of Hanford 
Defense High-Level Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, 
Washington, DOE/EIS-0113, December 1987. U.S. Department of Energy, 
Washington, D.C. This EIS analyzed the impacts of disposal of Hanford 
defense wastes.
    (3) Final Environmental Statement for Waste Management Operations, 
Hanford Reservation, Richland, Washington, ERDA-1538, 1975. U.S. Energy 
Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C. This EIS 
analyzed the environmental impacts of Hanford Site waste management 
operations.
    (4) Hanford Remedial Action-Environmental Impact Statement (HRA-
EIS). The HRA-EIS will assess the potential environmental consequences 
of alternatives for conducting a remedial action program at the Hanford 
Site for inactive hazardous, 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).
    (5) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management (EM-PEIS). The EM-PEIS will address 
waste management alternatives for existing and proposed actions and DOE 
complex-wide issues associated with long-term waste management policies 
and practices. In this Programmatic EIS, the Department is evaluating 
the Hanford Site as an alternative site for managing DOE wastes. An 
Implementation Plan for this Programmatic EIS was issued in January 
1994. The final Programmatic EIS is scheduled to be issued in October 
1995.
    (6) DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement. On July 23, 1993, the Department 
published a revised Notice of Intent (56 FR 39528) to prepare a 
Programmatic EIS for reconfiguration of its nuclear weapons complex due 
to nuclear weapons stockpile reductions. The Department currently is 
considering how the scope of this Programmatic EIS should be revised 
further to reflect more recent budget and stockpile reduction 
decisions.
    (7) Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement 
(TWRS-EIS) and Safe Interim Storage (SIS) Environmental Impact 
Statement. The NOI for these two EISs was published on January 27, 
1994. Scoping meetings for the EISs were held simultaneously in five 
public meetings. The SIS Draft EIS was issued in July 1994. The TWRS-
EIS is in early stages of preparation.
    (8) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Long Term 
Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material. The NOI for 
this PEIS was published on June 21, 1994. This PEIS will evaluate 
alternatives for long-term storage of all weapons-usable fissile 
materials and the disposition of surplus weapons-usable fissile 
materials declared surplus to national defense needs by the President. 
Public scoping workshops were held during August, September and October 
1994.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on this 21st day of October, 1994.
Peter N. Brush,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 94-26668 Filed 10-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P