Federal Register, Volume 59 Issue 207 (Thursday, October 27, 1994)

[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.