[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 34 (Monday, February 22, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8558-8560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4288]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement for Alternatives to the In-Tank Precipitation Process at the 
Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) intends to prepare a 
supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) on the proposed 
replacement of the in-tank precipitation (ITP) process at the Savannah 
River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina. The ITP process was 
intended to separate soluble high-activity radionuclides (for example, 
cesium, strontium, uranium, and plutonium) from liquid high-level 
radioactive waste before vitrifying the high-activity fraction of the 
waste in the Defense Waste Processing Facility and disposing of the 
low-activity fraction as saltstone in vaults at the SRS. Initial ITP 
testing and operation and subsequent studies have demonstrated that the 
ITP process as presently configured cannot achieve production goals and 
safety requirements for processing high-level waste. In response, DOE, 
Westinghouse Savannah River Company, and independent reviewers 
evaluated a large number of alternative technologies to identify viable 
alternatives to the ITP process. DOE determined that three technologies 
should undergo further research and design to determine the most 
appropriate replacement for the ITP process. Because replacement of the 
ITP process constitutes a substantial change to the operation of the 
Defense Waste Processing Facility as evaluated in a 1994 SEIS (DOE/EIS-
0082-S), DOE will prepare a second SEIS that will address the potential 
environmental impacts of alternatives to the ITP process. DOE invites 
comments on the scope of this SEIS.

DATES: The public scoping period begins with the publication of this 
Notice and concludes April 8, 1999. DOE invites Federal agencies, 
Native American tribes, State and local governments, and the public to 
comment on the scope of this SEIS. DOE will consider all comments 
received by the close of the scoping period, and will consider comments 
received after that date to the extent practicable.
    Two public scoping workshops will be held during the scoping 
period:

March 11, 1999, 2:00-4:00 pm and 6:00-8:00 pm, Holiday Inn Coliseum, 
630 Assembly Street, Columbia, South Carolina; and
March 18, 1999, 2:00-4:00 pm and 6:00-8:00 pm, North Augusta Community 
Center, 101 Brookside Drive, North Augusta, South Carolina.

    These scoping workshops will provide information about SRS high-
level waste processing and the proposal to replace the ITP process, 
including the alternatives being considered. The workshops will provide 
opportunities for the public to comment orally or in writing on the 
SEIS scope, including the alternatives and issues that DOE should 
consider in the SEIS.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the scope of the SEIS may be mailed to the 
address below or sent by fax, voice mail, or electronic mail. Written 
comments on the scope of this EIS may be mailed to Andrew Grainger, 
NEPA Compliance Officer, Savannah River Operations Office, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building 742A, Room 183, Aiken, South Carolina 
29802. Attention: ITP SEIS.
    Otherwise, call 800-881-7292 for toll-free 24-hour fax and voice 
mail (local and nationwide), or send electronic mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request information about this SEIS 
and the public scoping workshops, or to be placed on the SEIS 
distribution list, use any of the methods listed in ADDRESSES above. 
For general information about the DOE National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) process, contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 
Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0119. Phone: 202-586-
4600, or leave a message at: 800-472-2756. Fax: 202-586-7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Need for Agency Action

    At its inception in the 1950s, the primary mission of the SRS was 
to produce nuclear materials to support the defense programs of the 
United States. This mission largely ended and production of nuclear 
materials ceased following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Before 
production ended, however, chemical separation of irradiated nuclear 
reactor fuel at SRS had generated special nuclear materials and high-
level radioactive waste consisting of acidic liquids bearing 
radioactive fission products, including small amounts of transuranic 
elements. This waste was made alkaline and stored as insoluble sludges 
and liquid supernate containing high- and low-activity salts in 
solution in 51 large underground tanks at the SRS F- and H-Area Tank 
Farms. Two tanks have been closed, and now approximately 129 million 
liters (34 million gallons) of high-level radioactive waste are stored 
in 49 tanks.
    These tanks are one of seven interconnected parts of the high-level 
waste management system at the SRS:
    (1) High-level Waste Storage and Evaporation (in the F- and H-Area 
Tank Farms);
    (2) Salt Processing (through the ITP process and in the Late Wash 
Facility);
    (3) Sludge Processing (in the Extended Sludge Processing Facility);
    (4) High-level Waste Vitrification (in the Defense Waste Processing 
Facility);
    (5) Wastewater Treatment (in the Effluent Treatment Facility);
    (6) Low-activity Salt Solidification (in the Saltstone Facility); 
and
    (7) Organic Waste Destruction (in the Consolidated Incineration 
Facility).
    This system, except for salt processing through ITP and in the Late 
Wash Facility, is operational. ITP operations are currently limited to 
safe storage and transfer of materials. The Late Wash Facility has been 
tested and is in standby status.
    The ITP process was first applied to radioactive waste in September 
1995. The process was carried out in batches in a large tank. 
Precipitating reagents were added to high-level liquid waste to 
separate the high-activity waste fraction (for example, cesium, 
strontium, uranium, and plutonium) from the low-activity fraction. 
Monosodium titanate was used to adsorb strontium, uranium, and 
plutonium, and then sodium tetraphenylborate was added to precipitate 
cesium. The high-activity fraction (adsorbed radionuclides and 
precipitate) was to be vitrified in the Defense Waste Processing 
Facility for eventual disposal in a geologic repository, and the low-
activity fraction was to be solidified in the Saltstone Facility and 
disposed of in the SRS saltstone vaults in the Z-Area.
    In December 1995, DOE found that the ITP process was generating 
benzene at higher rates than expected. The benzene is a flammable 
decomposition byproduct of sodium tetraphenylborate. In August 1996, 
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an independent executive 
branch organization chartered to provide advice regarding public

[[Page 8559]]

health and safety issues at DOE defense nuclear facilities, recommended 
that testing and operating the ITP process not proceed until DOE had an 
improved understanding of how benzene could be generated and released 
during the ITP process. ITP operations were suspended in January 1998.
    Subsequent studies demonstrated that the ITP process as currently 
configured cannot achieve production goals and meet safety requirements 
for processing the high-activity salt fraction of high-level waste. In 
response, DOE, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, and independent 
reviewers evaluated a large number of alternative technologies to 
identify viable alternatives to the ITP process (``DOE-SR Review Team 
Final Report on the High Level Waste Salt Disposition Alternatives,'' 
December 1998). This evaluation resulted in the preparation of pre-
conceptual designs for four technologies: (1) small tank in-tank 
precipitation (using tetraphenylborate), (2) ion exchange (using 
crystalline silicotitanate), (3) direct disposal as grout, and (4) 
caustic side solvent extraction. Of these four technologies, DOE has 
determined that the solvent extraction alternative is not sufficiently 
developed to warrant further analysis.
    DOE has determined that replacing the ITP process would 
substantially change the proposed operation of the Defense Waste 
Processing Facility as evaluated in DOE's 1994 Supplemental EIS (DOE/
EIS-0082-S). DOE therefore will prepare a Supplemental EIS to evaluate 
the potential environmental impacts of replacing the ITP process, in 
accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality National 
Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)).

The SEIS Schedule

    DOE intends to complete this SEIS by about February 2000. DOE will 
issue a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of 
the Environmental Protection Agency notice of availability of the Final 
SEIS. DOE will begin detailed design for an ITP replacement technology 
only after issuing a Record of Decision that selects such a technology.

Alternatives

    In the SEIS, DOE will assess the potential impacts of three ITP 
replacement processes and a no-action alternative. DOE does not have a 
preferred alternative at this time.
    Small Tank In-Tank Precipitation: This alternative would use the 
same chemicals and process as the existing ITP batch process, but would 
operate continuously in smaller tanks. High-level liquid waste from the 
tanks would undergo precipitation within continuously stirred tank 
(chemical) reactors to separate the high-activity waste fraction from 
the low-activity fraction. That is, strontium, uranium, and plutonium 
would be adsorbed on monosodium titanate and cesium would be 
precipitated with sodium tetraphenylborate. Benzene generation would be 
at approximately the level predicted for the ITP process in the 1994 
SEIS. The high-activity fraction (adsorbed radionuclides and 
precipitate) would be vitrified in the Defense Waste Processing 
Facility for eventual disposal in a geologic repository, and the low-
activity fraction would be solidified in the Saltstone Facility and 
disposed of in the SRS saltstone vaults in the Z-Area. Implementation 
of this alternative would require the construction and operation of a 
new treatment facility in H-Area. Closure of the high-level waste 
tanks, which DOE is now evaluating in an EIS (Notice of Intent, 63 FR 
71628, December 29, 1998), would not be affected.
    Ion Exchange: This alternative would use a different ion exchange 
medium from that considered in the 1994 SEIS and would not result in 
benzene formation. High-level liquid waste would first be mixed with 
monosodium titanate and filtered to remove adsorbed uranium, plutonium, 
and strontium. Then crystalline silicotitanate resin ion exchange 
columns would be used to remove cesium from the salt solution. The 
high-activity fraction (adsorbed radionuclides and cesium-bearing 
resins) would be vitrified in the Defense Waste Processing Facility for 
eventual disposal in a geologic repository, and the low-activity 
fraction would be solidified in the Saltstone Facility and disposed of 
in the SRS saltstone vaults in the Z-Area. Implementation of this 
alternative would require the construction and operation of a new 
treatment facility in H-Area. Closure of the high-level waste tanks 
would not be affected.
    Direct Disposal as Grout: In this alternative, high-level liquid 
waste would be mixed with monosodium titanate and filtered to remove 
adsorbed uranium, plutonium, and strontium. The adsorbed solids would 
be vitrified in the Defense Waste Processing Facility for eventual 
disposal in a geologic repository. The filtered salt solution, which 
would contain radioactive cesium, would be combined with grout in a 
facility that would be constructed under this alternative, and disposed 
of in the SRS saltstone vaults in the Z-Area. Closure of the high-level 
waste tanks would not be affected.
    No-Action Alternative: The no-action alternative would be to 
continue current activities without the ITP process. The Defense Waste 
Processing Facility would vitrify only sludge from the high-level waste 
tanks. Salt solution would not be removed from the high-level waste 
tanks and therefore the tank closures could not be completed.

Related NEPA Decisions and Reviews

    This SEIS will consider the information and analyses found in 
several final DOE NEPA reviews that address high-level waste management 
systems at SRS:
     Final Environmental Impact Statement, Defense Waste 
Processing Facility, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, S.C., DOE/EIS-0082, 
1982.
     Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Defense 
Waste Processing Facility, DOE/EIS-0082-S, 1994.
     Final Environmental Impact Statement, Savannah River Site 
Waste Management, DOE/EIS-0217, 1995.
     Supplement Analysis, Defense Waste Processing Facility 
Salt Disposition Options at the Savannah River Site, DOE/EIS-0082-SA-
03, November 1998.
    The documents are available in the following DOE public reading 
rooms: DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Forrestal Building, 
Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20585 (phone 
202-586-6020); and DOE Public Document Room, University of South 
Carolina, Aiken Campus, University Library, Second Floor, 171 
University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 (phone 803-648-6851).
    DOE also will use additional information and analyses, including 
engineering design and research studies developed during the 
preliminary evaluation of alternatives to the ITP process, and reviews 
of the design and research conducted by independent experts.

Preliminary Identification of EIS Issues

    DOE intends to address the following issues when considering the 
potential environmental impacts of the ITP replacement alternatives in 
this EIS. DOE invites comment from Federal agencies, Native American 
tribes, State and local governments, and the public on these and any 
other issues that should be addressed in the EIS.
     Effects on air, soil, and surface and ground water from 
construction, routine operations, and reasonably foreseeable accidents.

[[Page 8560]]

     Impacts to ecological resources, including threatened and 
endangered species, floodplains, and wetlands.
     Health impacts to the public and SRS workers from exposure 
to radiological and hazardous materials during routine operations and 
reasonably foreseeable accidents.
     Socioeconomic impacts, including impacts associated with 
the workforce required to construct and operate an ITP replacement.
     Disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority 
and low-income populations (environmental justice).
     Compliance with applicable Federal, State and local 
requirements and agreements.
     Effects of constructing and operating an ITP replacement 
technology on SRS waste management operations and facilities.
     Relationship to SRS land use plans.
     Pollution prevention, waste minimization, and energy and 
water use reduction technologies to reduce the use of energy, water, 
and hazardous substances and to minimize environmental impacts during 
construction and operation of an ITP replacement.
     Impacts on cultural and historic resources.
     Cumulative environmental impacts of past, present, and 
reasonably foreseeable future operations at the SRS.
     Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 16, 1999.
Peter N. Brush,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 99-4288 Filed 2-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P