[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39449-39455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-14806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for the Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site, 
Richland, WA: Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-
Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste, and 
Storage, Processing, and Certification of Transuranic Waste for 
Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is making decisions 
regarding low-level radioactive waste (LLW), mixed low-level waste 
(MLLW), which contains both radioactive and chemically hazardous 
components, and transuranic (TRU) waste (including mixed TRU waste) at 
the Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. These decisions are 
made pursuant to the Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and 
Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement (HSW EIS, DOE/
EIS-0286, January 2004). DOE prepared the HSW EIS according to 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council 
on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508), and DOE NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR part 
1021) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of alternatives 
for storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal of certain 
radioactive and mixed wastes at Hanford. The HSW EIS scope includes 
wastes that are currently stored or projected to be generated at 
Hanford and offsite locations through the end of Hanford's routine 
waste management operations. Key operations evaluated were storage, 
treatment, and disposal of LLW and MLLW generated at Hanford and other 
sites; storage, processing, and certification of TRU waste generated at 
Hanford and other DOE sites for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico; and disposal of Hanford's vitrified 
immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) and melters from the 
vitrification process.
    DOE has decided to implement the preferred alternative described in 
the Final HSW EIS, modified as described below. This decision is based 
on the environmental impact analyses in the HSW EIS, including analysis 
of impacts to worker and public health and safety; costs; applicable 
regulatory requirements; and public comments. DOE will limit the 
volumes of LLW and MLLW received at Hanford from other sites for 
disposal to 62,000 m3 of LLW and 20,000 m3 of 
MLLW. Also, effective immediately, DOE will dispose of LLW in lined 
disposal facilities, a practice already used for MLLW. In addition, DOE 
will construct and operate a lined, combined-use disposal facility in 
Hanford's 200 East Area for disposal of LLW and MLLW, and will further 
limit offsite waste receipts until the facility is constructed. LLW and 
MLLW requiring treatment will be treated at either offsite facilities 
or existing or modified onsite facilities, as appropriate. Storage, 
processing and certification of TRU waste for subsequent shipment to 
WIPP will occur at existing and modified onsite facilities. DOE expects 
the preferred alternative, as described in this Record of Decision 
(ROD), will have small environmental impacts, provide a balance among 
short- and long-term environmental impacts and cost effectiveness, be 
consistent with applicable regulatory requirements, and provide DOE 
with the capability to accommodate projected waste receipts from the 
Hanford Site and offsite DOE facilities.

ADDRESSES: For copies of the Final HSW EIS and further information 
about the HSW EIS, contact: Mr. Michael Collins, Document Manager, U.S. 
Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, A6-38, 
Richland, WA 99352, telephone: 509-376-6536.
    The Final HSW EIS and related information can also be viewed in the 
DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State University, Tri-Cities 
Campus, 100 Sprout Road, Room 130W, Richland, WA 99352, telephone: 509-
376-8583, Monday-Friday, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    The Final HSW EIS is also available for review on the Internet at 
http://www.hanford.gov/eis/eis-0286D2 and on the DOE NEPA Web page 
(http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/eis/eis0286F).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the HSW EIS 
or onsite management operations at Hanford contact Mr. Michael Collins 
at the address or telephone number provided above.
    Information on the DOE NEPA process may be requested from Carol M. 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585.
    Ms. Borgstrom may be contacted by telephone at (202) 586-4600 or by 
leaving a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    DOE needs to provide capabilities to continue or modify the way it 
manages

[[Page 39450]]

existing and anticipated quantities of solid LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste 
at the Hanford Site located in southeastern Washington in order to: 
Protect human health and the environment; facilitate cleanup at Hanford 
and other DOE facilities; take actions consistent with DOE's decisions 
under the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
(WM PEIS, DOE/EIS-0200, May 1997); comply with applicable local, State, 
and Federal laws and regulations; and meet other obligations such as 
the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (also referred 
to as the Tri-Party Agreement, or TPA).
    Specifically, DOE needs to:
     Continue to operate and modernize existing treatment, 
storage, and disposal facilities for LLW and MLLW, and storage and 
processing facilities for TRU waste;
     Construct additional disposal capacity for LLW and MLLW;
     Develop capabilities to treat MLLW for disposal at 
Hanford;
     Close onsite disposal facilities and provide for post-
closure facility stewardship at disposal sites; and
     Develop additional capabilities to process and certify TRU 
waste for disposal at WIPP.

Background

    On October 27, 1997, DOE announced its intent to prepare the HSW 
EIS (62 FR 55615) to support programmatic needs and plans, and provide 
additional capabilities and flexibility to continue to manage LLW, 
MLLW, and TRU waste at the Hanford Site. The HSW EIS also evaluated the 
potential environmental impacts of transporting, storing, processing, 
and certifying TRU waste from Hanford and offsite DOE generators. The 
Draft HSW EIS was approved in April 2002, and the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the Draft 
HSW EIS on May 24, 2002 (67 FR 36592). Responding to requests from the 
public, DOE extended the initial 45-day public comment period for the 
Draft HSW EIS to 90 days. DOE received about 3,800 comments on the 
Draft HSW EIS from individuals, organizations, agencies, and tribes.
    In response to public comments, DOE expanded the scope of the HSW 
EIS and issued a Notice of Revised Scope for the HSW EIS on February 
12, 2003 (68 FR 7110). The revised scope included the disposal of ILAW 
and melters at the Hanford Site. DOE also expanded its impact analyses 
for waste disposal and transportation. A Revised Draft HSW EIS was 
approved in March 2003, and EPA published a Notice of Availability on 
April 11, 2003 (68 FR 17801). In response to requests from the public, 
DOE extended the initial 45-day public comment period to 62 days. DOE's 
responses to all comments received during the public comment period on 
the Draft HSW EIS (including the complete text of written comment 
documents and transcripts of public meetings) were published in the 
Revised Draft HSW EIS, Volume III.
    DOE received about 1,600 comments on the Revised Draft HSW EIS from 
individuals, organizations, agencies, and tribes. In response to public 
comments, DOE provided clarifying information and expanded analyses in 
the Final HSW EIS. The complete text of written comment documents and 
transcripts of public meetings, and DOE's response to public comments 
on the Revised Draft HSW EIS, were published in Volumes III and IV of 
the Final EIS. The Final HSW EIS was approved in January 2004, and EPA 
published a Notice of Availability for the Final HSW EIS on February 
13, 2004 (69 FR 7215).
    The Final HSW EIS addresses actions by DOE to manage LLW, MLLW, 
ILAW, melters, and TRU waste under Hanford's solid waste program. The 
HSW EIS analyzed wastes through the end of site operations which, for 
the purpose of the analyses, was assumed to be 2046. The wastes 
analyzed included:
     283,000 m3 of waste previously disposed of at 
Hanford in the Low Level Burial Grounds (LLBGs);
     Up to 348,000 m3 of LLW that is in storage or 
is forecast to be received from onsite and offsite sources;
     Up to 198,000 m3 of MLLW that is in storage or 
is forecast to be received from onsite and offsite sources;
     Up to 350,000 m3 of ILAW forecast to be 
received from the treatment of Hanford tank waste;
     Up to 6,825 m3 of melters used in the 
vitrification process; and
     Up to 47,550 m3 of TRU waste that is in storage 
or is forecast to be received from onsite and offsite sources.
    Section 9(a)(1)(H) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act exempts mixed 
TRU waste designated for disposal at WIPP from certain provisions of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.:
    With respect to transuranic mixed waste designated by the Secretary 
for disposal at WIPP, such waste is exempt from treatment standards 
promulgated pursuant to section 3004(m) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
(42 U.S.C. 6924(m)) and shall not be subject to the land disposal 
prohibitions in section 3004(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act.
    (WIPP Land Withdrawal Act Amendments, Pub. L. 104-201, 110 Stat. 
2422 (September 23, 1996), 3188(a) at Stat. 2853.) For a more complete 
discussion of the Department's implementation of this provision see the 
Department's Revision of the Record of Decision for the Department of 
Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase, issued 
concurrently with this ROD. This HSW EIS ROD confirms the Department's 
prior designation of the mixed TRU waste analyzed in the HSW EIS for 
disposal at WIPP.
    DOE initially designated up to 175,600 m3 of TRU waste 
for disposal at WIPP in the ROD for the Department of Energy's Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase. 63 FR 3624, January 23, 1998 
(WIPP ROD). That decision included both contact-handled (CH) and 
remote-handled (RH) TRU waste in storage at the various DOE facilities 
across the country, as well as TRU waste projected to be generated over 
the life of the repository. Of that amount approximately 57,000 
m3 of CH-TRU waste and 2,800 m3 of RH-TRU were 
attributed to the Hanford site. WIPP Disposal Phase Supplemental EIS-II 
(WIPP SEIS II). page 3-3.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The volume of RH TRU waste projected in the WIPP-SEIS-II for 
Hanford was conservatively estimated to be higher than the 2,800 
m3 volume in the Basic Inventory which was used for 
analytical purposes in the EIS. However, only 2,800 m3 of 
RH-TRU waste at Hanford were included in the 175,600 m3 
of TRU waste designated for disposal at WIPP in the SEIS-II ROD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This ROD provides for the storage, processing, and certification 
for shipment to WIPP of approximately 40,000 m3 of CH TRU 
waste and 2,600 m3 of RH TRU waste at Hanford and confirms 
the WIPP ROD's prior designation of this waste for disposal at WIPP.\2\ 
This inventory of TRU-waste at Hanford is less than previously analyzed 
for Hanford in the WIPP SEIS-II and designated for disposal by the WIPP 
ROD. The reduction in inventory is in part the result of further 
characterization and reassessment of waste assumed to be TRU waste and 
TRU waste projected to be generated at the Hanford site at the time the 
WIPP SEIS-II and the accompanying ROD to dispose of up to 175,600 
m3 of TRU waste at WIPP were issued.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The CH TRU waste volume may increase or decrease depending 
on volume reduction or volume expansion due to the treatment or 
packaging for shipment to WIPP. The RH-TRU waste volume reflects the 
packaged amount expected to be shipped to WIPP.
    \3\ The volume of RH-TRU waste in the HSW EIS is also less than 
the estimates for Hanford used in the Department's application for 
recertification of compliance (CRA) submitted to EPA in March 2004, 
in accordance with sections 8(d)-(f) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal 
Act. For analytical purposes the volumes provided in the CRA are 
relatively more conservative.

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

[[Page 39451]]

    The Hanford TRU waste volume analyzed in the HSW EIS and addressed 
in this ROD does not include potential TRU waste from the Hanford 
tanks. These wastes have not been determined to be TRU waste and 
accordingly have not been designated for disposal at WIPP.

Action Alternatives Considered in the HSW EIS

    The HSW EIS considered the range of reasonable alternatives for 
management of solid LLW, MLLW, TRU waste, ILAW, and melters at the 
Hanford Site. Currently, Hanford's solid waste program activities 
include transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal of LLW and 
MLLW, as well as transportation, storage, processing, and certification 
of TRU waste for shipment to WIPP. The HSW EIS considered use of both 
existing and proposed waste management facilities in carrying out these 
activities. In response to comments on the Revised Draft HSW EIS, the 
transportation analysis was updated to account for Year 2000 Census 
data, to use a more recent version of the RADTRAN computer modeling 
code, and expanded to consider specific transportation routes between 
Hanford and sites that might transfer LLW and MLLW for disposal at 
Hanford, and sites that might transfer their TRU waste to Hanford for 
storage, processing, and certification pending shipment to WIPP.
    The following sections describe the action alternatives considered 
in the Final HSW EIS.

Storage Alternatives

    The specific storage methods for waste awaiting treatment and/or 
disposal depend on the chemical and physical characteristics of the 
waste as well as the type and concentration of radionuclides in the 
waste. As described in the HSW EIS, in most cases, alternatives for 
storage of LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste consisted of using existing 
capacity at the Central Waste Complex (CWC), the T Plant Complex, the 
LLBGs, or other onsite facilities. Additional storage capacity was not 
expected to be needed to accommodate future waste receipts, because as 
waste in storage is treated, processed, or certified for disposal, 
space would become available for newly received waste. Although 
construction and operation of new storage facilities is not proposed in 
any of the action alternatives, the HSW EIS analyzed the impacts of 
using existing storage capacity for completeness.

Treatment and Processing Alternatives

    Action alternatives for waste treatment examined in the Final HSW 
EIS applied two general approaches in developing alternatives for 
treating and processing wastes. The first approach would maximize the 
use of offsite treatment and develop additional onsite capacity to 
treat waste that could not be accepted at offsite facilities. DOE would 
establish additional contracts or agreements with a permitted offsite 
facility (or facilities) to treat most of Hanford's CH-MLLW and non-
conforming LLW that does not meet Hanford's waste acceptance criteria 
for disposal. DOE would develop new onsite treatment capability by 
modifying the T Plant Complex as necessary for treatment of RH-MLLW and 
MLLW in non-standard containers, e.g., oversize boxes or large items. 
(CH waste containers can be safely handled by direct contact using 
appropriate health and safety measures. RH waste containers require 
special handling or shielding during waste management operations.) DOE 
would develop new onsite processing capability by modifying the T Plant 
Complex as necessary for processing and certification of RH TRU waste 
and TRU waste in non-standard containers for shipment to WIPP.
    The second approach for developing alternatives for treating and 
processing wastes maximizes the use of onsite treatment capabilities. 
If treatment capacity does not currently exist at Hanford, a new waste 
processing facility (or facilities) would be constructed to treat MLLW 
and non-conforming LLW and to process and certify RH TRU waste and TRU 
waste in non-standard containers for shipment to WIPP.
    In both approaches, the Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 
(WRAP) and mobile processing units (referred to as Accelerated Process 
Lines, or APLs) would continue to process and certify CH TRU waste in 
standard containers for shipment to WIPP.

Disposal Alternatives

    The final step in the waste management process is disposal. 
Disposal facilities at Hanford accept waste suitable for near-surface 
disposal in accordance with the Hanford Site solid waste acceptance 
criteria. The HSW EIS evaluated alternatives or updated previous plans 
for disposal of LLW, MLLW, ILAW, and melters at Hanford, including 
expansion, reconfiguration, and closure of onsite disposal facilities.
    Disposal alternatives in the HSW EIS assumed continued use of 
existing disposal facilities at Hanford until new disposal capacity can 
be developed and permitted. All disposal facilities would meet 
applicable state and federal requirements. Facilities for disposal of 
MLLW would be constructed to regulatory standards for new MLLW 
facilities with double liners and leachate collection systems. LLW 
disposal in either lined or unlined trenches was evaluated in various 
alternatives. At the end of operations, all disposal facilities would 
be closed by applying an engineered barrier (cap) (i.e., a cover of 
soil and other material placed over waste sites) to reduce water 
infiltration and the potential for intrusion.
    Several different configurations and locations were evaluated for 
new disposal facilities needed to manage each waste type. Disposal 
configurations included various options for the number and size of 
trenches, including facilities dedicated to a single type of waste and 
options for combined disposal of two or more waste types in the same 
facility. Alternatives for segregated disposal of LLW or MLLW consisted 
of multiple trenches similar to those currently employed for each waste 
type, multiple trenches of a deeper and wider configuration, or a 
single expandable trench for each waste type.
    Alternatives for combined disposal of two or more waste types were 
also evaluated. The HSW EIS considered alternatives that included two 
combined-use disposal facilities; one for combined disposal of LLW and 
MLLW, and one for combined disposal of ILAW and melters. In addition, 
disposal of all waste types in a single modular combined-use facility 
was evaluated. To ensure that wastes placed in the same module are 
suitable for disposal together and are compatible with the engineered 
disposal system, disposal in combined-use facilities would involve 
construction of separate modules for wastes with different 
characteristics.
    The HSW EIS alternatives considered several different disposal 
locations for new or expanded disposal facilities, including use of 
LLBGs in the 200 West and 200 East Areas. New disposal sites in the 200 
West Area near the CWC and near the PUREX facility located in the 
southeastern corner of the 200 East Area were also evaluated. Some 
alternatives evaluated combined-use disposal facilities near the 
existing Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF).

[[Page 39452]]

Waste Volumes

    The potential environmental consequences of action alternatives in 
the HSW EIS have been evaluated for three waste volumes: a Hanford 
Only, a Lower Bound, and an Upper Bound waste volume. These alternative 
waste volume scenarios encompass the range of quantities that might be 
generated at Hanford, and which could be received from other sites. The 
Hanford Only and Lower Bound waste volumes were evaluated in the No 
Action Alternative. The Hanford Only waste volume was included in the 
HSW EIS in response to requests from the public as a base volume for 
considering the impacts of managing offsite waste. The three waste 
volumes are as follows:
     The Hanford Only waste volume consists of (1) currently 
stored and forecast volumes of LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste from Hanford 
Site generators, (2) forecast volumes of Hanford's ILAW and melters, 
and (3) waste that has previously been disposed of in the LLBGs.
     The Lower Bound waste volume consists of (1) the Hanford 
Only waste volume, (2) forecast volumes of LLW and small quantities of 
MLLW from other sites for disposal at Hanford under existing approvals, 
and (3) small quantities of TRU waste from other DOE sites that would 
be received at Hanford for interim storage, processing, certification, 
and shipment to WIPP.
     The Upper Bound waste volume consists of the Lower Bound 
waste volume plus the estimated total quantities of LLW, MLLW, and TRU 
waste that could be received from other sites through the end of 
Hanford site waste management operations. All of the action 
alternatives summarized below included an analysis of the Upper Bound 
volume consistent with DOE's decisions under the WM PEIS (63 FR 3629, 
January 23, 1998; 65 FR 10061, February 25, 2000; and 67 FR 56989, 
September 6, 2002).

Grouping of Action Alternatives

    There is a large potential number of combinations of the various 
waste streams, potential waste volumes, and individual options for 
their storage, treatment, and disposal. To facilitate the analysis and 
presentation of impacts, these potential combinations were grouped into 
five primary alternatives which comprise the range of reasonable 
alternatives for managing the waste types considered in the HSW EIS.

Summary of Action Alternatives

    Each action alternative included the Hanford Only, Lower Bound, and 
Upper Bound waste volumes. All of the action alternatives assumed 
continued use of existing waste management capabilities and facilities, 
such as operation of WRAP and the APLs to process and certify CH TRU 
waste, and use of existing disposal facilities until new ones can be 
designed, permitted, and constructed. All of these alternatives assumed 
all disposal facilities would be closed with an engineered barrier 
(cap) designed and installed to meet regulatory requirements applicable 
to MLLW disposal facilities.
    Alternative Group A--Disposal by Waste Type in Deeper, Wider 
Trenches--Onsite and Offsite Treatment: New LLW and MLLW disposal 
trenches would be deeper and wider than those currently in use, and 
facilities for disposal of MLLW, ILAW, and melters would include liners 
and leachate collection systems. Different waste types would be 
disposed of in separate facilities. New LLW disposal facilities would 
be located in the 200 West Area and new MLLW, ILAW, and melter disposal 
facilities would be located in the 200 East Area. Existing facilities 
would be modified to provide processing capabilities for RH TRU waste 
and TRU waste in non-standard containers, as well as treatment 
capabilities for RH-MLLW and MLLW in non-standard containers. Most CH-
MLLW would be treated in commercial treatment facilities.
    Alternative Group B--Disposal by Waste Type in Existing Design 
Disposal Trenches--Onsite Treatment: Disposal trenches for LLW and MLLW 
would be of the same design as those currently in use. Different waste 
types would be disposed of separately. New LLW and ILAW disposal 
facilities would be located in the 200 West Area, and new MLLW and 
melter disposal facilities would be located in the 200 East Area. A new 
facility would be built to provide processing capabilities for RH TRU 
waste and TRU waste in non-standard containers, as well as treatment 
capabilities for RH-MLLW, most CH-MLLW, and MLLW in non-standard 
containers.
    Alternative Group C--Disposal by Waste Type in Expandable Design 
Facilities--Onsite and Offsite Treatment: A single, expandable disposal 
facility (similar to the ERDF) would be used for each waste type. 
Different waste types would be disposed of in separate facilities. A 
new LLW disposal facility would be located in the 200 West Area and new 
MLLW, ILAW, and melter disposal facilities would be located in the 200 
East Area. Treatment alternatives would be the same as those described 
for Alternative Group A.
    Alternative Group D--Single Combined-use Disposal Facility--Onsite 
and Offsite Treatment: LLW, MLLW, ILAW, and melters would be disposed 
of in a single combined-use facility. Disposal would occur at one of 
three locations.
    Alternative Group D1: in the 200 East Area near the PUREX facility.
    Alternative Group D2: in the 200 East Area LLBGs.
    Alternative Group D3: at the ERDF.
    Treatment alternatives would be the same as those described for 
Alternative Group A. Alternative Group D1 was identified as the 
preferred alternative in the Final HSW EIS.
    Alternative Group E--Dual Combined-use Disposal Facilities--Onsite 
and Offsite Treatment: Two combined-use disposal facilities would be 
constructed. One facility would be used for disposal of LLW and MLLW, 
and a second would be used for disposal of ILAW and melters. Disposal 
would occur in one of three combinations of locations.
    Alternative Group E1: ILAW and melters at ERDF, LLW and 
MLLW within the existing 200 East Area LLBGs.
    Alternative Group E2: ILAW and melters at ERDF, LLW and 
MLLW in the 200 East Area near the PUREX facility.
    Alternative Group E3: ILAW and melters in the 200 Area 
near the PUREX facility, LLW and MLLW at ERDF.
    Treatment alternatives would be the same as those described for 
Alternative Group A.

No Action Alternative

    Analyzing a No Action Alternative is required under NEPA 
regulations and provides an environmental baseline against which the 
impacts of other alternatives can be compared. The HSW EIS No Action 
Alternative would continue ongoing waste management activities. 
However, the HSW EIS No Action Alternative did not include development 
of new capabilities to manage wastes that cannot currently be treated, 
or which are otherwise not suitable either for shipment to WIPP or for 
onsite disposal under the Hanford Site solid waste acceptance criteria. 
Under the No Action Alternative, these wastes would be stored 
indefinitely with no path forward for ultimate disposition and DOE 
would not be able to meet all applicable regulatory requirements or TPA 
milestones for management of those wastes.
    Hanford's treatment and processing capacity under the No Action 
Alternative would be limited to existing onsite capabilities and 
previously established contracts with offsite

[[Page 39453]]

facilities to treat small quantities of MLLW. Disposal of LLW in the 
LLBGs would continue using trenches of the current design. The trenches 
would be backfilled with soil but would not be capped. Two existing 
MLLW trenches would be filled to capacity and capped in accordance with 
applicable regulations. Processing and certification of some CH TRU 
waste at WRAP and the APLs would continue, and certified wastes would 
be shipped to WIPP. Any wastes that could not be treated, processed, 
certified, or disposed of would require indefinite storage. The CWC 
would be expanded to store most unprocessed or uncertified TRU waste 
and most untreated LLW and MLLW, as well as melters and other treated 
MLLW exceeding existing disposal capacity. Small quantities of waste 
could also be stored at other locations, such as T Plant or the LLBGs. 
ILAW would be stored in concrete vaults to be constructed near the 
PUREX facility located in the southeastern corner of the Hanford Site 
200 East Area.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    All of the action alternative groups were estimated to result in 
low environmental impacts, with small differences in impacts among the 
alternative groups. No occupational fatalities or increased incidences 
of cancer or fatal chemical exposures associated with normal operations 
would be expected from any of the action alternatives. Although 
potential adverse impacts on soils, air quality, noise levels, visual 
resources, socioeconomic conditions, resource availability, and land 
use could occur with any of the alternatives, these impacts would be 
low. Potential transportation impacts, including incidence of cancer 
and fatalities from accidents, would be very small. Because 
transportation impacts are related to the number of shipments, such 
impacts would increase with increasing waste volumes being shipped to, 
from, and within the Hanford Site. The maximum potential transportation 
impacts calculated for all the action alternatives were associated with 
the upper bound volume and would possibly result in up to 75 accidents, 
up to a total of three potential fatalities resulting from those 
accidents, and up to 10 potential latent cancer fatalities during 
routine transport. A substantial portion of these potential 
transportation impacts would be from shipments of TRU waste generated 
at Hanford that DOE had previously decided to ship to WIPP for 
disposal.
    No single alternative group could be identified as the 
environmentally preferable alternative for all types of impacts 
considered in the HSW EIS. Although Alternative Group D1 may result in 
greater potential impacts to the shrub-steppe habitat at Hanford than 
the other alternative groups, it shows slightly lower impacts to other 
resource areas. On balance Alternative Group D1 would be 
environmentally preferable for most types of potential impacts.
    Compared to the other action alternative groups, the preferred 
alternative identified in the Final HSW EIS (Alternative Group D1) 
would have slightly lower long-term impacts on water quality and 
slightly lower long-term dose impacts if groundwater is used for 
drinking water and other uses, but somewhat greater potential for 
disturbance of shrub-steppe habitat over the operational period. 
Incremental doses from radionuclides in groundwater at 100 meters from 
disposal facilities would not exceed the 4-millirem-per-year DOE 
benchmark (based on radiation dose conversion factors as published in 
Federal Guidance Reports 11 and 12 [EPA-520/1-88-020 and EPA-402-R-93-
081, respectively]). Due to differences in the new disposal facility 
design, construction, operation, location, and waste packaging and/or 
encapsulation (which affect the concentration, location, and time of 
any release), constituents migrating from the new lined, combined-use 
disposal facilities, when added to impacts remaining from past waste 
disposal activities, would not be expected to result in exceedences of 
maximum contaminant levels \4\ in groundwater at points beyond the 
disposal facility boundary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Contaminant concentration limits for drinking water supplied 
by public water systems as set by EPA or the Washington State 
Department of Health were used as a benchmark in the HSW EIS to 
compare the potential impacts of alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transportation of Waste

    Shipments of LLW, MLLW and TRU waste to Hanford and subsequent 
shipment of TRU waste from Hanford to WIPP are the subject of previous 
decisions made under the WM PEIS (63 FR 3629, 65 FR 10061, and 67 FR 
56989) and WIPP Disposal Phase Final Supplemental EIS SEIS-II (DOE/EIS-
0026-S-2). In response to public interest in potential transportation 
impacts and risks of shipping offsite waste to Hanford and shipments of 
TRU waste from Hanford to WIPP, the HSW EIS includes an updated route-
specific transportation analysis of potential LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste 
shipments using Year 2000 census data and an updated version of the 
RADTRAN computer modeling code. The transportation analyses conducted 
in the HSW EIS confirmed conclusions previously reached by the WM PEIS.

Comments on the Final HSW EIS

    Comments on the Final HSW EIS were received from the Confederated 
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and 
Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, members of Congress, EPA, the State 
of Washington Department of Ecology, and the Oregon Department of 
Energy. The major concerns raised in the comments, along with DOE's 
responses, are as follows:
     Opposition to the importation to Hanford of waste from 
other sites, primarily LLW and MLLW for disposal, in the face of the 
need to clean up the Hanford Site: DOE has decided to restrict receipt 
of LLW and MLLW from other sites for disposal at Hanford. DOE is also 
pursuing a strategy whereby Hanford's TRU waste, high-level waste, and 
spent nuclear fuel will be shipped offsite to federal repositories 
built to provide the high degree of isolation from the human 
environment required for these wastes. DOE expects that the benefits of 
these actions, coupled with other remediation programs at Hanford, will 
contribute significantly to attaining sound cleanup goals for Hanford.
     Opposition to disposal of LLW in unlined trenches and the 
threat this poses to Hanford's groundwater: DOE has decided to dispose 
of LLW in lined trenches, effective immediately. DOE will use existing 
lined trenches until the new lined, combined-used disposal facility is 
available, which is expected in approximately the 2007 time frame.
     Mitigation necessary to protect groundwater and the 
Columbia River: DOE has decided to institute new mitigation measures, 
including installation of secondary leak detection capability in the 
new lined, combined-use disposal facility, in addition to existing 
mitigation measures summarized in ``Mitigation Measures'' below.
     Declaration of irretrievable and irreversible commitment 
of groundwater as a means of abrogating cleanup responsibilities: As 
stated in the HSW EIS, DOE believes that already present contamination 
from past practices precludes the beneficial use of groundwater beneath 
portions of the Hanford Site for the foreseeable future, as a matter of 
protecting public health. DOE will continue to use ongoing cleanup 
programs to address contaminants resulting from past practices. DOE 
intends to meet its responsibilities for cleanup and site remediation 
and is not changing

[[Page 39454]]

existing groundwater remediation activities or commitments. Groundwater 
protection, monitoring and remediation will continue to be performed 
consistent with the TPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) past-practice requirements.
     Adequacy of groundwater analyses in the Final HSW EIS: As 
stated in the HSW EIS, there are uncertainties in the data about the 
geology and groundwater at Hanford and in the analytical approaches 
available to estimate potential environmental impacts. DOE accounted 
for uncertainties by using conservative assumptions in the groundwater 
analyses. Accordingly, DOE believes that sufficient information 
currently exists to enable DOE to make informed decisions regarding 
waste management. DOE will continue to support ongoing investigative 
efforts to improve its technical and analytical capabilities.
     Adequacy of the existing groundwater monitoring system 
near unlined disposal trenches: Groundwater monitoring wells including 
those near unlined disposal trenches will be installed, operated, and 
removed from service consistent with the TPA and applicable 
regulations. DOE will install 17 additional wells around the LLBGs to 
meet its commitment under the M-24 series of TPA milestones. (The M-24 
series of TPA milestones also has mechanisms for determining future 
Hanford Site groundwater monitoring needs.) Other monitoring needs for 
the LLBGs will be established through ongoing permitting processes with 
the State of Washington Department of Ecology. The Hanford Site 
Groundwater Strategy (DOE/RL-2002-59, February 2004) addresses 
monitoring as part of a larger program to protect the groundwater, 
monitor the groundwater, and continue remediating existing 
contamination. Other TPA milestones establish dates for completing 
investigations of existing sites where waste was disposed of and 
deciding how these sites will be closed.
     ``Long-term stewardship'' is not being adequately 
addressed at Hanford: Accelerating cleanup at the Hanford Site and 
disposing of additional LLW and MLLW from Hanford and other DOE sites 
requires attention to long-term stewardship both now and in the future. 
Hanford Site closure and long-term stewardship are being addressed 
consistent with the TPA and applicable CERCLA and DOE requirements, 
including monitoring, periodic reassessments of past decisions, and 
institutional controls. These requirements address the potential 
application of new technologies during periodic reassessments. DOE will 
continue to refine and implement the Hanford Long-Term Stewardship 
Program: Preparation for Environmental Management Cleanup Completion 
(DOE/RL-2003-39, August 2003), which has been developed with the input 
of regulators and stakeholders over the last several years. Because of 
the need to prepare for its post-cleanup mission, DOE has established 
the Office of Legacy Management to monitor, maintain, and reassess 
sites after they are closed. Decisions made in this ROD are consistent 
with existing and planning efforts.
     Lack of information on retrieval and treatment of tank 
waste: As stated in the HSW EIS, DOE is preparing the ``Environmental 
Impact Statement for Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposal of Tank Waste 
and Closure of Single-Shell Tanks at the Hanford Site,'' referred to as 
the Tank Closure Environmental Impact Statement (TC EIS). The State of 
Washington Department of Ecology is a cooperating agency involved in 
the preparation of the TC EIS. The public will have an opportunity to 
comment on the Draft TC EIS.
     Limited availability of thermal treatment capability for 
some types of mixed waste, and DOE's plans for managing such wastes are 
unclear: DOE is determining how best to manage waste for which no final 
disposition plans currently exist. Though the availability of thermal 
treatment for radioactive waste is limited, DOE is actively seeking the 
services necessary to treat thermally some Hanford-generated MLLW in 
the commercial sector.
     Worker safety: DOE will increase efforts to protect and 
enhance worker safety and has recently given new direction to Hanford 
contractors establishing DOE's expectations of measurable safety 
improvements. DOE's Integrated Safety Management System principles will 
continue to be applied to ensure extensive worker involvement in 
planning work. DOE will conduct special emphasis reviews of particular 
issues as appropriate.

Decisions

Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste

    DOE has decided to implement the actions described in the preferred 
alternative, Alternative Group D1, for storing and treating 
LLW and MLLW. LLW and MLLW will continue to be stored in existing 
facilities such as the CWC. Most LLW and MLLW will be treated under 
agreements with offsite treatment facilities. Existing onsite treatment 
capabilities and facilities will also continue to be used as 
appropriate. For wastes that cannot be treated at existing onsite or 
offsite facilities, such as RH waste or waste in non-standard 
containers, treatment capacity will be established at Hanford by 
modifying the T Plant Complex as needed. Although DOE expects most 
offsite waste to be treated elsewhere before receipt at Hanford, small 
quantities of offsite waste (up to 100 m\3\ of MLLW) will be received 
as necessary for onsite treatment.

Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste

    DOE has decided to implement the actions described in the preferred 
alternative, Alternative Group D1, for disposing of LLW and 
MLLW at Hanford, including the waste resulting from the vitrification 
process (ILAW and melters), should they be determined to be LLW or 
MLLW, up to the volumes evaluated in the HSW EIS, subject to the 
limitations on receipt of offsite waste described below. DOE will 
construct a new lined, combined-use facility for disposal of this waste 
near the PUREX facility located in the southeastern corner of the 
Hanford Site 200 East Area. The combined-use facility will contain 
separate modules for wastes with differing characteristics as necessary 
to ensure that wastes placed in the same module are suitable for 
disposal together and do not adversely affect disposal system 
components. The new facility is projected to be available for waste 
disposal in 2007.
    DOE will continue to dispose of MLLW in lined facilities having 
leachate collection systems. In addition, effective immediately, DOE 
will dispose of LLW in the existing lined facilities and will 
subsequently dispose of LLW in the new lined, combined-use disposal 
facility when it becomes operational. After the end of disposal 
operations, the LLBGs and the new lined, combined-use facility will be 
closed by applying an engineered barrier (cap) to reduce water 
infiltration and the potential for intrusion.
    Also effective immediately, DOE will limit the total receipt of 
additional waste from offsite generators for disposal at Hanford to 
62,000 m\3\ of LLW and 20,000 m\3\ of MLLW. This is less than 25 
percent of the Upper Bound volume of waste evaluated for offsite 
generators in the HSW EIS. Until the new disposal facility is 
operational, DOE will limit receipt of LLW and MLLW from offsite 
generators for

[[Page 39455]]

disposal at Hanford to no more than 13,000 m\3\, of which no more than 
5,000 m\3\ will be MLLW.

Storage, Processing, Certification, and Shipment of TRU Waste

    DOE has decided to implement the actions described in the preferred 
alternative, Alternative Group D1, to process and certify 
TRU waste for shipment to WIPP. WRAP and APLs will continue to process 
and certify most CH TRU waste. For TRU waste that cannot be processed 
and certified at existing facilities, such as RH or non-standard 
containers, DOE will develop onsite capability by modifying the T Plant 
Complex as necessary to store, process, certify, and ship TRU waste to 
WIPP in quantities up to the Upper Bound waste volume evaluated in the 
Final HSW EIS (up to 46,000 m\3\ of Hanford TRU waste and up to 1,550 
m\3\ of offsite TRU waste). If, through the certification process, any 
of this waste is determined to be LLW, it will be disposed of at 
Hanford in lined trenches according to existing procedures, Hanford 
Site solid waste acceptance criteria, and consistent with applicable 
regulatory requirements.
    No decision is being made in this ROD to transfer TRU waste from 
other sites to Hanford for storage prior to disposal at WIPP. Such a 
decision would be made in a separate ROD or RODs revising, as 
appropriate, decisions previously made under the WM PEIS.\5\ As stated 
in DOE's decision under the WM PEIS regarding the treatment and storage 
of TRU waste, DOE may, in the future, decide to ship TRU waste from 
sites that do not have the capability to manage this waste to sites 
that do have this capability, until the waste can be disposed of at 
WIPP. The sites that could receive such TRU waste are the Hanford Site, 
the Oak Ridge Reservation, the Savannah River Site, and the Idaho 
National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory. If DOE decides to 
ship additional offsite TRU waste to Hanford for storage, processing, 
or certification prior to shipment to WIPP, DOE would consider 
information from the WM PEIS and the HSW EIS in issuing a revised ROD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Concurrently with the issuance of this ROD, DOE is issuing a 
revision to the WM PEIS ROD confirming its September 6, 2002, 
decision under the WM PEIS to transfer a small quantity of TRU waste 
from the Battelle West Jefferson North Site in Columbus, Ohio, to 
Hanford. This waste will be stored, certified, and processed pending 
shipment to WIPP for disposal. However, these shipments will not 
commence unless and until the preliminary injunction issued by the 
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington is lifted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bases for Decisions

    DOE considered potential environmental impacts as identified in the 
HSW EIS, cost, applicable regulatory requirements, and public comments 
in arriving at its decisions. Of all of the action alternatives, DOE 
believes the slightly lower long-term impacts on water quality in 
Alternative Group D1, and the slightly lower long-term dose 
impacts if groundwater is used, offset a somewhat greater potential for 
disturbance of shrub-steppe habitat over the operational period. Future 
waste disposal operations would be combined in a single location in the 
200 East Area that could provide a unified regulatory pathway to 
construction, operation, and post-closure maintenance of the disposal 
site. The use of lined facilities for disposal and significant limits 
on the receipt of LLW and MLLW from other sites for disposal at Hanford 
is responsive to public concerns and comments. In addition, the 
construction of a single disposal facility and modification of the T 
Plant Complex is expected to offer a cost advantage over other 
alternatives.

Mitigation Measures

    In addition to limiting receipt of offsite LLW and MLLW and 
disposing of LLW in lined trenches, DOE will adopt all practicable 
measures, which are described below, to avoid or minimize adverse 
environmental impacts that may result from implementing the actions 
described in the Final HSW EIS under Alternative Group D1. 
All of these measures are either explicitly part of the alternatives or 
are already performed as part of routine operations.
     Storage, treatment, and disposal facilities will be 
designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the 
comprehensive set of DOE requirements and applicable regulatory 
requirements that have been established to protect public health and 
the environment. These requirements encompass a wide variety of areas, 
including radiation protection, facility design criteria, fire 
protection, emergency preparedness and response, and operational safety 
requirements.
     Waste and other materials will be transported in 
accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Transportation and DOE 
requirements.
     RH MLLW and RH TRU waste will be transported, stored, 
treated, processed, and/or certified with appropriate shielding to 
protect workers and the public.
     LLW will be disposed of in facilities that incorporate 
double liners and leachate collection systems although not required by 
regulation. MLLW will continue to be disposed of in such facilities 
according to applicable regulations.
     Measures will be taken to protect construction and 
operations personnel from occupational hazards and the ``As-Low-as-
Reasonably-Achievable'' principle will be implemented to minimize 
worker exposures to radioactive and chemical hazards.
     Emergency response plans will be in place to allow rapid 
response to potentially dangerous unplanned events.
     Water and other surface sprays will be used to control 
dust emissions, especially at borrow sites, gravel or dirt haul roads, 
and during construction earthwork.
     Pollution control or treatment will be used to reduce or 
eliminate releases of contaminants to the environment and meet 
applicable regulatory standards.
     Environmental monitoring systems will be installed and 
operated to detect potential releases to the environment.
     Secondary leak detection capability will be designed into 
the new lined, combined-use disposal facility.
     Disturbed areas will be mitigated consistent with the 
Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement 
Record of Decision (64 FR 61615, November 12, 1999).
     LLW and MLLW disposal facilities will be closed with an 
engineered barrier (cap) designed and installed to meet regulatory 
requirements applicable to MLLW.
     LLW and MLLW containing more mobile contaminants will 
continue to be disposed of in high-integrity containers or by 
encapsulating the waste in grout.
     Consideration will be given to further protect the 
environment from contaminants of concern (e.g., iodine-129, technetium-
99) in solid waste from the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility and as 
part of the development of the performance assessments and the waste 
acceptance criteria for the new lined, combined-use disposal facility.
     TRU waste stored in the LLBGs will continue to be 
retrieved consistent with existing TPA milestones. This waste will 
continue to be shipped from Hanford to WIPP for disposal.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of June 2004.
Jessie Hill Roberson,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 04-14806 Filed 6-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P