[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3834-3838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Amended Record of Decision: Savannah River Site Salt Processing 
Alternatives

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Amended record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.315, 
is amending its Record of Decision: Savannah River Site Salt Processing 
Alternatives issued on October 17, 2001 (66 FR 52752). At that time the 
Department decided to implement the Caustic Side Solvent Extraction 
(CSSX) technology, one of the alternative technologies evaluated in 
DOE/EIS-0082-S2 (Savannah River Site Salt Processing Alternatives Final 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SPA SEIS), June 2001) for 
separation of the high-activity fraction from the low-activity fraction 
of Savannah River Site (SRS) salt wastes. DOE has initiated design of 
the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF), which will house the CSSX 
technology. Now, using technologies described in the SPA SEIS, DOE has 
decided to change the processing and disposition pathway for a fraction 
of the low activity salt waste currently stored in the F- and H-Area 
tank farms. This action is called Interim Salt Processing. When the 
SWPF becomes operational, the remaining (and by far the majority) salt 
waste will be processed through the SWPF using the CSSX technology as 
described in the SPA SEIS; this action is called High Capacity Salt 
Processing.
    DOE will proceed with this interim approach because doing so will 
enable DOE to continue uninterrupted use of the Defense Waste 
Processing Facility (DWPF) to vitrify higher activity sludge waste for 
disposal at a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
waste. It will also allow DOE to use SWPF at higher capacity as soon as 
it comes on line. This will allow DOE to complete cleanup and closure 
of the tanks years earlier than would otherwise be the case. That, in 
turn, will reduce the time during which the tanks--including some that 
do not have full secondary containment and have a known history of leak 
sites--continue to store liquid radioactive waste. Finally, Interim 
Salt Processing will make more

[[Page 3835]]

tank space available for routine operations, thereby reducing the 
number of transfers among tanks and increasing the safety of 
operations. Therefore, Interim Salt Processing will accelerate the 
reduction of potential risk to the environment, the public, and 
workers.
    DOE has prepared a Supplement Analysis (SA), Salt Processing 
Alternatives at the Savannah River Site (DOE/EIS-0082-S2-SA-01), in 
accordance with DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
regulations (10 CFR 1021.314) to determine whether implementation of 
Interim Salt Processing is a substantial change to the selected CSSX 
processing of salt waste or whether there are significant new 
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns such 
that a supplement to the SPA SEIS or a new EIS would be needed. Based 
on the SA, DOE has determined that a supplement to the SPA SEIS or a 
new EIS is not needed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the SPA SEIS and the 2001 
Record of Decision are available on DOE's NEPA Web site at: http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa. Copies of this amended Record of Decision, and the 
SA, will be available on DOE's NEPA Web site at: http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa under DOE NEPA Documents. To request copies of these documents, 
please contact: The Center for Environmental Management Information, 
P.O. Box 23769, Washington, DC 20026-3769. Telephone: 800-736-3282 (in 
Washington, DC: 202-863-5084).
    For further information regarding the processing and disposal of 
salt waste at the Savannah River Site, or to obtain copies of the SA 
discussed herein, or this amended Record of Decision, contact: Mr. 
Andrew R. Grainger, Savannah River Operations Office, U.S. Department 
of Energy, P.O. Box B, Aiken, SC 29802. Telephone: 803-952-8001. E-
mail: [email protected].
    For information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0119. Telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    DOE evaluated the environmental impacts of construction and 
operation of four alternative technologies for salt waste processing in 
the SPA SEIS. First, the concentrated supernate solution and solid 
saltcake (including the interstitial liquid) would be combined. The 
four salt processing technology alternatives considered in the SPA EIS 
all include initial separation of actinides (including plutonium and 
uranium) present in the salt solution by sorption on monosodium 
titanate (MST), followed by removal by filtration. The separated 
actinides would be sent to the DWPF for vitrification along with the 
sludge portion of the tank waste, which would not be processed through 
the salt processing facility. The remaining salt solution, which would 
have high concentrations of cesium (Cs) but very low concentrations of 
actinides after the MST step, would be further processed to remove most 
of the Cs.
    The alternatives described in the SPA SEIS differ in the approach 
for removal of radioactive Cs from the salt solution. For each action 
alternative except Direct Disposal in Grout, most of the Cs would be 
extracted from the salt solution and incorporated into a vitrified 
waste form at the DWPF, along with the sludge portion of the tank waste 
and the actinides extracted in the MST step. The remaining low-activity 
salt waste stream would be sent to the Saltstone Production Facility, 
where it would be combined with grout in a homogeneous mixture and sent 
to the Saltstone Disposal Facility (also referred to as the Saltstone 
Vaults) for onsite disposal. Under the SEIS, all action alternatives 
but Direct Disposal in Grout would meet current permit conditions 
equivalent to Class A low-level waste. The Direct Disposal in Grout 
alternative would not meet the permit conditions due to high Cs 
concentrations. Under all action alternatives, the actinide 
concentration of the salt waste disposed in the Saltstone Disposal 
Facility would not exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
concentration limits for Class A low-level waste, and would be about 10 
nanocuries per gram.
    DOE issued the Final SPA SEIS in June 2001 and in October 2001 DOE 
issued a Record of Decision selecting the preferred alternative 
described in the Final SPA SEIS--CSSX, with MST for removal of 
actinides--as the treatment technology for salt waste. DOE is currently 
designing the SWPF which will house the CSSX and MST treatment 
technologies.
    The disposal of saltstone waste in the Saltstone Disposal Facility 
is subject to the requirements of section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA). NDAA 
section 3116 authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with 
the NRC, to determine that certain waste from reprocessing is not high-
level waste and that disposal in a geologic repository is not required, 
if it meets certain criteria. DOE prepared a Draft section 3116 
Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site in 
February 2005, and consulted with the NRC pursuant to section 3116 of 
the NDAA. Although not required by section 3116, DOE made the draft 
3116 Determination available for public review concurrent with DOE's 
consultation with the NRC.
    The NRC consultation process has been completed. On December 28, 
2005, the NRC issued its Technical Evaluation Report of the U.S. 
Department of Energy Draft section 3116 Waste Determination for Salt 
Waste Disposal (TER). The TER presents information on DOE's salt waste 
processing strategy, the applicable review criteria, and the NRC's 
review approach, as well as the NRC's analysis and conclusions with 
respect to whether there is reasonable assurance that DOE's proposed 
approach can meet the applicable requirements of the NDAA for 
determining that waste is not high-level waste. As noted in its 
executive summary, ``Based on the information provided by DOE to the 
NRC * * *, the NRC staff has concluded that there is reasonable 
assurance that the applicable criteria of the NDAA can be met provided 
certain assumptions made in DOE's analyses are verified via 
monitoring.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NRC also made a number of observations regarding DOE's 
analysis. DOE addressed several key NRC observations in the Section 
3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River 
Site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE considered the NRC's TER, as well as the public comments on the 
Draft section 3116 Waste Determination, before issuing the section 3116 
Waste Determination in January 2006. DOE also considered whether the 
comments on the Draft section 3116 Waste Determination raise issues or 
provide information that would affect the environmental discussion in 
the Salt Processing Alternatives SA and has determined that they do 
not.
    In the section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the 
Savannah River Site DOE concluded that, as demonstrated in the section 
3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site 
and in consideration of DOE's consultation with the NRC, the solidified 
low-activity salt waste is not high-level waste and may be disposed of 
in the Saltstone Disposal Facility at SRS. DOE also stated that DOE 
will continue to take actions (such as sampling, monitoring, and 
ensuring vault inventory limits) to confirm the ongoing validity of the 
Determination and to explore additional

[[Page 3836]]

actions to further enhance the protection of workers, the public, and 
the environment.

Interim Salt Processing and SWPF Operation 2

    Since issuing the SPA SEIS and ROD, DOE has further considered 
options to maintain sufficient tank space to continue to vitrify sludge 
waste in the DWPF in the interim before the SWPF is operational. 
Continuing to operate DWPF will allow DOE to remove and vitrify sludge 
waste; prepare salt waste for treatment and disposal, and empty waste 
tanks so they may be closed. All of these actions will contribute to 
DOE's ability to continue to reduce the human health and environmental 
risk inherent in storage of high volumes of liquid radioactive waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The numbers and percentages in this Amended Record of 
Decision are either rounded numbers and percentages or are DOE's 
best estimates at this time. The numbers, percentages, and dates in 
this Amended Record of Decision should be viewed as approximate 
numbers, percentages, and dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE will now process the salt waste using a two-phase, three-part 
process. The first phase (herein referred to as Interim Salt 
Processing) will involve two parts to treat some of the lower activity 
salt waste: (1) Beginning in 2006, processing of a minimal amount of 
the lowest activity salt waste through a process involving 
deliquification, dissolution, and adjustment (DDA) of the waste; and 
(2) beginning in 2007, processing a minimal amount of additional salt 
waste with slightly higher activity levels using an Actinide Removal 
Process (ARP) and a Modular CSSX Unit (MCU), following deliquification, 
dissolution, and adjustment of saltcake. The second and longer term 
phase, herein referred to as High Capacity Salt Processing, is 
identical to the CSSX technology as presented in the SPA SEIS and will, 
beginning in 2011, separate and process the remaining (and by far the 
majority) of the salt waste using the SWPF (augmented as necessary by 
ARP). The second phase will begin as soon as SWPF is constructed, 
permitted by the State of South Carolina, and becomes operational. The 
first, interim processing phase will cease at that time (except that 
ARP could be used as necessary to augment SWPF).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The start date for SWPF operations has been delayed (from 
2009 to 2011) to allow for modification of the SWPF preliminary 
design to incorporate a higher degree of performance category (PC) 
in the confinement barriers necessary for worker protection during 
natural phenomena hazard events. The Defense Nuclear Facilities 
Safety Board initially identified concerns related to the PC 
designations of the SWPF in August, 2004. DOE agreed in November, 
2005, to modify the SWPF design after extensive analysis and review, 
resulting in an approximate two year delay in the planned startup of 
SWPF. DOE anticipates that it will continue to explore possible ways 
to improve the schedule for design and construction of the SWPF. It 
remains DOE's goal to complete processing of salt waste through the 
SWPF by 2019 although this date may need to be modified in the 
future. Despite this projected delay, DOE will not increase the 
quantity of waste (total curies) to be disposed of in the Saltstone 
Disposal Facility, nor increase the quantities (curies) processed 
with interim processes or SWPF from those described here and in the 
Draft Section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the 
Savannah River Site and the Section 3116 Determination for Salt 
Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site. Therefore, the date 
change does not affect the analyses in the Section 3116 
Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site, 
its supporting documents, or the NRC consultation. The modified 
schedule is reflected in the Section 3116 Determination for Salt 
Waste Disposal at the Savannah River. However, the technical and 
programmatic documents that are referenced by the Section 3116 
Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site 
have not been updated to reflect this new date because the schedule 
change did not occur until after those documents were completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    About 33.8 million gallons (Mgal) of salt waste are currently 
stored in underground waste storage tanks at SRS. This waste, along 
with future salt waste forecasted to be sent to the tank farms, will be 
processed through DDA, ARP/MCU, and the SWPF. DOE estimated in 
preparing the Section 3116 Determination that an additional 41.3 Mgal 
of unconcentrated salt waste would have been received by the Tank Farms 
between December 1, 2004, and the completion of salt waste processing. 
After both liquid removal by processing through the Tank Farm 
evaporator systems and later additions of liquid for saltcake 
dissolution and chemistry adjustments required for processing, 
approximately 84 Mgal (5.9 Mgal existing salt waste through the DDA 
process, 1.0 Mgal future salt waste through the DDA process, 2.1 Mgal 
existing and future salt waste through ARP/MCU, 69.1 Mgal existing salt 
waste through SWPF, and 5.9 Mgal future salt waste through SWPF) of 
salt solution will be processed by Interim Salt Processing and High 
Capacity Salt Processing resulting in approximately 168 Mgal of grout 
output from the Saltstone Production Facility to be disposed of in the 
Saltstone Disposal Facility.
    In terms of curies, implementation of Interim Salt Processing 
followed by High Capacity Salt Processing will result in onsite 
disposal of 3.0 to 5.0 million curies (MCi), with the majority (about 
2.8 MCi of 3.0 MCi) resulting from Interim Salt Processing, in the 
Saltstone Disposal Facility. This represents 1.3 to 2.2 percent of the 
approximately 223 MCi in the salt waste. DOE's current estimate is that 
3.0 MCi, or 1.3 percent of the total will be disposed of in the 
Saltstone Disposal Facility, and 3.0 MCi is used in this document. The 
higher number of 5 MCi represents uncertainties in the radiological 
characterization of the salt waste.

Deliquification, Dissolution, and Adjustment, Actinide Removal Process, 
and Modular CSSX Unit

    These facilities and processes are described in the Salt Processing 
Alternatives SA, and in greater detail in DOE's section 3116 
Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site. The 
DDA process will be the first interim process used and will be used to 
process some of the lowest activity salt waste from 2006 until 2011 
when the SWPF begins operation. The DDA process will also be used to 
prepare waste feed streams for the ARP and MCU and will operate in 
parallel with those facilities.
    In 2007, ARP and MCU operations will be initiated to process 
slightly higher activity salt waste. ARP and MCU will use processes 
described in the SPA SEIS (MST treatment and CSSX), the same 
technologies that will be incorporated in the SWPF, which will process 
about 98.7 percent of the 223 million curies in salt waste.
    The ARP will be comprised of the actinide removal process that was 
described as part of the pilot plant, which also included a low-
capacity CSSX capability, in the SPA SEIS. In order to take advantage 
of existing infrastructure and minimize construction costs, DOE will 
modify existing SRS facilities 512-S (formerly the Late Wash Facility) 
and 241-96H (formerly the filter building portion of the In-Tank 
Precipitation facility). The MCU will house a low-capacity CSSX 
technology, similar to the pilot plant described in the SPA SEIS. The 
MCU is being constructed in the former cold feeds area of the In-Tank 
Precipitation facility. The SA provides further details of the new and 
existing facilities and processes that will be used for Interim Salt 
Processing.

Regulatory Requirements

    A modification to the Saltstone Disposal Facility Industrial Solid 
Waste Landfill (ISWL) permit, issued by the South Carolina Department 
of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), will be required prior to 
implementation of Interim Salt Processing. The current Saltstone 
Disposal Facility ISWL permit authorizes disposal of waste with 
radionuclide concentrations comparable to Class A low-level waste 
limits (10 nCi/g) as defined in NRC regulations at

[[Page 3837]]

10 CFR 61.55. SCDHEC under its State wastewater permitting authority 
issued the permit. The permit requires DOE to notify SCDHEC if the 
characteristics of wastes to be disposed in the Saltstone Disposal 
Facility would change, as will be the case with the higher 
concentrations of radionuclides (about 0.2 Ci/gal rather than about 0.1 
Ci/gal, and about 41 nCi/g actinides rather than less than 10 nCi/g) in 
saltstone that will be disposed when DOE implements Interim Salt 
Processing. DOE has submitted a request for a modification to the 
Saltstone Disposal Facility ISWL permit. The requested modification 
would cover waste with concentrations less than the NRC Class C limits 
(100 nCi/gm).

II. Decision

    DOE has decided to implement Interim Salt Processing, followed by 
High Capacity Salt Processing using the CSSX technology when the SWPF 
becomes operational. DOE will change the processing and disposition 
pathway for a fraction (about 1.3 percent, or about 3.0 MCi) of the 
salt waste currently stored in the F- and H-Area tank farms. DOE will 
use the DDA process to segregate supernate and interstitial liquid from 
saltcake in order to send salt waste with low curie content (about 2.5 
MCi, or about 6.9 Mgal) to the Saltstone Production Facility, where it 
will be combined with chemicals to form a grout matrix and sent to the 
Saltstone Disposal Facility. The waste processed with DDA will, after 
solidification, have an average Cs concentration of about 0.2 Ci/gal 
and actinide concentration of about 41 nCi/g. DOE will also use the DDA 
process to dispose of 0.24 Mgal of relatively low activity salt 
solution currently stored in Tank 48. DOE will process this waste 
without removal of radionuclides by combining the stream with another 
salt waste stream, currently planned to be the low-activity liquid 
recycle waste stream from the DWPF. About 2.1 Mgal of salt waste with 
slightly higher curie content will be prepared for processing through 
the ARP and MCU; about 0.3 MCi, or about 2.1 Mgal, will be disposed of 
in the Saltstone Disposal Facility. When SWPF becomes operational in 
about 2011 the CSSX technology will be used to process the inventory of 
salt waste that was not processed during interim salt processing. DOE 
expects to process about 98.7 percent (about 220 MCi) of the salt waste 
inventory using the CSSX technology as described in the SPA SEIS. After 
processing in the SWPF waste sent to the Saltstone Disposal Facility 
will have a Cs concentration of about 0.1 Ci/gal and actinide 
concentration of less than 10 nCi/g.

III. Basis for the Decision

    DOE has initiated design of the Salt Waste Processing Facility 
(SWPF), which will house the CSSX technology selected in the Record of 
Decision. Now, using technologies described in the SPA SEIS, DOE has 
decided to change the processing and disposition pathway for a fraction 
of the salt waste currently stored in the F- and H-Area tank farms. 
This action is called Interim Salt Processing. When the SWPF becomes 
operational, the remaining salt waste will be processed using High 
Capacity Salt Processing through the SWPF using the CSSX technology as 
described in the SPA SEIS.
    If DOE is to be in a position to continue removal and vitrification 
of the high-activity sludge between now and the startup of the SWPF, 
including removing sludge waste from the tanks that lack full secondary 
containment, and to operate the SWPF efficiently after its construction 
is complete, DOE must proceed with Interim Salt Processing. The only 
practical way DOE will be able to move forward with sludge 
vitrification without significant disruption and delay, and assure 
efficient operation of the SWPF, is to use interim salt processing 
technologies to remove and dispose of a limited amount of the salt 
waste currently in the tanks during this interim period. Otherwise, DOE 
would be forced to decrease, postpone, and eventually halt the on-going 
activities to remove and stabilize tank waste that currently are 
reducing risk to the occupational workers, the public, and the 
environment.

IV. Supplement Analysis

    To determine whether the proposed action warrants a supplement to 
the SPA SEIS or a new EIS, DOE prepared the SA, Salt Processing 
Alternatives at the Savannah River Site (DOE/EIS-0082-S2-SA-01). In the 
SA DOE compared the impacts of implementing Interim Salt Processing 
followed by High Capacity Salt Processing to the impacts of the salt 
processing alternatives evaluated in the SPA SEIS.
    Using the DDA process from 2006 until about 2011, salt waste with a 
Cs concentration of about 0.2 Ci/gal and an actinide concentration of 
about 41 nCi/g, totaling about 2.5 MCi, will be sent to the Saltstone 
Production Facility and then to the Saltstone Disposal Facility.
    Salt waste processed through the ARP and MCU, which will operate 
from 2007 until the SWPF becomes operational will have a Cs 
concentration of about 0.1 Ci/gal and an actinide concentration 
comparable to SWPF waste (i.e., less than 10 nCi/g) after processing, 
and will result in about 0.3 MCi processed through the Saltstone 
Production Facility for disposal at the Saltstone Disposal Facility. 
These concentrations are the same as those described in the SPA SEIS 
for salt waste processed using the CSSX technology.
    After the SWPF becomes operational in 2011, waste sent to the 
Saltstone Disposal Facility will have concentrations the same as those 
evaluated in the SPA SEIS, until waste processing is completed. In all, 
implementing Interim Salt Processing followed High Capacity Salt 
Processing using the CSSX technology at the SWPF will result in 
disposal of about 3.0 MCi, or 1.3 percent of the total curies contained 
in the salt waste, at the Saltstone Disposal Facility.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Due to uncertainties in the characterization of the salt 
waste, the total curies disposed could range up to 5.0 MCi. The 
uncertainty concerning disposal of 3.0 MCi or up to about 5.0 MCi is 
inconsequential in light of the Direct Disposal in Grout impacts 
analysis found in the SPA SEIS. As explained in the SPA SEIS, the 
impacts of the Direct Disposal in Grout alternative are greater than 
those of the other alternatives. DOE concluded, however, that any of 
the alternatives evaluated, including Direct Disposal in Grout, 
could be implemented with only small and acceptable environmental 
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SA addressed the impacts of the processing and disposal of 
higher concentrations of actinides during Interim Salt Processing than 
evaluated in the Salt Processing Alternatives SEIS. These higher 
concentrations will be found in that fraction of the salt waste 
segregated using the DDA process and sent directly for disposal without 
treatment in the ARP and MCU.
    For the analysis presented in the SA, DOE conservatively assumed 
the entire salt waste inventory, processed through the SWPF using the 
CSSX for the operating life of the facility, would be sent to the 
Saltstone Production Facility with an actinide concentration of 100 
nCi/g, the concentration limit for Class C waste. However, when Interim 
Salt Processing is implemented, concentrations will be less. That is, 
about 41 nCi/g resulting from the DDA process will be sent to the 
Saltstone Production Facility without treatment in ARP and MCU from 
2006 until about 2011 when the SWPF becomes operational. DOE estimates 
that only about 6.8 Mgal or about 6 percent of the total salt waste 
inventory will have an average concentration of about 41 nCi/g. For the 
SA analysis DOE used the same Cs concentration DOE used for the SPA 
SEIS. The differences in impacts

[[Page 3838]]

are therefore attributed solely to the increased actinide 
concentration.

Short-Term Impacts

    As evaluated in the SPA SEIS, short-term impacts are incurred 
during operation of the salt waste processing facilities, and long-term 
impacts are those resulting from release of disposed radionuclides from 
the Saltstone Disposal Facility. As described in the SA, differences in 
short-term impacts resulting from implementing Interim Salt Processing 
followed by SWPF operation using the CSSX technology will be small 
compared to operation of the CSSX technology as described in the SPA 
SEIS. Modifications to the Saltstone Production Facility were completed 
within the existing structure and result in no new land disturbance. 
Impacts from construction of the MCU will not differ from those 
described for the pilot plant in the SPA SEIS. The existing 512-S and 
241-96H facilities will be modified for the ARP and will be operated 
remotely. No adverse impacts are anticipated from construction. 
Implementation of Interim Salt Processing will not necessitate changes 
in the design or operation of the SWPF.
    There is the potential for short-term impacts to the health of 
workers and the public due to radiation doses from airborne releases of 
Cs and actinides from processing activities. For example, the dose to 
the maximum exposed individual would increase from the 0.31 millirem 
analyzed under the Caustic Side Solvent Extraction alternative in the 
SPA SEIS to 0.58 millirem (due to increased actinide concentrations in 
that portion of the salt waste segregated using DDA but not treated 
using ARP and MCU before disposal). Similar small increases would occur 
in involved worker doses and non-involved worker doses. The 0.31 
millirem dose to the maximum exposed individual would result in a 
probability of a latent cancer fatality of about 2 chances in 1,000,000 
(2.0 x 10-6). The 0.58 millirem dose to the maximum exposed 
individual would result in a probability of a latent cancer fatality of 
about 3.7 chances in 1,000,000 (3.7 x 10-6).

Long-Term Impacts

    In the SA, DOE compares calculated doses and impacts from the SPA 
SEIS (the SWPF using the CSSX technology) and the increased actinide 
concentrations in the Saltstone Disposal Facility from implementing 
Interim Salt Processing followed by SWPF operation. Three scenarios are 
used. In the Agricultural Scenario an individual is assumed to 
unknowingly farm and constructs and lives in a permanent residence on 
the vaults. At 100 years post-closure a sufficient layer of soil would 
be present over the still-intact disposal vaults so that the resident 
would be unaware that the residence was constructed over the vaults. At 
1,000 years post-closure the saltstone is assumed to have weathered 
sufficiently so that the resident could construct a residence without 
being aware of the presence of the saltstone.
    Under the Agricultural Scenario the doses and latent cancer 
fatalities resulting from Interim Salt Processing followed by SWPF 
operation using the CSSX technology increase slightly. Under the 
Residential Scenario at 100 Years, impacts from Interim Salt Processing 
would be comparable to Caustic Side Solvent Extraction analyzed in the 
SPA SEIS. For the Residential Scenario at 100 Years doses are dominated 
by Cs, which has largely decayed by 1,000 years post-closure.
    When Interim Salt Processing followed by SWPF operation using the 
CSSX technology is implemented, waste with a concentration of about 41 
nCi/g resulting from the DDA process without ARP and MCU treatment will 
be sent to the Saltstone Disposal Facility until SWPF becomes 
operational. Using ARP and throughout the operating life of the SWPF, 
salt waste sent to the Saltstone Disposal Facility will have actinide 
concentrations of 10 nCi/g or less. Long-term impacts will be less than 
shown in the SA when DOE implements Interim Salt Processing followed by 
SWPF because the actual inventory of actinides disposed of in the 
Saltstone Disposal Facility will be less than assumed in the 
calculation.

V. Conclusions

    DOE will process about 98.7 percent of the salt waste inventory 
(about 220 of about 223 MCi) using the CSSX technology as described in 
the SPA SEIS. When SWPF becomes operational the CSSX technology will be 
used to process the inventory of salt waste that was not processed 
during interim salt processing. Interim Salt Processing followed by 
High Capacity Salt Processing through SWPF using the CSSX technology 
does not constitute a substantial change in actions previously analyzed 
and does not present significant new circumstances or information 
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the impacts of DOE's 
salt processing and waste disposal program. Therefore, DOE does not 
need to undertake additional NEPA analysis, and DOE will implement 
Interim Salt Processing followed by High Capacity Salt Processing 
through SWPF using the CSSX technology to relieve tank space 
limitations and assure that vitrification of the high-activity fraction 
of liquid radioactive waste (sludge waste) at the Savannah River Site 
will continue uninterrupted while construction of the SWPF is 
completed.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 17th day of January 2006.
James A. Rispoli,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
 [FR Doc. E6-818 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P