[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43158-43159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18079]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Amended Record of Decision for the Decommissioning of Eight 
Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, WA

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Amended Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its initial Record 
of Decision (ROD) issued September 16, 1993 (58 Federal Register (FR) 
48509), pursuant to the Final Environmental Impact Statement on 
Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford 
Site, Richland, WA (Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS) (DOE/EIS-
0119F, December 1992). The Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS 
evaluated the potential environmental impacts, benefits and costs, and 
institutional and programmatic needs associated with the 
decommissioning of eight surplus production reactors at the Hanford 
Site.
    These reactors (B, C, D, DR, F, H, KE and KW), operated between the 
years 1944 and 1971 and retired from service, have been declared 
surplus by DOE, and are available for decommissioning. The 1993 ROD 
documented DOE's decision to select safe storage followed by deferred 
one-piece removal for decommissioning of the eight surplus production 
reactors. DOE has been implementing the safe storage component of this 
1993 reactor decommissioning ROD consistent with the remedial action 
cleanup schedules in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent 
Order (Tri-Party Agreement, TPA). Through the Tri-Party Agreement, DOE 
continues to evaluate this decommissioning action in light of 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980 (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 
(RCRA) remediation of the past practice units in the 100 Area.
    As explained in this amended ROD, DOE has decided to broaden the 
decommissioning approach for these eight reactors. DOE is retaining the 
deferred one-piece removal option, as selected in the 1993 ROD, and, 
based on a recently prepared Supplement Analysis, is adding an option 
for immediate dismantlement.

ADDRESSES: The 1992 Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS, the 1993 
ROD, the Supplement Analysis, and this Amended ROD are available 
electronically on the DOE NEPA Web site at http://www.nepa.energy.gov/.
    Copies of the documents referenced herein are available from the: 
Center for Environmental Management Information, P.O. Box 23769, 
Washington, DC 20026-3769. Telephone: 1-800-736-3282 (in Washington, 
DC: 202-863-5084).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the 
Supplement Analysis for the Surplus Production Reactors EIS, contact: 
Woody Russell, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance 
Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, 2440 
Stevens Center, MSIN H6-60, Richland, WA 99354, Telephone: 509-373-
5227.
    For general information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585. Telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    In March 1989, DOE issued the Draft Surplus Production Reactors EIS 
(DOE/EIS-0119) to analyze alternatives for decommissioning eight water-
cooled, graphite-moderated plutonium-production reactors, located along 
the Columbia River in Washington State. The eight reactors (B, C, D, 
DR, F, H, KE and KW), operated between the years 1944 and 1971, have 
been retired from service. The alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS 
included the no-action, immediate one-piece removal, safe storage 
followed by deferred one-piece removal, safe storage followed by 
deferred dismantlement, and in situ decommissioning alternatives. 
Comments received during the public and agency review process of the 
Draft Surplus Production Reactors EIS did not require the Department to 
modify any alternatives, to develop and evaluate any new alternatives, 
or to supplement, improve, or modify its analyses of the 
decommissioning alternatives. Therefore, the Department prepared and 
distributed an Addendum to the Draft Surplus Production Reactors EIS in 
accordance with 40 CFR 1503(c). The Addendum (December 1992) stated 
DOE's response to issues raised by commenters and minor changes to the 
text. The Draft Surplus Production Reactors EIS and the Addendum 
constitute the Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0119F) under the provisions of the 
Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1503.4(c)). The 
Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal 
Register on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4690).
    As stated in the 1993 ROD, DOE regards the safe storage followed by 
deferred dismantlement, safe storage followed by one-piece removal, and 
immediate one-piece removal alternatives as equally favorable based 
solely on the evaluation of environmental impacts. [Note that a ninth 
reactor, N Reactor, was in transition regarding its defense production 
mission at the time of the Surplus Production Reactor EIS, and was not 
within the scope of the Final Surplus Production Reactor EIS or ROD. N 
Reactor has been retired and is undergoing deactivation under CERCLA.]
    DOE uses the CERCLA process to decommission and dismantle reactors 
based on the joint EPA/DOE policy on reactor decommissioning signed in 
1995 and incorporated into the TPA. Since the NEPA ROD in 1993, 
documentation has been prepared and implemented under CERCLA, resulting 
in placement of five of the eight surplus reactors (C, D, DR, F, and H) 
into interim safe storage (ISS). [ISS, or ``cocooning,'' is the process 
of demolishing all but the shield walls surrounding the reactor core, 
removing or stabilizing all loose contamination within the facility, 
and placing a new roof on the remaining structure. A single doorway in 
the structure is installed to provide access for surveillance and 
maintenance work. This doorway is welded shut, and all other openings 
in the shield walls are sealed to prevent intrusions and the release of 
radioactive materials. The facility is inspected every five years and 
remotely monitored at all times for changes in moisture and 
temperature. The reactor cores could remain in ISS for up to 75 years.] 
Of the remaining three reactors, B Reactor is under

[[Page 43159]]

consideration for preservation as a national historic site. Although KE 
and KW Reactors have had CERCLA documentation issued that identified 
ISS as the preferred alternative, the KE and KW reactors are not 
currently in ISS. However, they are the next reactors in the queue for 
completion of ISS.

II. Decision

    DOE has decided to broaden the decommissioning approach for these 
eight surplus reactors. DOE is retaining the deferred one-piece removal 
option, as selected in the 1993 ROD, and, based on a recently prepared 
Supplement Analysis, is modifying the deferred dismantlement option, as 
expressed in the Final EIS, by selecting an option for immediate 
dismantlement.
    Activities to implement this decision will be conducted as CERCLA 
non-time critical removal actions. Specific details on unit operations 
of dismantlement will be addressed in the CERCLA documentation. All 
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been 
incorporated in this decision.

III. Basis for the Decision

    In accordance with CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)) and DOE 
NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314(c)), DOE prepared a Supplement 
Analysis to determine whether a supplemental EIS or a new EIS is 
required. The Supplement Analysis focused on the resource areas and 
considerations most likely to be affected by this amended ROD; 
specifically, worker radiological impacts (routine operations and 
accident conditions), land use, historical/cultural resources, 
ecological resources, and cumulative impacts.
    Preliminary calculations (based on near-term dismantlement of the 
KE reactor core and extrapolated to all eight surplus production 
reactors) indicate that worker dose under a dismantlement scenario for 
all eight reactors (approximately 80 person-rem) would be expected to 
be substantially less than that projected in the Final EIS (532 person-
rem) for deferred dismantlement, and slightly higher than that for 
deferred one-piece removal (51 person-rem in the safe storage/deferred 
one-piece removal scenario). The actual dose rates to which workers 
would be exposed would be controlled by such means as remote handling, 
use of robotics, and the use of shielding. Worker radiation exposure 
would be controlled to stay within administrative and regulatory 
limits. Regardless, less than one latent cancer fatality (LCF) would be 
expected under all of the alternatives. No new bounding accident 
scenarios associated with reactor decommissioning have been identified; 
less than one LCF would be expected as a result of any postulated 
bounding accident.
    No new land use, historical/cultural resource, or ecological 
resources impacts were identified in the Supplement Analysis relevant 
to decommissioning activities under deferred one-piece removal or 
immediate dismantlement.
    Also, as stated in the Supplement Analysis, no short-term or long-
term cumulative impacts (based on the analyses presented in DOE/EIS-
0391, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 
Statement) were identified relevant to decommissioning activities under 
one-piece removal or dismantlement.
    In evaluating the viability of supporting accelerated 
decommissioning of surplus reactor facilities in a safe and 
environmentally effective manner, DOE also considered technological 
advances and additional information since the Final EIS and the 1993 
ROD were issued. New engineering controls (such as development and 
deployment of robotics in an array of field applications), data 
collection and validation, worker safety practices, and real-time 
lessons learned from reactor demolition activities at Brookhaven 
National Laboratory all could be applied to accelerated surplus reactor 
decommissioning at the Hanford Site. These controls and information 
would enable accelerated decommissioning activities to be conducted 
safely.

IV. Determination

    DOE has decided to broaden the decommissioning approach for the 
surplus reactors, retaining the deferred one-piece removal option and 
adding an option for immediate dismantlement. Based on the Supplement 
Analysis, this is not a substantial change in the proposed action 
relevant to environmental concerns. Further, there are no significant 
new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and 
bearing on the proposed actions or their impacts described in the 
Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS. Therefore, DOE has determined 
that neither a new EIS, nor a supplement to the Surplus Production 
Reactors EIS, is required.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 16, 2010.
In[eacute]s R. Triay,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-18079 Filed 7-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P