94-26668. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) To Clean Out and Deactivate the Hanford, Washington Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Complex (Except for Storage Areas), To Stabilize PFP Plutonium- Bearing Materials and To Store the ...  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-26668]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: October 27, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
    
     
    
    Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) To Clean 
    Out and Deactivate the Hanford, Washington Plutonium Finishing Plant 
    (PFP) Complex (Except for Storage Areas), To Stabilize PFP Plutonium-
    Bearing Materials and To Store the Stabilized Material
    
    AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
    
    ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI).
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: DOE announces its intent to prepare an EIS pursuant to the 
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
    seq.) in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
    regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 
    parts 1500-1508) and the DOE implementing procedures (10 CFR part 
    1021). DOE invites public comment and will conduct a series of public 
    scoping meetings to provide an opportunity for the public and 
    interested agencies to comment on the alternatives and the scope of 
    issues to be addressed in the EIS.
        The proposed action would clean out inactive PFP complex facilities 
    (except for storage areas), stabilize reactive residual plutonium-
    bearing materials to a form suitable for long term storage, and store 
    the stabilized material until DOE makes final storage and disposition 
    decisions. The proposed action would minimize safety concerns, reduce 
    the exposure of site workers to radiation, and reduce the risk to the 
    public. Upon completion of the action, the PFP-complex would be 
    deactivated to a state ready for potential decontamination and 
    dismantlement (D&D) and/or potential future uses. Additional NEPA 
    documentation will be prepared by DOE before any decision is made to 
    D&D the PFP and/or to use it for other purposes. At this time, no 
    future missions beyond continued vault storage have been identified for 
    the PFP-complex. Future production of plutonium for defense purposes is 
    not being proposed and is not part of Hanford's current mission. 
    Existing vault storage of nuclear materials would continue pending 
    future NEPA documentation and a DOE decision on the ultimate storage or 
    disposition of the materials; on June 21, 1994, DOE issued a NOI to 
    prepare a programmatic EIS on the storage and disposition of weapons-
    usable fissile materials.
    
    DATES: DOE invites all interested parties, including affected Federal, 
    State and local agencies, Indian Nations, and the general public to 
    submit comments or suggestions concerning the scope of the issues to be 
    addressed, alternatives to be analyzed, and the environmental impacts 
    to be assessed in the Plutonium Finishing Plant Cleanout EIS by 
    December 12, 1994. To ensure that all relevant environmental issues are 
    considered, the public, agencies, and organizations are also invited to 
    attend public scoping workshops in which oral and written comments will 
    be welcomed on the proposed PFP EIS. Oral and written comments will be 
    given equal weight in the scoping process. Written comments must be 
    postmarked by December 12, 1994 to ensure their consideration. Comments 
    postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent 
    practicable.
        Public scoping workshops to provide information and discuss and 
    receive comments on the scope of the EIS will be held on the dates and 
    at the locations given below:
    
    Hood River, Oregon............  Date: Thursday, November 10, 1994.................  Hood River Inn, Best        
                                                                                         Western, 1108 E. Marina    
                                                                                         Way, Hood River, OR 97031, 
                                                                                         (503) 386-2200.            
    Portland, Oregon..............  Date: Friday, November 11, 1994...................  Red Lion/Lloyd's Center,    
                                                                                         1000 Multnomah, Portland,  
                                                                                         OR 97204, (503) 281-6111.  
    Richland, Washington..........  Date: Tuesday, November 15, 1994..................  O'Callahan's at the Shilo,  
                                                                                         50 Comstock, Richland, WA  
                                                                                         99352, (509) 946-4661.     
    Seattle, Washington...........  Date: Thursday, November 17, 1994.................  Bellevue Hilton Hotel, 100  
                                                                                         112th Avenue, Bellevue, WA 
                                                                                         98004, (206) 455-3330.     
    Spokane, Washington...........  Date: Monday, November 28, 1994...................  Cavanaugh's Inn at the Park,
                                                                                         W. 303 North River Drive,  
                                                                                         Spokane, WA 99352, (509)   
                                                                                         326-8000.                  
                                                                                                                    
    
        Each public scoping workshop will begin with a welcome and brief 
    overview of the proposed EIS and will include sub-workshops on specific 
    items of interest in which the public can ask questions and provide 
    comments to DOE officials. Notes will be taken in the sub-workshops to 
    record public concerns for the official workshop record. Each workshop 
    will conclude with a session that will be recorded by a public 
    stenographer and will become part of the official workshop record. This 
    portion of the workshop will be chaired by a presiding officer, but 
    will not be conducted as an evidentiary hearing; speakers will not be 
    cross-examined although the presiding officer and DOE representatives 
    may ask clarifying questions. Individuals requesting to speak on behalf 
    of an organization must identify the organization. In the interest of 
    ensuring that all who wish to speak have an opportunity to do so, each 
    individual speaker will be given a 5-minute limit except that a speaker 
    representing an organization (one per organization) will be given a 10-
    minute limit.
        The agenda will be repeated twice a day at each location, in 
    afternoon and evening sessions. The hours for the sessions will be: 
    12:30 PM-1:30 PM (workshop session), 1:30 PM-4:30 PM (formal scoping 
    meeting), 5:30 PM-6:30 PM (workshop session), and 6:30 PM-9:30 PM 
    (formal scoping meeting).
    
        Requests to speak at these workshops may be made by calling the 
    toll-free telephone number, 1-800-516-3740 by 3:00 PM the day before 
    the meeting or by writing to the DOE (see ADDRESSES below).
    
        Persons who have not submitted a request to speak in advance may 
    register to do so at the workshops and will be called on to speak on a 
    first-come, first-served basis as time permits. Written comments will 
    also be accepted at the meetings, and speakers are encouraged to 
    provide written versions of their oral comments for the record.
    
        DOE will review scoping comments to determine their applicability 
    to the proposed PFP cleanout EIS. An Implementation Plan (IP) for the 
    PFP EIS will provide guidance for preparation of the PFP EIS and 
    establish its scope and content (10 CFR 1021.312). The IP will briefly 
    summarize the scoping comments received and their disposition. The IP 
    will be issued prior to the release of the draft EIS and copies will be 
    made available for inspection.
    
        Written comments on the scope of the PFP EIS, questions or comments 
    concerning the PFP cleanout program, requests for speaking times at the 
    public scoping meetings, and requests for copies of the IP and/or the 
    Draft EIS (DEIS) should be directed to the designated Richland contacts 
    below. ADDRESSES:
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    
    Mr. Jim Mecca, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 550 (MSIN B1-42), 
    Richland, WA 99352, Attention: NL Peters, Telephone: (509) 946-3683
    
    Mr. Ben Burton, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 550 (MSIN B1-42), 
    Richland, WA 99352, Telephone: (509) 946-3683
    
        For information on the DOE NEPA process, contact: Carol M. 
    Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight (EH-25), U.S. Department 
    of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20585, 
    Telephone: 202-586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
    
        EIS technical reports, background data, materials incorporated by 
    reference, and other related documents are available either through the 
    contacts listed above or at:
    
    DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Forrestal Building, 1000 
    Independence Ave. S.W., Washington, D.C.
    
    DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State University, Tri-Cities 
    Branch, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352.
    
    and at the following DOE information repositories:
    
    University of Washington, Suzzallo Library, Government Publication, 
    Seattle, WA 98195
    Gonzaga University, Foley Center, E. 502 Boone, Spokane, WA 99258
    Portland State University, Branford Price Millar Library, SW Harrison 
    and Park, Portland, OR 97207.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        The Federal government began operating the Hanford Site, near 
    Richland, Washington, in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project to 
    produce plutonium for national defense purposes. Metallic uranium fuel 
    was irradiated in nuclear reactors at the Hanford Site to create 
    plutonium, which was converted to plutonium nitrate and purified 
    through chemical processing for use in nuclear weapons.
        Initial production of plutonium metal at the PFP complex began in 
    July, 1949. The complex is located on Hanford's 200 West Area Plateau 
    approximately 32 miles northwest of Richland, Washington. The complex 
    includes production areas, reclamation processes, laboratories and 
    plutonium storage vaults. Several defense missions were carried out 
    within the PFP complex. As the need arose, processes were installed in 
    the PFP to recover as much plutonium as possible and metal production 
    capabilities were updated. Some of the process areas have been 
    deactivated over the last 20 years; however, plutonium recovery 
    activities continued until the production mission ended in 1989. Secure 
    materials storage vaults have been in operation since the early 1960s.
        Today, operable areas of the complex include the Plutonium 
    Reclamation Facility (PRF), the Remote Mechanical ``C'' (RMC) line plus 
    process support and research laboratories, the secure storage vaults 
    and support areas. About 240 employees work at the PFP.
        The DOE believes the continued presence of relatively large 
    quantities of chemically reactive materials in their present form and 
    location within the PFP poses an unacceptable long-term risk to the 
    workers and the environment. Consequently, in 1993, DOE announced its 
    proposal to operate certain processes in the PFP to stabilize those 
    materials and to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to 
    NEPA.
        As part of the NEPA process for the proposed EA, DOE conducted 
    public meetings in the summer and fall of 1993 in Richland, WA; 
    Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Hood River, OR; and Spokane, WA to discuss 
    the proposal to stabilize the chemically reactive materials. As a 
    result of the public comments received, DOE decided that an EIS would 
    be the appropriate level of NEPA review. DOE also decided to expand the 
    scope of review to include cleanout of the PFP (except for storage 
    vaults) to a state where the facility would be ready for D&D and/or 
    future uses.
        To alleviate immediate safety concerns, interim actions have been 
    taken or are underway to minimize the amount of reactive residual 
    materials left in process areas when the plutonium production mission 
    ended in 1989. The range of interim actions includes transferring 
    solutions into vented metal containers for safe storage, repackaging of 
    certain solutions from plastic bottles to safer containers, cleanup of 
    surface radioactive contamination to reduce worker exposure, and 
    removal of portions of ventilation ductwork and piping which contain 
    residual plutonium. The thermal stabilization of sludges is a proposed 
    interim action being addressed by an EA currently in progress. Other 
    interim actions could be proposed during the EIS preparation period to 
    address other specific safety concerns. All interim actions are or will 
    be covered by appropriate NEPA documentation.
        The proposed action would place the PFP complex in a state ready 
    for potential D&D and/or a future mission while maintaining its current 
    material storage capability.
    
    Purpose and Need for Agency Action
    
        The DOE needs to take action to minimize safety concerns, reduce 
    the exposure of Hanford Site workers to radiation, and reduce the risk 
    to the public. The proposed action would clean out inactive PFP complex 
    facilities (except storage areas), stabilize reactive residual material 
    for long-term storage, and store the stabilized material pending a DOE 
    decision on ultimate storage or disposition of fissile materials. Upon 
    completion of the proposed action, the PFP complex would be in a state 
    ready for D&D and/or future uses.
    
    Preliminary Description of Cleanout Alternatives
    
        The following cleanout alternatives are currently being considered 
    for detailed analysis in the EIS:
    
    1. Wet Cleaning
    
        Contaminated equipment or facility surfaces would be sprayed with 
    or soaked or immersed in nitric acid and rinsed with dilute acid. The 
    rinse solutions would be collected in tankage and stabilized in a 
    manner similar to other acid solutions. Acid washing could be enhanced 
    for greater cleaning by using additives such as cerium or silver 
    persulfate.
    
    2. Mechanical Cleaning
    
        Methods for mechanical cleaning include abrasive blasting, wiping, 
    scraping and brushing. Blasting would produce a fine powder containing 
    plutonium which would be collected and stabilized in a manner similar 
    to other solids, then stored in PFP vaults. Wiping or scraping would 
    produce a similar powder, plus waste in the form of wiping materials 
    (rags, paper, etc.) These methods require workers to be close to 
    contaminated surfaces.
    
    Preliminary Description of Stabilization Alternatives
    
        The PFP contains a variety of reactive plutonium-bearing materials 
    that need to be stabilized for long-term storage pending DOE decisions 
    on ultimate storage or disposition. Stabilized material has minimal 
    chemical reactivity and generally would be in solid form with a low 
    water or organic content to minimize radiolysis. Most of the reactive 
    materials are in process areas and equipment. (A portion of the 
    materials stored in PFP vaults must also continue to be repackaged and 
    stabilized as necessary for long-term storage).
        For purposes of analysis, the reactive materials have been divided 
    into groups. The materials in each group are expected to be amenable to 
    the same stabilization process. The groups are as follows:
    
    Nitrate solutions
    Chloride solutions
    Other solutions including organic solutions
    Inorganic solids
    Oxides
    Metals and alloys
    Combustibles (used rags, used filters, plastic forms)
    Miscellaneous compounds
    
        Each of these groups contains materials which are chemically 
    dissimilar to materials in other groups and may require separate 
    stabilization processing. Therefore, the preferred stabilization 
    alternative is likely to consist of more than a single process.
        The following stabilization alternatives are currently being 
    considered for detailed analysis in the EIS.
    
    1. Stabilization via Plutonium Reclamation Facility
    
        This alternative would involve the restart and operation of the 
    Plutonium Reclamation Facility (PRF), portions of the Remote Mechanical 
    C (RMC) line and two small glovebox processes that would convert and 
    stabilize chemically reactive plutonium-bearing scrap for long-term 
    storage.
        The PRF processes would be operated to convert certain plutonium-
    bearing materials to an aqueous solution. These materials include the 
    plutonium oxide powder, incinerator ash, and scrap solutions. These 
    materials would be dissolved with various acids and other chemicals to 
    produce an impure plutonium nitrate solution. The process would use a 
    heavy organic solution to extract plutonium from other impurities.
        The plutonium nitrate solutions would be converted to solid 
    plutonium oxide, which is suitable for long-term storage. The equipment 
    for this conversion process would be remotely operated from a shielded 
    control room. The process would involve mixing the nitrate feed with 
    oxalic acid to form a plutonium oxalate precipitate. The precipitate 
    would be filtered out of the liquid and thermally oxidized to plutonium 
    oxide.
    
    2. Direct Denitration
    
        This alternative would involve the operation of small scale 
    equipment which could be installed within two to four existing 
    gloveboxes in the RMC processing area.
        The denitration process would be operated to stabilize materials 
    which can be dissolved in nitric acid to form a nitrate solution. 
    Materials would first be dissolved to form the impure nitrate solution, 
    then small amounts of solution would be heated slowly to evaporate the 
    water. The temperature would be increased to form a calcined plutonium 
    oxide powder with other impurities.
    
    3. Alkaline Precipitation
    
        As in the case of the direct denitration alternative, this 
    alternative would involve the operation of small scale equipment which 
    could be installed in two to four existing gloveboxes in the RMC 
    processing area.
        The alkaline precipitation process would use alkaline hydroxides or 
    oxalate compounds to precipitate plutonium from solution. The 
    precipitate would then be filtered and thermally oxidized to plutonium 
    oxide.
    
    4. Molten Salt Calcination
    
        This alternative would involve the operation of small- to medium-
    scale equipment which could be installed in two existing gloveboxes 
    plus a new glovebox in the RMC process area or in another suitable area 
    of the PFP.
        The molten salt calcination process would use a gas-agitated pool 
    of molten sodium carbonate to convert plutonium-bearing materials to 
    plutonium oxide. The process could stabilize many types of materials 
    including solutions (nitrates, chlorides, organics) and solids such as 
    inorganic solids and combustibles. Some feeds would have to be 
    pretreated prior to processing via size reduction or dissolution in 
    various solutions.
    
    No Action Alternative
    
        Under this alternative, residues would remain in certain process 
    equipment, gloveboxes, process canyon areas and ductwork. Cleanout of 
    the facility would not take place and the residual material would not 
    be stabilized or stored. Vault storage would continue as an ongoing 
    action under this alternative; the materials in the vaults would 
    continue to be inventoried, repackaged, and stabilized as necessary. 
    Interim actions would be completed, along with basic safety upgrades. 
    Surveillance and maintenance would continue at present required levels.
        DOE does not intend to analyze in detail the potential alternative 
    of cleaning out the PFP but not stabilizing the residual material 
    (i.e., storing the material without stabilization). Such an alternative 
    would present safety concerns, would not meet the purpose and need for 
    the proposed action, and is therefore unreasonable.
    
    Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
    
        The issues listed below have been tentatively identified for 
    analysis in the PFP EIS. This list is presented to facilitate public 
    comment on the scope of the EIS. It is not intended to be all-inclusive 
    or to predetermine the potential impacts of any of the alternatives.
        (1) Potential effects on the public and on-site workers from 
    releases of radioactive and other hazardous materials during operations 
    and from reasonably postulated accidents;
        (2) Potential waste from the proposal, including pollution 
    prevention and waste minimization;
        (3) Potential effects on air and water quality and other 
    environmental consequences of operations and potential accidents;
        (4) Potential cumulative effects of operations at the Hanford Site, 
    including relevant impacts from other past, present, and reasonably 
    foreseeable activities at the site;
        (5) Potential effects on endangered species, floodplain/wetlands, 
    and archaeological/historical sites;
        (6) Radiation exposure to workers;
        (7) Potential socioeconomic impacts, including environmental 
    justice issues on surrounding communities;
        (8) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects;
        (9) Short-term uses of the environment versus long-term 
    productivity; and
        (10) Potential irretrievable and irreversible commitments of 
    resources.
    
    Regulatory Framework
    
        Federal and State laws that are of major importance to 
    environmental management activities at Hanford include the Atomic 
    Energy Act of 1954 as amended; the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
    Act (RCRA); the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act, 
    Chapter 70.105 RCW; the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992; and 
    the Clean Air Act. The Atomic Energy Act requires the management, 
    processing and use of radioactive materials in a manner that protects 
    workers, public health, and the environment. RCRA and the Washington 
    State Hazardous Waste Management Act establish requirements for 
    management of hazardous and mixed waste, including generation, 
    treatment, storage, and disposal.
        DOE has submitted an air operating permit application to EPA and 
    the permit is expected to be issued in the November 1995 timeframe; the 
    requirements of the existing air quality permits for PFP are expected 
    to encompass all the anticipated requirements of any new permit.
    
    Related NEPA Documentation
    
        NEPA documents that have been or are being prepared for activities 
    at Hanford or are related to the proposed action include, but are not 
    limited to, the following:
        (1) (Draft) Environmental Assessment for Sludge Stabilization at 
    the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/
    EA-0978, draft dated September 1994. This draft environmental 
    assessment evaluates a proposed interim action at the PFP to heat-
    stabilize, and then store, chemically-reactive, plutonium-bearing 
    sludge from certain unshielded gloveboxes, to allay immediate safety 
    concerns. A draft Environmental Assessment was sent to the affected 
    States and Indian Nations for review on September 20, 1994.
        (2) Final Environmental Impact Statement for Disposal of Hanford 
    Defense High-Level Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, 
    Washington, DOE/EIS-0113, December 1987. U.S. Department of Energy, 
    Washington, D.C. This EIS analyzed the impacts of disposal of Hanford 
    defense wastes.
        (3) Final Environmental Statement for Waste Management Operations, 
    Hanford Reservation, Richland, Washington, ERDA-1538, 1975. U.S. Energy 
    Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C. This EIS 
    analyzed the environmental impacts of Hanford Site waste management 
    operations.
        (4) Hanford Remedial Action-Environmental Impact Statement (HRA-
    EIS). The HRA-EIS will assess the potential environmental consequences 
    of alternatives for conducting a remedial action program at the Hanford 
    Site for inactive hazardous, low-level radioactive, transuranic, and 
    mixed-waste sites. DOE published a NOI to prepare the HRA-EIS on August 
    21, 1992 (47 FR 37959-37964).
        (5) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Environmental 
    Restoration and Waste Management (EM-PEIS). The EM-PEIS will address 
    waste management alternatives for existing and proposed actions and DOE 
    complex-wide issues associated with long-term waste management policies 
    and practices. In this Programmatic EIS, the Department is evaluating 
    the Hanford Site as an alternative site for managing DOE wastes. An 
    Implementation Plan for this Programmatic EIS was issued in January 
    1994. The final Programmatic EIS is scheduled to be issued in October 
    1995.
        (6) DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Programmatic 
    Environmental Impact Statement. On July 23, 1993, the Department 
    published a revised Notice of Intent (56 FR 39528) to prepare a 
    Programmatic EIS for reconfiguration of its nuclear weapons complex due 
    to nuclear weapons stockpile reductions. The Department currently is 
    considering how the scope of this Programmatic EIS should be revised 
    further to reflect more recent budget and stockpile reduction 
    decisions.
        (7) Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement 
    (TWRS-EIS) and Safe Interim Storage (SIS) Environmental Impact 
    Statement. The NOI for these two EISs was published on January 27, 
    1994. Scoping meetings for the EISs were held simultaneously in five 
    public meetings. The SIS Draft EIS was issued in July 1994. The TWRS-
    EIS is in early stages of preparation.
        (8) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Long Term 
    Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material. The NOI for 
    this PEIS was published on June 21, 1994. This PEIS will evaluate 
    alternatives for long-term storage of all weapons-usable fissile 
    materials and the disposition of surplus weapons-usable fissile 
    materials declared surplus to national defense needs by the President. 
    Public scoping workshops were held during August, September and October 
    1994.
    
        Issued in Washington, D.C., on this 21st day of October, 1994.
    Peter N. Brush,
    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 94-26668 Filed 10-26-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
10/27/1994
Department:
Energy Department
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Notice of Intent (NOI).
Document Number:
94-26668
Dates:
DOE invites all interested parties, including affected Federal, State and local agencies, Indian Nations, and the general public to submit comments or suggestions concerning the scope of the issues to be
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: October 27, 1994