[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19914-19917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11034]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Plutonium Finishing Plant Stabilization Environmental Impact
Statement
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Limited Reopening of Public Comment Period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is evaluating alternatives
for stabilizing plutonium-bearing materials at the Plutonium Finishing
Plant (PFP) Facility, located at the Hanford Site near Richland,
Washington. On December 5, 1995 (60 FR 62244), the DOE announced the
availability of the Plutonium Finishing Plant Stabilization Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0244-D). The Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and its implementing
regulations. Subsequent to issuing the Draft EIS, DOE issued a proposed
policy for comment regarding the treatment and disposition of excess
residues with plutonium concentrations below 50 weight-percent.
Following an analysis using this draft policy, DOE has concluded that
it may be cost-effective to immobilize up to 280 kg (617 lb) of the
plutonium-bearing materials at the PFP Facility and transport it to
Hanford Site solid waste management facilities for storage. The EIS is
therefore being revised to include an evaluation of the environmental
impacts of implementing this alternative. A determination that this
plutonium-bearing material lacks a beneficial use has not been made and
this alternative would only be selected subsequent to such a decision.
The intent of this notice is to notify the public of an additional
alternative that would immobilize certain plutonium-bearing materials,
and to reopen the comment period for 21 days in order to solicit
comments on the proposed alternative.
DATES: DOE invites written and oral comments on the immobilization
alternative from all interested parties. Comments or suggestions
regarding the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the
immobilization alternative will be
[[Page 19915]]
considered in preparing the Record of Decision, and should be submitted
(postmarked) by May 24, 1996. Comments received after that date will be
considered to the degree practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the immobilization alternative may be made
during the comment period by calling DOE toll free at 1-888-946-3700;
by facsimile to 509/946-3734; by electronic mail to InterNet address
``b____ f____ jr____ ben____burton@rl.gov''; or by writing to PFP
Stabilization EIS, Attn: Mr. Ben Burton, PO Box 550, MSIN B1-42,
Richland, WA 99352.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the DOE
NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director of NEPA
Policy and Assistance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202/586-4600 or 1-800-
472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In two Notices of Intent published in the
Federal Register on October 27, 1994 (59 FR 53969) and November 23,
1994 (59 FR 60358), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced its
intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to resolve
safety issues associated with the continued presence of relatively
large quantities of chemically reactive materials at the Plutonium
Finishing Plant (PFP) Facility. A Draft EIS was prepared pursuant to
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA in order to provide an objective, technical
basis for decision makers and the public to evaluate alternatives to:
(1) Convert plutonium-bearing materials at the PFP Facility into a more
stable, safer form; (2) reduce radiation exposure to PFP Facility
workers; and (3) reduce the cost of maintaining the PFP Facility and
its contents. A preferred alternative for resolving the safety issue
was identified to remove readily retrievable plutonium-bearing material
in hold-up at the PFP Facility and stabilize these and other plutonium-
bearing materials at the PFP Facility through four treatment processes:
(1) Ion exchange, vertical calcination, and thermal stabilization of
plutonium-bearing solutions; (2) thermal stabilization using a
continuous furnace for oxides, fluorides, and process residues; (3)
repackaging of metals and alloys; and (4) pyrolysis of polycubes and
combustibles. The availability of this Draft EIS was announced in a
Federal Register notice on December 5, 1995 (60 FR 62244).
Subsequent to issuing the Draft EIS, DOE issued a proposed policy
for comment regarding the treatment and disposition of excess
plutonium-bearing residues. This draft policy specifies that materials
with plutonium concentrations less than 50 weight-percent are
candidates for processing as waste for disposal, or separation from its
residue matrix and packaging for storage according to DOE's safe
storage criteria. Each responsible field office would evaluate which
end state would be more cost-effective for each quantity, batch or
category of plutonium-bearing residues. The performance factors for
cost-effectiveness include worker exposure, waste generation, and cost.
In addition, commentors during the public hearing requested that DOE
consider an alternative of disposing of plutonium bearing material as
waste.
Following an analysis using this draft policy, an in consideration
of comments received during the public hearing on the Draft EIS, DOE
has concluded that it may be cost-effective to immobilize up to 280 kg
(617 lb) of the plutonium-bearing materials at the PFP Facility, and
transport it to Hanford Site solid waste management facilities for
storage. The EIS is therefore being revised to include an evaluation of
the environmental impacts associated with this alternative. The
following information describes the proposed immobilization alternative
and identifies the associated potential environmental impacts. It is
organized as follows:
I. Process Description
II. Anticipated Environmental Impacts
A. Health Effects
B. Air Quality
C. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Capacity
D. Transportation
III. Alternatives for Immobilization
IV. Availability of the Immobilization Alternative
I. Process Description
The current inventory of plutonium at the PFP Facility includes up
to 280 kg (617 lb) of plutonium in concentrations less than 50 weight
percent that DOE has identified as potentially being suitable for
immobilization. This inventory includes oxides, process residues, and
miscellaneous/other combustibles. The bulk of this material is stored
in the PFP Facility vaults.
These plutonium-bearing materials would be immobilized within
gloveboxes at the PFP Facility. A cement system was selected as a
reasonable method to represent the potential immobilization options
because: (1) the ingredients are inexpensive, safe, and readily
available; (2) the equipment needs are simple; (3) the final waste form
has proven stability and meets the waste acceptance criteria for the
Hanford site solid waste management facilities; (4) it has been used
extensively at the Hanford Site for immobilizing wastes; and (5)
impacts from its use should be similar to those incurred for any other
reasonable immobilization technique.
Equipment for the immobilization process would be identified and
sized based on the follow special considerations: (1) waste and cement
feeding equipment that would control feed rates; (2) cooling equipment
to maintain a low temperature for the cement-waste-water mixture to
minimize water vapor in the glovebox; and (3) reuse of containers when
possible.
The plutonium-bearing material would be mixed with cement, and the
mixture would be placed within nominal 3.4-liter (0.9 gallon)
containers. The containers would remain in the glovebox and allowed to
cure. Curing hardens the mixture and fixes the plutonium into the
cemented matrix. After curing, a lid would be placed over the
container. Once three containers were readied in this manner, they
would be removed from the glovebox and packaged.
The containers would be packaged in accordance with the waste
acceptance criteria for the Hanford Site solid waste management
facilities. Packaging would include a 15.25-cm (6-in) diameter pipe
container in 55-gallon drum configuration. The pipe container in drum
configuration was selected as the preferred packaging technique
compared to other packaging methods because it results in the fewest
number of total drums and will, therefore, result in less exposure to
workers. The pipe container in drum configuration would enable three
steel encased, cemented waste containers to be placed in each drum. The
maximum allowable limit for plutonium in each pipe container in drum
configuration is 200 g (0.44 lb). Up to 1,600 drums of waste with a
nominal plutonium content of 170 g (0.37 lb) per drum would be
generated by this alternative.
Following packaging, the drums would be managed as transuranic or
radioactive mixed waste. All waste drums would be transferred from the
PFP Facility to Hanford site solid waste management facilities for
continued onsite storage.
II. Anticipated Environmental Impacts
Impacts from the alternative for immobilizing plutonium-bearing
materials were evaluated in terms of the following elements: health
effects; air quality; waste treatment, storage, and disposal capacity;
and transportation.
[[Page 19916]]
A. Health Effects
Health effects to PFP Facility workers, other Hanford Site workers,
and members of the public from exposure to ionizing radiation would
result from implementing the immobilization alternative. Both normal
operations and accident conditions would contribute to radiation
exposures. Conservative estimates of the possible consequences from the
immobilization activities were quantified in terms of dose and latent
cancer fatalities probabilities. Tables 1 and 2 tabulate these possible
consequences.
Table 1.--Anticipated Health Effects from Routine Releases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latent cancer fatality
Exposed individual or population Dose received probability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFP Facility Workers................. 80 person-rem 0.03
Hypothetical Maximally Exposed 1.2 x 10-4 rem 5.0 x 10-8
Individual (Hanford Site Worker).
Hanford Site Workers................. 6.2 x 10-4 person-rem 2.5 x 10-7
Hypothetical Maximally Exposed 2.3 x 10-5 rem 1.1 x 10-8
Individual (Off-site Public).
General Public (352,500 people)...... 2.2 person-rem 1.1 x 10-3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Anticipated Health Effects from Accident Releases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothetical maximally exposed Latent cancer fatality
individual Dose received probability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFP Facility Worker.................. 210 rem 8.4 x 10-2
Hanford Site Worker.................. 1.6 x 10-4 rem 6.5 x 10-8
Off-site Individual.................. 5.7 x 10-5 rem 2.9 x 10-8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Air Quality
Implementing the immobilization alternative would not result in
appreciable impacts to air quality. High efficiency particulate air
filters in use at the PFP Facility would minimize the amount of
contaminants that would be discharged to the atmosphere. Although most
expected air contaminants would be trapped by these filters, some fine
particulates, referred to as PM10 (particulates less than 10
microns in size) would be emitted. The total estimated release of
respirable particles from the immobilization alternative is 7.1 x
10-10 g/sec (1.6 x 10-12 lb/sec). The maximum downwind
contaminant concentrations projected by an Environmental Protection
Agency-approved computer model and the ambient air standards are
provided in Table 3. The contaminant levels anticipated from the
immobilization alternative are significantly lower than the regulatory
ambient air standard.
Table 3.--Projected Maximum Ground Level Concentrations of Particulate Air Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
average Background Ambient air
Air contaminant concentrationa concentrationb standard
(g/ (g/ (g/
m3) m3) m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM10 (24-hr)...................................................... 1.9 x 10-9 81 150
PM10 (Annual)..................................................... 3.9 x 10-10 27 50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: a. Modeled maximum ground-level concentrations occurred at 630 m from the stack.
b. Background concentrations for PM10 taken from 1987 data (Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1991, Air Quality
Impact Analysis, PNL-7681, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington)
C. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Capacity
Implementing the immobilization alternative would also result in
impacts to treatment, storage, and disposal capacity. Hanford site
solid waste management facilities that would receive the 1,600 drums
anticipated to be generated as a result of the immobilization alternate
include the Low Level Burial Grounds, Transuranic Waste Storage and
Assay Facility, Central Waste Complex, and the Waste Receiving and
Processing Facility. The available capacity at these facilities for
managing low-level radioactive and mixed waste is considered
sufficient. The available capacity for managing transuranic and
transuranic mixed waste is currently being evaluated. This information
will be available in the Final EIS.
D. Transportation
Finally, implementing the immobilization alternative would result
in transportation impacts. Over a 6 to 12 month period, up to 90 truck
trips would result from the shipment of the immobilized materials from
the PFP Facility to Hanford Site solid waste management facilities.
This corresponds to an average of 7 to 15 trips per month. These trips
would be short in distance (2 km [1.2 miles] or less) and would be made
during off-peak hours. Compared with the current volume of vehicular
traffic on nearby Hanford Site transport roadways, the additional truck
trips would not be expected to adversely impact the existing or future
Hanford Site transportation system.
III. Alternatives for Immobilization
Cementation using a pipe container in drum configuration was
selected because of its ability to satisfy packaging and immobilization
requirements based on worker safety and economic considerations. A
cement system was selected because it would meet acceptance criteria
for Hanford Site solid waste management facilities; the ingredients are
inexpensive, safe, and readily available; equipment requirements can be
very simple; the final form has proven stability; and the method has
been used extensively at the Hanford Site for immobilizing transuranic
materials.
[[Page 19917]]
In contrast, immobilizing of materials in a glass (i.e.,
vitrification) or a ceramic matrix was not considered desirable because
of the cost, specialized equipment required, lack of such equipment on
the Hanford Site, and lack of site experience. These factors would
result in delays in implementing these alternatives. The lack of site
experience and anticipated delays would result in additional health and
safety risks.
Another alternative would be to mix the plutonium with uranium to
produce a mixed oxide fuel suitable for energy production in a nuclear
power reactor. Because of the relatively small quantity of plutonium
material being considered, it was not considered reasonable to develop
the technology at Hanford to support this alternative.
IV. Availability of the Immobilization Alternative
Copies of the proposed immobilization alternative may be reviewed
at the following locations, or may be obtained by calling DOE at 1-888-
946-3700:
U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters, Freedom of Information
Reading Room, Forrestall Building, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Room
1E-0190, Washington, DC 20585, 202/586-3142
DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State University, Tri Cities
Branch, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352, 509/376-8583
University of Washington, Suzzallo Library, Government Publications,
15th Ave N.E. and Campus Parkway, Seattle, WA 98185, 206/543-1937
Gonzaga University, Foley Center, E. 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA
99258, 509/324-5931
Portland State University, Branford Price Millar Library, SW
Harrison and Park, Portland, OR 97207, 503/725-3690
Signed in Richland, Washington, this 25th day of April, 1996 for
the United States Department of Energy.
Paul F.X. Dunigan, Jr.,
NEPA Compliance Officer, Richland Operations Office.
[FR Doc. 96-11034 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
