[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8693-8704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4696]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford 
Site, Richland, WA

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: This Record of Decision addresses actions by the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) to manage and dispose of radioactive, 
hazardous, and mixed waste within the Tank Waste Remediation System 
(TWRS) program at the Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. 
DOE, in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Ecology 
(Ecology), issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) entitled 
``Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement'' (TWRS EIS) (DOE/EIS-0189, August 
1996). The Final EIS evaluates alternatives for the management and 
disposal of mixed, radioactive, and hazardous waste currently stored or 
projected to be stored in 177 underground storage tanks and 
approximately 60 active and inactive miscellaneous underground storage 
tanks associated with the Hanford Site's tank farm operations, as well 
as the management and disposal of approximately 1,930 cesium and 
strontium capsules currently stored at the Hanford Site.
    Based on the environmental impact analysis of the Final EIS and 
after evaluating costs, regulatory compliance requirements, technical 
uncertainties, worker and public health and safety, and public, agency, 
National Research Council, and Tribal Nation comments, DOE has decided 
to implement the preferred alternative identified in the Final EIS for 
retrieval, treatment, and disposal of tank waste the, ``Phased 
Implementation alternative'' and to defer the decision on disposition 
of cesium and strontium capsules.
    The Phased Implementation alternative was selected because it 
provides a balance among short-and long-term environmental impacts, 
meets all regulatory requirements, addresses the technical 
uncertainties associated with remediation, and provides the flexibility 
necessary to accommodate future changes in the remediation plans in 
response to new information and technology development.
    While carrying out this decision, DOE will continually evaluate new 
information relative to the tank waste remediation program. DOE will 
also conduct periodic independent scientific and technical expert 
reviews, which DOE believes are essential to the success of the TWRS 
program. Further, DOE intends to conduct formal evaluations of new 
information relevant to the tank waste remediation program at three key 
points over the next eight years under its National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (10 CFR 1021.314), with an appropriate 
level of public involvement, to ensure that DOE stays on a correct 
course for managing and remediating the tank waste. Various informal 
reviews also will be conducted during this period.
    DOE has decided to defer action on the cesium and strontium 
capsules to further evaluate potential beneficial uses of the capsules 
and study potential long-term environmental impacts. The capsules will 
continue to be managed in the Hanford Site Waste Encapsulation and 
Storage Facility. DOE will complete an evaluation for potential future 
uses of the capsules within two years and will issue a Cesium and 
Strontium Management Plan that will address alternatives for beneficial 
uses. If no future uses are found and DOE determines that the capsules 
should be disposed of, DOE will select an alternative for disposal of 
the capsules and supplement this Record of Decision.

ADDRESSES: Addresses of DOE Public Reading Rooms and Information 
Repositories where the Final EIS, Record of Decision, and other 
relevant information are available for public review are listed at the 
end of this Record of Decision. The Final EIS and Record of Decision 
are also available for review on the Internet at <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/eis/
twrseis.htm">www.hanford.gov/eis/
twrseis.htm</a> and on the DOE NEPA Web page (<a href="http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/
nepa">http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/
nepa</a>).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Requests for copies of the Record of Decision 
or further information on the Final EIS or Record of Decision should be 
directed to Carolyn Haass, DOE Tank Waste Remediation System EIS NEPA 
Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 
Office, P.O. Box 1249, Richland, WA 99352. Ms. Haass may be contacted 
by telephone at (509) 372-2731. Information on the DOE NEPA process may 
be requested from Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy 
and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585. Ms. Borgstrom may be contacted by 
telephone at (202) 586-4600, or by leaving a message at (800) 472-2756.

[[Page 8694]]

SUPPLEMENTARY AGENCY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    This Record of Decision addresses actions by DOE to manage and 
dispose of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste within the Tank 
Waste Remediation System (TWRS) program at the Hanford Site in 
southeastern Washington State. The waste includes approximately 212 
million liters (56 million gallons) of waste stored or to be stored in 
underground storage tanks at the Hanford Site. DOE also will manage the 
cesium and strontium salts contained in approximately 1,930 capsules 
currently stored at the Site and, if they are determined to be waste, 
will dispose of the capsules. The tank waste and cesium and strontium 
capsules currently pose a low short-term risk to human health and the 
environment; however, storage costs are high, and the potential for an 
accident resulting in large releases of radioactive and chemical 
contaminants will increase as the facilities age.
    DOE must implement long-term actions to safely manage and dispose 
of the tank waste, associated miscellaneous underground storage tanks, 
and the cesium and strontium capsules (if the cesium and strontium are 
determined to be waste) to permanently reduce potential risk to human 
health and the environment. These actions also are needed to ensure 
compliance with all applicable Federal and Washington State 
requirements regarding the management and disposal of radioactive, 
hazardous, and mixed waste.

Alternatives Considered in the Final EIS

    The following describes the alternatives considered in the Final 
EIS and a discussion of their advantages and disadvantages.
    In order to compare the alternatives for both the high- and low-
activity fractions of the waste, vitrification was used as a 
representative technology to conduct the EIS analysis. DOE currently 
plans to implement parts of the Phased Implementation alternative 
through a privatization initiative whereby private companies will 
perform certain aspects of the remediation in an effort to use 
competition within the marketplace to bring new ideas and concepts to 
waste remediation and reduce project costs. Under current plans, the 
selected private companies will have the responsibility to treat the 
high-level waste using vitrification, and will have the option to 
immobilize the low-activity waste by either vitrification or other 
similar immobilization methods provided that the final waste form meets 
regulatory requirements. (DOE has issued contracts to two companies to 
design tank waste treatment facilities--both companies had proposed 
vitrifying low-activity waste.)

Tank Waste Alternatives Considered

Phased Implementation (Preferred Alternative)
    The Phased Implementation alternative was identified in the Final 
EIS as the Preferred Alternative. Under the Phased Implementation 
alternative, the tank waste would continue to be safely stored until 
the waste is retrieved from the tanks for treatment and disposal by 
implementing a demonstration phase (Phase I) to verify that the 
treatment processes will function effectively and then by implementing 
a full-scale production phase (Phase II).
    During Phases I and II, continued operations of the tank farm 
system and actions to address safety and regulatory compliance issues 
would be performed and would include:
    <bullet> Upgrading tank farm infrastructure, including waste 
transfer, instrumentation, ventilation, and electrical systems;
    <bullet> Monitoring tanks and equipment to support waste management 
and regulatory compliance requirements;
    <bullet> Combining compatible waste types, interim stabilization of 
single-shell tank waste, continuing waste characterization, removing 
pumpable liquid from single-shell tanks, transferring newly generated 
waste from ongoing Site activities to double-shell tanks, operating the 
242-A Evaporator and the Effluent Treatment Facility, and performing 
mitigative actions to resolve tank safety issues;
    <bullet> Using rail or tanker truck systems to transport waste to 
the tank farms;
    <bullet> Completing construction of and operating the new 
replacement cross-site transfer system to facilitate regulatory 
compliant waste transfers from 200 West to 200 East Area and continue 
operating the existing transfer pipeline system until the replacement 
system is operational; and
    <bullet> Installing and operating an initial tank waste retrieval 
system to improve the capacity to consolidate double-shell tank waste 
and support mitigation of safety issues.
    Phase I activities (Part A, development activities; Part B 
demonstration) activities would last for approximately 10 years and 
would include:
    <bullet> Constructing demonstration-scale facilities to produce 
vitrified low-activity waste and vitrified high-level waste for future 
disposal;
    <bullet> Installing and operating tank retrieval systems to 
retrieve selected waste (primarily liquid waste) for separations and 
immobilization, and selected tank waste for high-level waste 
vitrification;
    <bullet> Transferring liquid waste to receiver tanks and 
transferring selected waste for high-level waste processing directly to 
the high-level waste facility;
    <bullet> Performing separations to remove selected radionuclides 
(e.g., cesium) from the low-activity waste stream;
    <bullet> Storing separated high-level waste at the treatment 
facilities or in the Canister Storage Building pending future high-
level waste treatment;
    <bullet> Returning a portion of the sludge, strontium, and 
transuranic waste from separations processes to the double-shell tanks 
for future retrieval and treatment during Phase II;
    <bullet> Vitrifying the low-activity waste and high-level waste; 
and
    <bullet> Transporting the low and high activity wastes to onsite 
interim storage facilities.
    Phase II (full-scale production) activities would begin after 
completion of Phase I, last for approximately 30 years and would 
include:
    <bullet> Constructing full-scale facilities to vitrify low-activity 
waste and vitrify high-level waste;
    <bullet> Installing and operating tank retrieval systems to 
retrieve waste from all single-shell tanks, double-shell tanks, and 
miscellaneous underground storage tanks;
    <bullet> Pretreating the waste by sludge washing and enhanced 
sludge washing followed by separations of the liquid and solids;
    <bullet> Performing separations to remove selected radionuclides 
from the low-activity waste feed stream and transferring the waste to 
the high-level waste vitrification facility;
    <bullet> Vitrifying the high-level waste stream and the low-
activity waste stream;
    <bullet> Packaging the high-level waste in canisters for onsite 
interim storage and future shipment to a national geologic repository; 
and
    <bullet> Placing the immobilized low-activity waste in containers 
and placing the containers in onsite near-surface disposal facilities.
    DOE also would continue to characterize the tank waste and perform 
technology development activities to reduce uncertainties associated 
with remediation, evaluate emerging technologies, and resolve 
regulatory compliance issues.
    The principal advantages of the Phased Implementation alternative 
are

[[Page 8695]]

that it provides for retrieval of the waste, separation of the high- 
and low-activity waste constituents and immobilization of the waste. 
Separations processes would reduce the volume of high-level waste and 
eliminate the bulk of the contaminants in the low-activity waste 
stream. This alternative would permanently isolate the wastes from 
humans and the environment to the greatest extent practicable and 
provide for protection of public health and the environment by 
disposing of the bulk of the radionuclides offsite in a national 
geologic repository and isolating the low-activity waste through 
immobilization and disposal in onsite facilities. By using a phased 
approach, DOE will obtain additional information concerning the 
uncertainties associated with waste characteristics and the 
effectiveness of the retrieval, separations, and treatment technologies 
prior to constructing and operating full-scale facilities. Lessons 
learned from the demonstration phase, ongoing waste characterization, 
and technology development activities would be applied to Phase II, 
which may substantially improve the operating efficiency of the second 
phase and reduce construction and operating costs.
    The principal disadvantage of this alternative is that it would 
involve slightly higher short-term impacts than the in situ and 
combination alternatives, though lower than the continued management 
alternatives. Short-term impacts include potential health impacts 
during Phases I and II from occupational, operational, and 
transportation accidents and radiation exposures to workers during 
normal operations. In addition, this alternative would disturb shrub-
steppe habitat and may cause a short-term strain on public services 
during construction activities. This alternative would also cost more 
than the in situ alternatives.

Other Tank Waste Alternatives Considered

    The Final EIS analyzed nine other alternatives for the tank waste. 
All of the alternatives considered include continuing the current tank 
farm operations to maintain the tanks and associated facilities until 
they are no longer needed for waste management. All of the alternatives 
(except No Action) include upgrading tank farm systems as identified 
for the Phased Implementation alternative. The following are the other 
alternatives addressed.
1. No Action
    Perform minimum activities required for safe and secure management 
of the Hanford Site's tank waste with the current tank farm 
configuration during a 100-year period. This alternative would provide 
for continued storage and monitoring of tank waste. No construction or 
remediation activities would be performed under the No Action 
alternative.
    The principal advantage of this alternative is that the short-term 
environmental impacts would be lower than other alternatives analyzed 
(except operational accidents which would be high due to the assumed 
100-year operating period). The cost estimated for this alternative 
would be lower than most other alternatives. The degree of technical 
uncertainty associated with this alternative is low because it is a 
continuation of ongoing activities. Selection of this alternative would 
also allow time to develop new waste remediation technologies.
    The principal disadvantage of this alternative is that it would 
result in the highest long-term environmental impacts. Because no 
action would be taken to immobilize or isolate the waste, the 
contaminants in the waste would migrate to the groundwater in a 
relatively short period of time, resulting in contamination of the 
groundwater far above accepted safe levels and drinking water 
standards. Persons consuming this contaminated groundwater would have a 
significant risk of contracting cancer. In addition, this alternative 
would not meet waste disposal laws, regulations, and policies. This 
alternative eventually would result in continued deterioration of the 
structural integrity of the tanks and an increased risk that an 
earthquake would cause a catastrophic release of tank contents to the 
environment and the potential for a large number of fatalities. Because 
all of the waste would remain in the tanks in an unstabilized form, 
there would be a significant human health risk to inadvertent intruders 
into the waste after any loss of administrative control of the Site.
2. Long-Term Management
    Perform minimum activities required for safe and secure management 
of the Hanford Site's tank waste during the 100-year administrative 
control period. This alternative is similar to the No Action 
alternative, except that the waste transfer system would be upgraded 
and the double-shell tanks would be replaced twice during the assumed 
100-year administrative control period to prevent the potential leakage 
of large volumes of liquid to the environment from the double-shell 
tanks. No waste remediation would be performed under this alternative.
    The principal advantage of this alternative is the same as for the 
No Action alternative except that leaching of contaminants into the 
groundwater from the double-shell tanks would be delayed by 100 years 
due to the tank replacement program.
    The principal disadvantages of this alternative are the same as for 
the No Action alternative except that the long-term impacts to the 
groundwater would be slightly lower than the No Action alternative.
3. In Situ Fill and Cap
    Retrieve and evaporate liquid waste from the double-shell tanks, 
fill single-and double-shell tanks with gravel, fill miscellaneous 
tanks and ancillary equipment with grout, and cover the tank farms with 
a low permeability earthen surface barrier, disposing of all tank waste 
onsite.
    The principal advantages of this alternative are that the short-
term environmental impacts (accident fatalities, radiation exposures, 
and shrub-steppe habitat disturbance) would be low and the estimated 
cost would be lower than for all other alternatives. The degree of 
technical uncertainty associated with this alternative is low because 
it involves applying common technology, which has a high probability of 
achieving its projected level of effectiveness for most tanks.
    The principal disadvantages of this alternative are that it would 
have relatively high long-term environmental impacts due to 
contaminants leaching into the groundwater where they could expose 
persons who might consume the groundwater, and it would not meet waste 
disposal laws, regulations, or policies. Because the actions taken for 
this alternative involve isolation but not immobilization of the waste, 
the contaminants would migrate to the groundwater over a long period of 
time and result in significant long-term impacts on public health and 
the environment. In addition, this alternative may not be feasible for 
those tanks that generate high levels of flammable gases because of the 
potential for sparks causing a fire in the tanks while filling with 
gravel. Other types of fill material may be necessary for these tanks. 
Because all of the waste except the liquid waste in the double-shell 
tanks would remain in the tanks in an unstabilized form, there would be 
a significant human health risk to inadvertent intruders into the waste

[[Page 8696]]

after any loss of administrative control of the Site.
4. In Situ Vitrification
    Retrieve and evaporate liquid waste from the double-shell tanks, 
fill the tanks with sand, vitrify (melt to form glass) all of the tanks 
in place, and cover all of the tank farms with an earthen surface 
barrier to dispose of all tank waste onsite. This alternative would 
involve constructing tank farm confinement facilities to contain and 
collect the off-gasses generated during the vitrification process. The 
waste, tanks, and soil surrounding the tanks (including miscellaneous 
underground storage tanks) would be vitrified by using electricity to 
melt the soil and waste, which would solidify into a glass when cooled.
    The principal advantages of this alternative are that the short- 
and long-term impacts would be relatively low. The short-term impacts 
such as occupational, operational, and transportation accidents would 
be lower because fewer personnel would be required to construct and 
operate the in situ vitrification systems. The long-term impacts would 
be low because the contaminants would be immobilized in glass, which 
would limit the leaching of contaminants to the groundwater.
    The principal disadvantages of this alternative are that there is a 
high degree of technical uncertainty that the alternative would 
function as intended, and that, even if technically successful, would 
not produce a final waste form that would meet waste disposal laws, 
regulations, or policies. In situ vitrification has been performed on 
contaminated soil, but has not been used on the tank waste or at the 
scale needed to vitrify the large tanks.
5. Ex Situ No Separations
    Retrieve waste from the single-shell, double-shell, and 
miscellaneous underground storage tanks, either vitrify or calcine 
(heat to temperatures below the melting point) the waste, and package 
the treated waste for interim onsite storage and eventual offsite 
disposal at a national geologic repository.
    The principal advantages of this alternative are that the 
vitrification option would meet all regulatory requirements and both 
the vitrification and calcination options would result in disposal of 
all retrieved waste offsite at a national geologic repository. Because 
this alternative does not involve separations, the technical 
uncertainties are fewer than those associated with other ex situ 
alternatives that involve intermediate or extensive separations.
    The principal disadvantages of this alternative are that the waste 
form (either soda-lime glass for vitrification or compacted powder for 
calcination) may not meet the current waste acceptance criteria at a 
national geologic repository and the volume of waste to be disposed of 
at a national geologic repository would be very large and would likely 
exceed the capacity of the first repository. The costs associated with 
disposing of all the waste at a national geologic repository make this 
the most expensive alternative.
6. Ex Situ Intermediate Separations
    Retrieve waste from the single-shell, double-shell, and 
miscellaneous underground storage tanks and separate the waste into 
high-level and low-activity waste streams using sludge washing, 
enhanced sludge washing, and ion exchange, then vitrify the waste 
streams in separate facilities. Dispose of the low-activity waste 
onsite and the high-level waste offsite at a national geologic 
repository.
    The principal advantages of this alternative are that it would meet 
all regulatory requirements and result in relatively low long-term 
impacts because the high-level waste would be disposed of offsite in a 
national geologic repository and the low-activity waste onsite would be 
immobilized and isolated in onsite disposal facilities covered with an 
earthen barrier.
    The principal disadvantage of this alternative is that it involves 
a moderate level of technical uncertainty because the alternative would 
involve construction and operation of treatment facilities where some 
of the proposed technologies are first-of-a-kind or have not been 
demonstrated on Hanford Site tank waste. This alternative would involve 
a potential for higher short-term impacts than the in situ alternatives 
because of the nature and extent of the activities required for 
construction and operation of the full-scale waste treatment 
facilities. These impacts would include potential health impacts from 
occupational, operational, and transportation accidents and radiation 
exposures during normal operations.
7. Ex Situ Extensive Separations
    Retrieve waste from the single-shell, double-shell, and 
miscellaneous underground storage tank waste and use a large number of 
complex chemical separations processes to separate the high-level waste 
components from the recovered tank waste. Vitrify the waste streams in 
separate facilities and dispose of the low-activity waste onsite and 
the high-level waste offsite at a national geologic repository.
    The principal advantages of this alternative are that it would meet 
all regulatory requirements and, due to the extensive separations 
processes, would result in the smallest volume of high-level waste for 
offsite disposal. Due to the extent of the separations processes, the 
low-activity waste that would remain onsite would have lower 
radioactive contaminant concentrations than the other ex situ 
alternatives.
    The principal disadvantages of this alternative are that it 
involves the highest degree of technical uncertainty and highest 
treatment cost among the ex situ alternatives because of the numerous 
complex separations processes. This alternative would involve slightly 
higher short-term impacts than the in situ and combination 
alternatives, though lower short-term impacts than the continued 
management alternatives. These impacts include potential health impacts 
from occupational, operational, and transportation accidents and 
radiation exposures during normal operations.
8. and 9. Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 (Alternative 8) Ex Situ/In Situ 
Combination 2 (Alternative 9)
    Retrieve tank waste (approximately 50 percent of the waste volume 
for the Combination 1 alternative and 30 percent for the Combination 2 
alternative based on long-term risks the contents of the various tanks 
pose to human health and the environment); separate the retrieved waste 
into high-level and low-activity waste streams using an intermediate 
level of separations; then vitrify the waste streams in separate 
facilities. Dispose of the low-activity waste onsite and the high-level 
waste at an offsite national geologic repository. Waste in tanks not 
selected for retrieval would be remediated identical to the In Situ 
Fill and Cap alternative.
    The principal advantage of these alternatives is that they offer 
the opportunity to lower the remediation cost by remediating the waste 
in selected tanks based on waste characteristics and contribution to 
post-remediation risk. The waste that provides the greatest long-term 
potential human health risks would be remediated. The Combination 2 
alternative would have lower remediation costs than the Combination 1 
alternative because a smaller volume of waste would be processed. These 
alternatives would result in short-term impacts (occupational, 
operational, and transportation accidents and shrub-steppe habitat 
disturbance) that are generally lower than those for the ex situ 
alternatives because smaller

[[Page 8697]]

facilities and fewer personnel would be required to process a smaller 
volume of waste.
    The principal disadvantages of these alternatives are that they 
would not meet waste disposal laws, regulations, and policies. The ex 
situ portion of these alternatives would have the same technical 
uncertainties as the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. The 
in situ portion of these alternatives would result in higher long-term 
impacts than the ex situ alternatives because the waste disposed of in 
situ would leach contaminants into the groundwater over a long period 
of time and expose persons who might consume the groundwater. The 
Combination 2 alternative would leave more waste disposed of in situ 
and result in higher long-term impacts than the Combination 1 
alternative.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative--Tank Waste

    Identifying environmental preferences among alternatives for the 
tank waste remediation program requires consideration of the short-term 
human health and environmental impacts, long-term human health and 
environmental impacts, and the associated uncertainties in the impact 
assessment process, including technology performance. There are 
alternatives that would result in low short-term impacts but relatively 
high long-term impacts, and identifying the environmentally preferable 
alternative(s) requires judgment concerning these impacts. Comparing 
short-term human health impacts with long-term human health impacts is 
complicated by the fact that short-term impacts can be estimated with a 
greater degree of certainty than long-term human health risks.
    In making these comparisons, DOE considered that most estimated 
short-term impacts involve risks to workers during remediation that are 
voluntary and can be reduced by applying appropriate worker protection 
measures. In contrast, the estimated long-term impacts are involuntary 
in nature because they would result from inadvertent exposure of future 
populations to contaminant releases.
    The In Situ Vitrification alternative would have lower human health 
and environmental impacts than the other alternatives, if this 
technology functioned adequately. This alternative would result in the 
lowest potential short-term human health impacts, other than the In 
Situ Fill and Cap alternative, and the lowest long-term human health 
and environmental impacts. However, in situ vitrification has never 
been performed at the scale necessary to remediate the Hanford tank 
waste and there is a high degree of technical uncertainty associated 
with this alternative. Even with extensive technology research and 
testing, it may not be feasible to develop this technology to the 
extent that it would function adequately. If this alternative did not 
function as designed, the long-term impacts on groundwater and future 
users of the groundwater would be higher. While the In Situ Fill and 
Cap alternative would result in the lowest short-term impacts, it also 
would have significant long-term impacts on the groundwater and future 
users of the groundwater.
    On balance, the ex situ alternatives are environmentally preferable 
to in situ alternatives because they provide for the permanent 
isolation of contaminants from the human environment. Among the ex situ 
alternatives, Phased Implementation is environmentally preferable 
because it offers the best potential to reduce technology risks and 
uncertainties relevant to both short-term and long-term impacts, while 
also providing for treatment and disposal of tank wastes to the 
greatest extent technically and economically practicable.

Cesium and Strontium Capsules Alternatives Considered

    For the purposes of analyzing impacts in the TWRS EIS, it was 
assumed that the cesium and strontium capsules will remain in the Waste 
Encapsulation and Storage Facility at the Hanford Site until ready for 
final disposition. The Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility is 
being isolated from B Plant, which previously provided waste handling 
and utility support. B Plant is scheduled for deactivation.
No Action
    No Action was identified in the Final EIS as the preferred 
alternative and includes the continued storage of the capsules in the 
Hanford Site Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility for 10 years. The 
cesium and strontium capsules are currently classified as byproduct 
material and are therefore available for beneficial uses. If beneficial 
uses cannot be found, the capsules may be subject to management and 
disposal actions as high-level waste.
    The principal advantage of the No Action alternative is that it 
allows DOE to evaluate potential commercial and medical uses for the 
cesium and strontium capsules rather than foreclosing these options by 
implementing a disposal alternative. This alternative also provides an 
opportunity for further study of long-term environmental impacts. DOE 
would reevaluate the preferred alternative after a determination is 
made on the potential for future use of cesium and strontium capsules.
    The principal disadvantage of this alternative is that it would not 
result in the near-term disposal of the capsules. The high costs of 
storing the capsules would continue. The cost and impacts of disposal 
would be delayed until some time in the future, if appropriate uses for 
the capsules are not developed.
Onsite Disposal
    Overpack the cesium and strontium capsules in canisters and dispose 
of them onsite in a newly constructed shallow drywell disposal 
facility.
    The principal advantage of this alternative is that it is the only 
alternative that would allow near-term disposal of the capsules because 
it would not rely on the construction of a national geologic high-level 
waste repository, which may not be available until after the year 2015.
    The principal disadvantage of this alternative is that it would not 
meet the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for 
hazardous waste or DOE policy for disposal of readily retrievable high-
level waste. The capsules would be disposed of in a near-surface 
facility where they would be more accessible to inadvertent human 
intrusion until the cesium and strontium decayed to non-radioactive 
elements.
Overpack and Ship
    Overpack the cesium and strontium capsules into canisters, place 
the canisters into Hanford Multi-Purpose Canisters for interim storage, 
and store the packaged capsules onsite pending offsite disposal at a 
national geologic repository.
    The principal advantage of this alternative is that it would 
provide for offsite disposal of the capsules in compliance with all 
regulatory requirements.
    The principal disadvantage of this alternative is that the capsules 
may not meet waste acceptance criteria at a national geologic 
repository.
Vitrify With Tank Waste
    Remove capsule contents, vitrify with the high-level tank waste, 
and dispose of offsite at a national geologic repository.
    The principal advantages of this alternative are that it would meet 
all regulatory requirements and the currently planned waste acceptance 
requirements for a national geologic repository. This alternative is 
dependent

[[Page 8698]]

on selecting one of the tank waste alternatives that includes a high-
level waste vitrification facility, which would be used to vitrify the 
cesium and strontium.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative--Cesium and Strontium Capsules

    All of the alternatives for remediation of the cesium and strontium 
capsules are estimated to result in low environmental impacts. There 
would be no occupational fatalities or increased incidences of cancer 
or fatal chemical exposures associated with normal operations. There 
would be no or low adverse impacts on surface waters or groundwater, 
soils, air quality, transportation networks, noise levels, visual 
resources, socioeconomic conditions, resource availability, or land 
use. The No Action, Overpack and Ship, and Vitrify with Tank Waste 
alternatives would have slightly lower impacts on shrub-steppe habitats 
than the Onsite Disposal alternative and a slightly lower risk of a 
fatal accident. Assuming that the capsules would meet waste acceptance 
criteria at a national geologic repository the Overpack and Ship 
alternative would result in slightly lower impacts than the other 
alternatives and is therefore the environmentally preferable 
alternative.

Decision

Tank Waste

Description of Alternative Selected
    DOE has decided to implement the Phased Implementation alternative 
for the tank waste. The Phased Implementation alternative strikes an 
appropriate balance among potential short- and long-term environmental 
impacts, stakeholder interests, regulatory requirements and agreements, 
costs, managing technical uncertainties, and the recommendations 
received from other interested parties.
    While carrying out this decision, DOE will continually evaluate new 
information relative to the tank waste remediation program. DOE also 
intends to conduct formal evaluations of new information relative to 
the tank waste remediation program at three key points over the next 
eight years under its NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314), with an 
appropriate level of public involvement, to ensure that DOE stays on a 
correct course for managing and remediating the waste.
    As remediation proceeds in the coming years, DOE will learn more 
about management and remediation of the tank waste and ways to protect 
public and worker health and the environment. Within this time frame, 
DOE will obtain additional information on the effectiveness of 
retrieval technologies, characteristics of the tank wastes, 
effectiveness of waste separation and immobilization techniques, and 
more definitive data on the costs of retrieval, separations, and 
immobilization of the waste. Formal reevaluations will incorporate the 
latest information on these topics. DOE will conduct these formal 
evaluations of the entire TWRS program at the following stages: (1) 
before proceeding into Privatization Phase I Part B (scheduled for May 
1998); (2) prior to the start of hot operations of Privatization Phase 
I Part B (scheduled for December 2002/December 2003); and (3) before 
deciding to proceed with Privatization Phase II (scheduled for December 
2005). In conducting these reviews, DOE will seek the advice of 
independent experts from the scientific and financial community, such 
as the National Academy of Sciences which will focus on the expected 
performance and the costs of waste treatment. DOE has established a 
TWRS Privatization Review Board consisting of Senior DOE 
representatives to provide on-going assistance and interactive 
oversight of the review of Part A deliverables and discussions with the 
contractors.
    Informal evaluations also will be conducted as the information 
warrants. These formal and informal evaluations will help DOE to 
determine whether previous decisions need to be changed.
    The Phased Implementation approach allows DOE to start remediating 
waste earlier than previously planned. With this approach, retrieval 
and processing of waste will begin on a small scale so that systems can 
be improved as knowledge is gained. This approach also permits DOE to 
continue research and development in critical areas, such as improved 
robotic retrieval systems, that may result in improved methods to 
reduce tank leaks during retrieval, and methods to remove residual 
waste that is difficult to retrieve.
    The components of the demonstration phase (Phase I) will include: 
(1) continuing to safely manage the tank waste; (2) constructing and 
operating demonstration facilities; (3) collecting additional 
information through tank waste and vadose zone characterization; and 
(4) performing demonstrations of technologies that have the potential 
to reduce uncertainties associated with the TWRS program.
    Continuing to safely manage the tank farms includes replacement of 
certain waste transfer piping and routine maintenance activities for 
tank farm instrumentation, ventilation, and electrical systems. Ongoing 
activities will include conducting environmental and safety related 
monitoring, removing pumpable liquids from the single-shell tanks, 
mitigating flammable gas safety hazards, and transferring currently 
stored waste and newly generated waste using the replacement cross-site 
transfer system, rail cars, and tanker trucks. DOE also plans to 
upgrade certain instrumentation, tank ventilation, and electrical 
system to upgrade the regulatory compliance status of the current 
facilities. The environmental impacts of these actions were not 
assessed in the TWRS EIS because the activities to be performed had not 
been sufficiently defined. DOE will evaluate the impacts of these 
actions in future NEPA analyses.
    The demonstration phase, which will last approximately 10 years, 
includes the retrieval and treatment of a portion of the waste from the 
double-shell and single-shell tanks. The waste will be separated into 
low-activity waste and high-level waste through physical and chemical 
processes and then treated in demonstration-scale facilities. Vitrified 
high-level waste will be placed in interim storage at the Canister 
Storage Building pending future disposal at a national geologic 
repository. Immobilized low-activity waste will be prepared for future 
onsite disposal in existing grout vaults and similarly designed 
disposal facilities.
    During the demonstration phase, DOE will conduct many activities to 
reduce the uncertainties associated with certain aspects of the 
project. For example, DOE will obtain extensive operational and cost 
data on a variety of issues by retrieving waste for treatment and 
constructing and operating the demonstration-scale facilities. DOE also 
will obtain more detailed information on the characteristics of the 
tank waste and potential impacts on groundwater by continuing to 
collect data through the existing tank waste and vadose zone 
characterization programs. Further, DOE will conduct a project known as 
the Hanford Tanks Initiative that will provide data on single-shell 
tank residual characteristics, single-shell tank retrieval 
technologies, tank residual removal technologies, and tank closure 
technologies. In addition, DOE will further investigate technologies 
that have the potential to reduce the uncertainties of the TWRS 
project, including evaluating alternative tank fill material for use 
during closure, demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of waste 
retrieval with sluicing technology, and evaluating a variety of other 
technologies through DOE's complex-wide technology

[[Page 8699]]

development programs. DOE also will prepare appropriate further NEPA 
documentation before making decisions on closure of the tank farms. 
This documentation will address the final disposition of the tanks, 
associated equipment, soils, and groundwater, and will integrate tank 
farm closure with tank waste remediation and other remedial action 
activities.
    Phase II of the Phased Implementation alternative will begin after 
Phase I and will last approximately 30 years. Phase II will consist of 
continuing to safely manage the tank waste and constructing and 
operating full-scale facilities to treat the remainder of the tank 
waste. The tank waste will be retrieved and separated into low-activity 
waste and high-level waste. The low-activity waste will be immobilized 
and disposed of onsite in near-surface disposal facilities. The high-
level waste will be vitrified, temporarily stored onsite, and 
transported offsite for disposal in a national geologic repository. DOE 
will use the lessons learned from the demonstration phase and the 
information obtained from further characterization and technology 
development activities to optimize operating efficiencies during Phase 
II and reduce construction and operating costs. DOE will continue to 
evaluate the path forward for the tank waste remediation program as 
additional data and technology development activities provide 
information relative to key technical and regulatory issues.
    DOE currently plans to implement parts of this alternative through 
a privatization initiative whereby private companies will perform 
certain aspects of the remediation in an effort to use competition 
within the marketplace to bring new ideas and concepts to waste 
remediation and reduce project costs. The goal of privatization is to 
streamline the TWRS mission, transfer a share of the responsibility, 
accountability, and liability for successful performance to industry, 
improve performance, and reduce costs without sacrificing worker and 
public safety or environmental protection. On September 25, 1996, DOE 
issued contracts to two companies to initiate the design process for 
Phase I, Part A. Any of the contractors authorized to proceed to start 
Part B is anticipated to follow the same general approach described in 
the EIS for Phase I, Part B of the Phased Implementation alternative, 
including separating the waste into low-activity waste and high-level 
waste streams, vitrifying the high-level waste, and using high-
temperature processes to immobilize low-activity waste. Both 
contractors' current plans include vitrifying low-activity waste upon 
approval to proceed with Phase I, Part B.
    Before issuing these contracts DOE independently evaluated the 
environmental data and analyses submitted by the contractors and 
prepared a confidential environmental critique of the potential 
environmental impacts in accordance with DOE NEPA regulation 10 CFR 
1021.216. After issuing the contracts, DOE prepared a publicly 
available environmental synopsis, based on the critique, to document 
the consideration given to environmental factors and to record that the 
relevant environmental consequences of reasonable alternatives have 
been evaluated in the selection process. This evaluation showed that 
the two proposals would have similar overall environmental impacts and 
that the impacts would be less than or approximately the same as the 
impacts described for Phase I of the Phased Implementation alternative. 
The environmental synopsis has been filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency and is available at the DOE Public Reading Rooms and 
Information Repositories listed at the end of this Record of Decision. 
DOE will require the selected contractors to submit further 
environmental information and analysis and will use the additional 
information, as appropriate, to assist in the NEPA compliance process, 
including a determination under 10 CFR 1021.314 of the potential need 
for future NEPA analysis.
Basis for Selection
    DOE has determined that through the many years of research and 
development throughout the DOE complex and specific studies on Hanford 
Site tank waste remediation, the technical uncertainties have been 
reduced to a manageable level. DOE has determined that the risks 
associated with proceeding with remediation are less than the risks of 
future releases of contaminants to the groundwater and of accidents in 
unremediated tanks that are deteriorating structurally. The cost of 
continuing to manage the unremediated tank waste facilities is high.
    DOE has determined that it is necessary to retrieve the waste from 
the tanks to meet regulatory requirements, avoid future long-term 
releases to the groundwater that would threaten human health and the 
environment, and reduce health impacts to potential inadvertent 
intruders into the waste if administrative control of the Site were 
lost. An intermediate level of separating the waste into low-activity 
waste and high-level waste was selected because of the high disposal 
costs of alternatives with low levels of separation and the high degree 
of technical uncertainty associated with alternatives with extensive 
levels of separations. To address the remaining technical uncertainties 
that exist with the tank waste remediation program, the phased 
implementation approach was selected to provide the flexibility 
necessary to make midcourse adjustments to the remediation plans based 
on future characterization data, technology development, and technical 
and cost data developed during Phase I.
    The Phased Implementation alternative provides for the permanent 
isolation of the waste from humans and the environment to the greatest 
extent practicable and protection of public health and the environment. 
A high percentage of the radionuclides will be disposed of offsite in a 
national geologic repository, which provides a high degree of permanent 
isolation of the most hazardous waste. Releases of contaminants to the 
groundwater at the Hanford Site will be reduced to the greatest extent 
practicable. The waste disposed of onsite will be isolated from humans 
and the environment by immobilizing the low-activity waste and placing 
it in near-surface disposal facilities covered with an earthen surface 
barrier.
    The Phased Implementation alternative provides a balance among key 
factors that influenced the evaluation of the alternatives; short-term 
impacts to human health and the environment, long-term impacts to human 
health and the environment, managing the uncertainties associated with 
the waste characteristics and treatment technologies, costs, and 
compliance with regulatory requirements. It also provides a balance 
between the need to proceed with remediation and the potential 
advantages of delaying remediation to incorporate future technology 
developments. This alternative allows DOE to meet all regulatory 
requirements and reflects the values and concerns of many stakeholders.
Mitigation Measures
    This decision adopts all practicable measures to avoid or minimize 
adverse environmental impacts that may result from the Phased 
Implementation alternative. These measures many of which are routine, 
include the following.
    <bullet> All DOE nuclear facilities will be designed, constructed, 
and operated in compliance with the comprehensive set of DOE or 
commercial requirements that have been established to protect public 
health and the environment. These

[[Page 8700]]

requirements encompass a wide variety of areas, including radiation 
protection, facility design criteria, fire protection, emergency 
preparedness and response, and operational safety requirements;
    <bullet> Measures will be taken to protect construction and 
operations personnel from occupational hazards and minimize 
occupational exposures to radioactive and chemical hazards;
    <bullet> Emergency response plans will be developed to allow rapid 
response to potentially dangerous unplanned events;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Areas for new facilities will be selected to minimize 
environmental impacts to the extent practicable;
    <bullet> Pollution control or treatment will be used to reduce or 
eliminate releases of contaminants to the environment and meet 
regulatory standards;
    <bullet> Extensive environmental monitoring systems will be 
implemented to continually monitor potential releases to the 
environment;
    <bullet> All newly disturbed areas will be recontoured to conform 
with the surrounding terrain and revegetated with locally derived 
native plant species consistent with Sitewide biological mitigation 
plans;
    <bullet> Historic, prehistoric, and cultural resource surveys will 
be performed for any undisturbed areas to be impacted;
    <bullet> Potential impacts to shrub-steppe habitat and cultural 
resources will be among the factors considered in a NEPA analysis to 
support the site selection process for facilities and earthen borrow 
sites; and
    <bullet> Consultation with Tribal Nations and government agencies 
will be performed throughout the planning process to address potential 
impacts to shrub-steppe habitat, religious sites, natural resources, 
and medicinal plants.
    Mitigation measures will be refined and presented in the Tank Waste 
Remediation Mitigation Action Plan. Tribal Nations and agencies will be 
consulted, as appropriate, during preparation of the Mitigation Action 
Plan.

Cesium and Strontium Capsules

    DOE has decided to defer the decision on the disposition of the 
cesium and strontium capsules for up to two years. In effect, DOE will 
implement the No Action alternative until a final disposition decision 
is made and implemented. The encapsulated cesium and strontium have 
potential value as commercial and medical irradiation or heat sources, 
and implementing disposal alternatives would foreclose options for 
these applications. DOE is evaluating the potential for commercial and 
medical uses. In addition, DOE is considering mixing the cesium with 
surplus plutonium; the cesium would serve as a radiation barrier and be 
immobilized with the plutonium. Mixing the cesium with the plutonium 
would enhance nuclear materials security by making future use of the 
plutonium by unauthorized persons very hazardous and difficult. DOE 
will reevaluate the decision on the disposition of the capsules after 
determinations are made on the potential for future use of cesium and 
strontium. DOE is preparing a Cesium and Strontium Management Plan that 
will address alternatives for beneficial uses of the capsules prior to 
final disposition. If DOE decides not to use the cesium and strontium 
for any of these purposes, one of the alternatives for permanent 
disposal of the capsules will be selected and DOE will supplement this 
Record of Decision. Before making such a decision, DOE intends to 
further study disposal alternatives to resolve uncertainties and better 
understand long-term impacts, as recommended by the National Research 
Council (see Appendix).

Comments on the Draft EIS and Agency Responses

    DOE and Ecology received comments on the Draft EIS from 102 
individuals, organizations, agencies, or Tribal Nations including the 
Washington State Department of Wildlife, Oregon State Department of 
Energy, Nez Perce Tribe, Yakama Indian Nation, and the Confederated 
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. All comments received were 
addressed in the Final EIS, Volume Six, Appendix L, and revisions to 
the Final EIS were made, as appropriate, to address applicable 
comments. A complete copy of all comments received on the Draft EIS is 
available in each of the DOE Public Reading Rooms and Information 
Repositories at the locations listed at the end of this Record of 
Decision.

Comments Received After Publication of the Final EIS and DOE 
Responses

    DOE received comments from the Washington State Department of Fish 
and Wildlife on the Final EIS and comments from the National Research 
Council on the Draft EIS after publication of the Final EIS. A summary 
of these comments and DOE's responses is attached as an appendix to 
this Record of Decision. These comments were considered in the 
preparation of this Record of Decision.

DOE Public Reading Rooms and Information Repositories

    <bullet> University of Washington, Suzzallo Library, Government 
Publications Room, Seattle, WA 98185. (206) 685-9855, Monday-Thursday, 
9 a.m. to 8 p.m.; Friday and Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    <bullet> Gonzaga University, Foley Center, E. 502 Boone, Spokane, 
WA 99258. (509) 328-4220 ext. 3829, Monday-Thursday, 8 a.m. to 
midnight, Friday, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Saturday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Sunday, 
11 a.m. to midnight.
    <bullet> U.S. Department of Energy Reading Room, Washington State 
University, Tri-Cities Campus, 100 Sprout Road, Room 130W, Richland, WA 
99352, (509) 376-8583, Monday-Friday, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    <bullet> Portland State University, Bradford Price Millar Library, 
Science and Engineering Floor, SW Harrison and Park, Portland, OR 
97207, (503) 725-3690, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.; Saturday, 10 
a.m. to 10 p.m.; Sunday, 11 a.m. to 10 p.m.
    <bullet> U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters, Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190 Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-6020, Monday-
Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    A copy of the Record of Decision is also available via the Internet 
at www.hanford.gov/eis/twrseis.htm and http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/nepa.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this day, February 20, 1997.
Alvin Alm,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.

Appendix--Comments Received After Publication of the Final EIS

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) received comments and 
recommendations from the National Research Council and the Washington 
State Department of Fish and Wildlife after publication of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The following is a summary of 
these comments and DOE's responses.

National Research Council Comments

    On March 4, 1996, DOE requested that the National Research Council 
(Council), Committee on Remediation of Buried and Tank Waste, review 
the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Draft EIS. DOE received the 
Council's comments and recommendations regarding the Draft EIS on 
September 6, 1996 (after the Final EIS had been published) in a report 
entitled ``The Hanford Tanks:

[[Page 8701]]

Environmental Impacts and Policy Choices''. Although this report was 
issued too late to be considered in the Final EIS, DOE did consider the 
Council's comments in the preparation of this Record of Decision.
    DOE generally agrees with the comments and recommendations made by 
the Council. Because several other commentors on the Draft EIS 
identified similar concerns, many of the Council's comments and 
recommendations were incorporated in the Final EIS prior to receipt of 
the Council's report. DOE believes the Record of Decision reflects 
stakeholder values regarding the need for action, provides a balance 
among short- and long-term environmental impacts, meets regulatory 
requirements and agreements, and addresses technical uncertainties, 
while also accommodating, to the extent possible, the underlying 
concern of the Council regarding the need for phased decision making.
    The following is a summary of the National Research Council's 
comments and DOE's responses.
    Comment 1: Uncertainties, both stated and unstated, concerning the 
Hanford wastes, the environment, and the remediation processes are 
found throughout the DEIS. Significant uncertainties exist in the areas 
of technology, costs, performance, regulatory environment, future land 
use, and health and environmental risks. Among the issues that remain 
uncertain are:
    <bullet> Effectiveness in practice of technologies to remove and 
treat waste from tanks,
    <bullet> Costs of operations and offsite waste disposal,
    <bullet> Future policy and regulatory environment,
    <bullet> Characterization of tank wastes,
    <bullet> Relation between tank waste removal, remediation of the 
surrounding environment, and ultimate land use at the site, and
    <bullet> Long-term risks associated with various alternatives for 
treating and processing the tank wastes, both in relation to residues 
left on site and risks transferred offsite when processed wastes are 
moved to a national geologic repository.
    The preferred Phased Implementation alternative presented in the 
DEIS does not adequately address all of the uncertainties that make it 
difficult to decide how to complete remediation of the tanks. During 
Phase I, cesium and technetium, the most troublesome elements in a 
vitrifier, are to be removed from the high-level waste that is sent to 
the pilot vitrification plant, potentially limiting the value of 
information obtained from the pilot plant operations. This may also 
delay a decision on the final waste form for these elements.
    Plans for building a pilot plant should proceed, but in the context 
of a phased decision strategy that does not preclude processing of 
wastes other than the double-shell tank supernatant or producing waste 
forms other than the glass currently planned.
    Response 1: DOE agrees with the Council that there are substantial 
uncertainties associated with the tank waste remediation program. In 
response to similar comments, DOE revised the EIS to enhance the 
discussion of uncertainties, including the relevance of the 
uncertainties in the evaluation of alternatives. The Final EIS provides 
an extensive discussion on uncertainties in Appendix K, which includes 
DOE's detailed evaluation of the uncertainties and impacts associated 
with the tank waste remediation program alternatives. In light of the 
uncertainties related to the remediation of tank waste, DOE has 
committed to reevaluate the program as DOE continues to learn from 
these activities to ensure that DOE will stay on a correct course for 
managing the tank wastes.
    The Council placed particular emphasis on recommending the use of a 
``phased decision strategy'' because of the technical uncertainties in 
tank waste management. DOE has decided to implement the Phased 
Implementation alternative, which DOE believes will achieve many of the 
goals of the phased decision strategy recommended by the Council. DOE 
believes that the many years of technology evaluations throughout the 
DOE Complex have reduced the uncertainties to a manageable level, and 
the risks of proceeding with remediation are less than the risks of 
further releases of contaminants from the tanks and the potential for 
accidents in unremediated tanks. In addition, the cost of continuing to 
manage the tank waste in facilities that have exceeded their design 
life are high. DOE believes the Phased Implementation alternative 
provides adequate flexibility to accommodate changes in the tank waste 
remediation program as additional information is developed. Responses 
to the Council's other comments, below, provide additional detail on 
how DOE intends to reduce the technical uncertainties while proceeding 
with the Phased Implementation alternative.
    Phase I of the Phased Implementation alternative includes both low-
activity and high-level waste treatment and immobilization. Any 
radionuclides separated from the low-activity waste feed stream, 
including cesium and technetium, will be vitrified in the high-level 
waste facility. This will provide important information on the 
performance of the separations process and of vitrification of 
troublesome elements like cesium and technetium.
    By performing Phase I of the Phased Implementation alternative and 
proceeding with other technology development projects and tank waste 
characterization, the uncertainties associated with the tank waste 
program will be reduced further. Initiatives that DOE is pursuing to 
reduce uncertainties in support of the TWRS program include:
    <bullet> The Hanford Tanks Initiative, which will provide data on 
characterization of tank residuals, technologies for waste retrieval, 
technologies for removing tank residuals, and criteria for closing 
tanks;
    <bullet> Completion of the tank waste characterization program, 
which will provide data relative to tank waste safety issues and the 
contents of the tanks;
    <bullet> Determination of the level of contamination in the vadose 
zone;
    <bullet> Development of a comprehensive plan to integrate tank 
waste remediation with tank farm closure and other remediation 
activities related with the TWRS program;
    <bullet> Integration of TWRS program implementation with the plans 
for developing a national geologic repository for high-level waste;
    <bullet> Demonstrations of the efficiency and effectiveness of 
retrieval sluicing technology to support the tank waste remediation 
activities; and
    <bullet> Demonstrations of various tank waste separations and 
treatment processes.
    Comment 2: The DEIS surveyed a wide range of remediation options, 
including strategies in which tanks with varying contents are treated 
differently. However, the committee believes that additional 
alternatives for management of the tank wastes need to be explored in 
parallel, using a phased decision strategy like the one outlined in 
this report. Such a strategy would provide flexibility in the event 
that specific, preferred technologies or management approaches do not 
perform as anticipated or that innovative waste management and 
remediation technologies emerge. Among additional options that should 
be analyzed are (1) in-tank waste stabilization methods that are 
intermediate between in situ vitrification and filling of the tanks 
with gravel, (2) subsurface barriers that could contain leakage from 
tanks, and (3) selective partial removal of wastes from tanks, with 
subsequent stabilization of

[[Page 8702]]

residues, using the same range of treatment technologies as in the 
alternatives involving complete removal of wastes.
    When funding is constrained, it is more difficult to devote 
resources to the continued development of backup options. However, 
considering the uncertainty in the cost and performances of the 
technologies required for the preferred alternative, a time period 
during which funding is constrained is precisely the wrong time to drop 
work on alternatives that might achieve satisfactory results at a 
significantly lower cost. Having such alternatives available could 
allow remediation to proceed expeditiously, even if funding constraints 
prevent timely implementation of the currently preferred alternative.
    Response 2: As discussed in the response to comment 1, DOE agrees 
that significant uncertainties exist in the tank waste remediation 
program and that the strategy selected needs to be flexible to respond 
to new information and the results of research and development efforts. 
Additional alternatives and refinements of alternatives need to be 
developed and evaluated.
    The Council's report recommends a ``phased decision strategy,'' 
while DOE's preferred alternative is the ``Phased Implementation 
alternative.'' There are important similarities and differences between 
these two approaches. Under the Council's phased decision strategy, the 
first phase would identify and develop alternative approaches to 
remediate the tank waste. Decisions on alternatives for subsequent 
phases would be deferred until information from the first phase is 
evaluated. This approach has the advantage of not prematurely 
foreclosing options enabling DOE to further study and develop 
technologies and that might reduce cost and/or risk. It has the 
disadvantage of leaving the total cost, schedule, and final outcome 
highly uncertain. Under DOE's Phased Implementation alternative, the 
complete path forward for tank waste remediation has been determined, 
while recognizing that the path can be modified as new information 
becomes available. However, DOE has committed to conduct formal and 
informal reviews with the intent to mitigate the concern of making 
long-term decisions in the near-term.
    The DOE Phased Implementation decision addresses current regulatory 
requirements and cleanup commitments while maintaining the flexibility 
necessary to modify the TWRS program if emerging information (e.g., new 
characterization data, technology breakthroughs, etc.) indicates there 
is a need to change the direction of the program. At the same time, 
technology development activities, such as the Hanford Tanks 
Initiative, will continue, in order to provide alternative paths if 
preferred technologies do not perform as anticipated. In addition to 
current programs, the Conference Report for the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 1997 recommends up to $15 million in 
technology development activities to support the tank waste program.
    Other activities, which are critical to the overall TWRS program, 
will be conducted by DOE throughout Phase I. These activities include 
single-shell tank waste retrieval, developing methods for quantifying 
and characterizing the waste residuals left in the tanks following 
retrieval, and studying the leakage rate of tank wastes during the 
retrieval process. Contractors will have access to technologies being 
developed by other DOE programs and will be able to use these 
technologies if appropriate.
    The Final EIS evaluated possible alternatives for remediating the 
tank waste. There are, as the Council noted, a great number of 
variations or combinations of alternatives; DOE could not evaluate all 
such combinations in the EIS. Rather, DOE evaluated a complete range of 
reasonable tank waste management options, and thereby obtained adequate 
information for the strategic choice of direction made in this ROD. The 
use of alternate fill material for tank closure was not evaluated 
directly, but such alternatives are qualitatively within the range of 
alternatives analyzed in detail, and DOE was adequately informed about 
them for the purposes of this EIS. These alternatives will be addressed 
more directly in future NEPA analysis on tank closure. In this EIS, DOE 
considered the use of subsurface barriers as a potential mitigation 
measure during tank waste retrieval. Subsurface barriers were also 
evaluated in a Feasibility Study completed in 1995. Additional 
development work is being performed by DOE, and if promising new 
developments occur, DOE will reconsider the application of subsurface 
barriers for the tanks. Two alternatives for partial retrieval of the 
wastes that were similar to the selective partial retrieval alternative 
that the Council recommended be analyzed were included in the 
alternatives analyzed. DOE will continue to reevaluate these and other 
alternatives as more information becomes available.
    In situ disposal of single-shell tank wastes and in-tank 
stabilization of tanks with residuals (not removed by retrieval) have 
been the subject of previous studies and were evaluated as part of the 
Systems Engineering Study for the Closure of Single-Shell Tanks. 
Alternatives for closing tanks with residual waste were evaluated in 
the Engineering Study of Tank Fill Alternatives for Closure of Single-
Shell Tanks released in September 1996. Additional studies supporting 
stabilization of tanks with residual waste remaining following 
completion of retrieval operations are planned during Fiscal Year 1997 
and Fiscal Year 1998 as part of the Hanford Tanks Initiative.
    In addition to the two ex situ/in situ tank waste disposal 
alternatives that were evaluated in the TWRS EIS, selective partial 
removal of wastes from tanks, using a risk-based approach, was 
evaluated in the study entitled ``Remediation and Cleanout Levels for 
Hanford Site Single-Shell Tanks'' (Westinghouse Hanford Company, 1995, 
WHC-SD-WM-TI-711).
    This Record of Decision adopts a long-term strategy that will focus 
efforts on achieving the ultimate TWRS remediation goals while 
continuing to characterize tank wastes, evaluate new technologies and 
improve risk assessments. DOE believes that its past studies have 
reduced the uncertainties enough to enable DOE to make a decision on a 
long-term tank waste remediation strategy. Although this approach 
differs from the phased decision strategy recommended by the Council, 
DOE intends to implement its decision in a manner that is flexible 
enough to accommodate appropriate mid-course corrections in the tank 
waste remediation strategy, based on lessons learned in the pilot 
studies or from other new information.
    Comment 3: The scope of the DEIS also has significant limitations. 
Because the DEIS does not address remediation of the tanks themselves 
and associated environmental contamination, the alternatives it 
considers for tank waste remediation are not defined well enough. In 
addition, the connections between tank remediation alternatives and 
other cleanup activities at the Hanford Site are not taken into 
account. Because tank waste remediation alternatives are analyzed and 
evaluated in isolation from other geographically-related contamination 
at the Hanford Site, information about risks and costs in the DEIS is 
difficult to place in a proper perspective.
    Response 3: DOE agrees with the Council's observation that there is 
a

[[Page 8703]]

need to integrate remediation of the tank waste with future tank 
closure decisions and other geographically related remedial actions at 
the Hanford Site. The Final EIS addresses tank farm closure and other 
geographically related contamination and remediation activities to the 
extent possible with current information and to the extent necessary 
for DOE to make decisions concerning tank waste remediation. The EIS 
presents (1) information relative to closure to provide the public and 
decision makers with information on how decisions made now may affect 
future decisions on closure; (2) information on which alternatives 
would preclude the future selection of clean closure for the tank 
farms; and (3) information on cumulative impacts, including the effects 
of other site activities. This information provides a context for 
understanding the strategic decisions, now ripe, that are the focus of 
this EIS. To support the analysis, DOE used closure of a landfill as a 
representative closure scenario for each alternative, thus providing 
for a meaningful comparison of the alternatives. DOE intends to prepare 
a comprehensive plan to integrate tank waste remediation with tank farm 
closure activities and other Hanford Site remediation programs.
    Comment 4: Decisions regarding tank remediation must consider risk, 
cost, and technical feasibility. Where risks are involved, care should 
be taken to present a range of potential risks, including expected or 
most likely estimates as well as the upper-bound estimates presented in 
the DEIS. While upper-bound estimates may give confidence that actual 
impacts will not exceed those presented in the DEIS from a worst-case 
perspective, the inherent uncertainties in risk assessments can distort 
the comparison of alternatives. This is of particular concern when the 
upper-bound estimates are derived from a cascade of parameters, much of 
which was also derived on an upper-bound basis.
    While the committee recognizes the utility of quantitative risk 
assessment in the comparison of remedial alternatives, the limitations 
of analysis must be underscored. Given the complexity of the Hanford 
tank farms, many of the potential uncertainties cannot be measured, 
quantified, or expressed through statistically derived estimates. 
According to the 1996 National Research Council report Understanding 
Risk, the 1996 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report Proposed 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, and a recent draft report by 
the Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, characterization 
of risk should be both qualitative and quantitative. In this case, 
qualitative information should include a range of informed views on the 
risks and the evidence that supports them, the risk likelihood, and the 
magnitude of uncertainty. Such evaluations of risk should be based on 
deliberative scientific processes that clarify the concerns of 
interested and affected parties to prevent avoidable errors, provide a 
balanced understanding of the state of knowledge, and ensure broad 
participation in the decision-making process.
    Response 4: DOE agrees with these comments and has modified the EIS 
accordingly in response to similar comments on the Draft EIS received 
during the public comment period. For example, DOE believes that 
characterization of the risk should be quantitative when possible and 
qualitative when parameters are uncertain by more than an order of 
magnitude. The Final EIS presents the ``expected'', or ``nominal'' 
ranges of risk and upper-bound estimates, and includes (in Appendix E) 
detailed analysis of uncertainties.
    Comment 5: It should be expected that the environmental regulations 
governing the tank wastes, and the Hanford Site in general, will change 
over the time during which waste management and environmental 
remediation occur. DOE should work with the appropriate entities to 
ensure that future regulatory changes and the future selection of tank 
remediation approaches are on convergent paths. The development, 
testing, and analysis of alternatives during the first phase should 
continue unconstrained by current regulatory requirements and should 
examine currently untested technologies.
    Response 5: DOE agrees that ongoing dialogue with the regulators is 
necessary to making sound tank waste management decisions. DOE 
continues to work with the Federal and State regulatory authorities and 
with the stakeholders to share evolving information regarding impacts 
and technologies. Toward that end, DOE developed the reasonable 
alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS on a scientific and engineering 
basis, then evaluated the alternatives for compliance with regulations. 
Only four of the ten alternatives addressed in the EIS could be 
implemented consistent with existing Federal and State regulations. The 
Record of Decision, however, selects a compliant approach.
    Comment 6: Concerning the management and disposal of the cesium and 
strontium capsules and of the miscellaneous underground storage tanks, 
the committee found that the DEIS lacks enough substantive information 
for an evaluation of the proposed remediation strategies. Over 99 
percent of the tank wastes is in the single-shell and double-shell 
tanks, and that is where the greatest potential for health and 
environmental risk exists. However, the extremely high concentration of 
radioactivity and the nature of the materials in the capsules 
necessitate a more thorough discussion of their treatment, disposal, 
and environmental impact. There are serious deficiencies in the 
attention given to the long-term changes in the chemical and isotopic 
composition of the cesium and strontium capsules. The large number and 
wide distribution of the miscellaneous underground storage tanks make a 
more complete discussion of their management necessary.
    Response 6: DOE agrees with the Council that there is not enough 
substantive information regarding the cesium and strontium capsules to 
make a long-term decision on their final disposition. DOE also wants to 
evaluate potential beneficial uses of the capsules and has decided to 
defer any disposition of the capsules. In the meanwhile, a Cesium and 
Strontium Management Plan is currently being prepared by DOE that will 
address alternatives for beneficial uses of the capsules prior to final 
disposition. As part of the plan, DOE will continue to collect and 
analyze information regarding the capsules to reduce uncertainties and 
better understand long-term impacts, and to ensure that the long-term 
decision is appropriate.
    With regard to the miscellaneous underground storage tanks, DOE 
believes, based on currently available information, that the waste 
contained in the miscellaneous underground storage tanks is similar to 
the waste contained in the single-shell tanks. Because the 
miscellaneous underground storage tanks represent a small percentage 
(0.5 percent) of the overall waste volume, the potential long-term 
impacts posed by the miscellaneous underground storage tanks are within 
the range of impacts calculated for the single-shell tanks and double-
shell tanks. The short-term and long-term impacts associated with the 
miscellaneous underground storage tanks for activities such as waste 
retrieval and transfer were analyzed in the EIS.
    Comment 7: The proper approach to decision making for tank farm 
cleanup is to use a phased decision strategy in which some cleanup 
activities would proceed in the first phase while

[[Page 8704]]

important information gaps are filled concurrently to define identified 
remediation alternatives more clearly, and possibly to identify new and 
better ones. As part of this strategy, periodic independent scientific 
and technical expert reviews should be conducted so that deficiencies 
may be recognized and midcourse corrections be made in the operational 
program.
    Response 7: DOE agrees with the Council that periodic independent 
scientific and technical expert reviews are essential to the success of 
the TWRS program. While carrying out the current decisions, DOE will 
continually evaluate new information relative to the tank waste 
remediation program. DOE also intends to conduct formal evaluations of 
new information relative to the tank waste remediation program at three 
key points over the next eight years under its NEPA regulations (10 CFR 
1021.314), with an appropriate level of public involvement, to ensure 
that DOE will stay on a correct course for managing and remediating the 
waste. As remediation proceeds in the coming years, DOE will learn more 
about management and remediation of the tank waste and ways to protect 
public and worker health and the environment. Within this time frame, 
DOE will obtain additional information on the effectiveness of 
retrieval technologies, characteristics of the tank wastes, 
effectiveness of waste separation and immobilization techniques, and 
more definitive data on the costs of retrieval, separations, and 
immobilization of the waste. These formal reevaluations will 
incorporate the latest information on these topics. DOE will conduct 
these formal evaluations of the entire TWRS program at the following 
stages: (1) before proceeding into Privatization Phase I Part B 
(scheduled for May 1998); (2) prior to the start of hot operations of 
Privatization Phase I Part B (scheduled for December 2002/December 
2003); and (3) before deciding to proceed with Privatization Phase II 
(scheduled for December 2005). In conducting these reviews, DOE will 
seek the advice of independent experts from the scientific and 
financial community, such as the National Academy of Sciences which 
will focus on performance criteria and the costs of waste treatment. 
DOE has established a TWRS Privatization Review Board consisting of 
Senior DOE representatives to provide on-going assistance and 
interactive oversight of the review of Part A deliverables and 
discussions with the contractors.
    Informal evaluations also will be conducted as the information 
warrants. These formal and informal evaluations will help DOE to 
determine whether previous decisions need to be changed.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment

    Comment: The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 
recommends that the following language be included in the Record of 
Decision:
    ``The site selection of the precise location of remediation 
facilities for the selected alternative shall be subject to future 
supplemental NEPA analysis. This supplemental NEPA analysis shall 
commit to a supplemental Mitigation Action Plan. The Mitigation Action 
Plan and supplemental Mitigation Action Plan will be prepared in 
consultation with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with input from the Hanford 
Site's Natural Resource Trustee Council.''
    ``Impacts to State priority shrub-steppe habitat would be one of 
the evaluation criteria used in site selection. The site selection 
process would include the following hierarchy of measures:
    <bullet> Avoid priority shrub-steppe habitat to the extent feasible 
by locating or configuring project elements in pre-existing disturbed 
areas.
    <bullet> Minimize project impacts to the extent feasible by 
modifying facility layouts and/or altering construction timing.''
    ``Compensatory mitigation measures for the loss of shrub-steppe 
habitat shall be identified and implemented in the supplemental NEPA 
analysis and Mitigation Action Plan.''
    Response: DOE believes that the following approach satisfies the 
substance of these comments.
    The EIS (Section 5.20) describes both mitigation measures that are 
integral parts of all of the alternatives (Section 5.20.1) and further 
mitigation measures that could be implemented when indicated or 
appropriate (Section 5.20.2). In selecting the preferred alternative 
DOE has committed to all of the mitigation measures in Section 5.20.1, 
which include measures to restore newly disturbed areas. As the State 
requested, the Record of Decision commits to conducting NEPA analysis 
for site selection of facilities.
    DOE intends to implement those further measures described in 
Section 5.20.2 as may be necessary to mitigate potential impacts on 
priority shrub-steppe habitat, and will consider the potential for such 
impacts as a factor in the site selection process for TWRS facilities. 
The site selection process will include the following hierarchy of 
measures: (1) avoid undisturbed shrub-steppe areas to the extent 
feasible; (2) minimize impacts to the extent feasible; (3) restore 
temporarily disturbed areas; (4) compensate for unavoidable impacts by 
replacing habitat; and (5) manage critical habitat on a Sitewide basis.
    DOE believes that mitigation of impacts to habitats of special 
importance to the ecological health of the region is most effective 
when planned and implemented on a sitewide basis. Recognizing this, DOE 
is preparing a sitewide biological management plan to protect these 
resources. Under this sitewide approach, the potential impacts of all 
projects would be evaluated and appropriate mitigation would be 
developed based on the cumulative impacts to the ecosystem. Mitigation 
to reduce the ecological impacts from TWRS remediation would be 
performed in compliance with the sitewide biological management plan. 
Mitigation would focus on disturbance of contiguous, mature sagebrush-
dominated shrub-steppe habitat. Compensation (habitat replacement) 
would occur where DOE deems appropriate. Specific mitigation ratios, 
sites, and planting strategies (e.g., plant size, number, and density) 
for TWRS facilities and operations would be defined in the TWRS 
Mitigation Action Plan, which would be revised for each specific TWRS 
facility siting decision. The Mitigation Action Plan would be prepared 
in consultation with the Washington State Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Tribal Nations, with 
input from the Hanford Site's Natural Resources Trustees Council. DOE 
will make the Mitigation Action Plan publicly available before taking 
action that is the subject of a mitigation commitment.

[FR Doc. 97-4696 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P