Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices 8693

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board; Meeting

AGENCY: National Educational Research

Policy and Priorities Board; Education.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the

schedule and proposed agenda of a

forthcoming meeting of the National

Educational Research Policy and

Priorities Board. This notice also

describes the functions of the Board.

Notice of this meeting is required under

Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act. This document is

intended to notify the public of their

opportunity to attend.

DATE: March 21, 1997.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

LOCATION: Room 100, 80 F St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20208–7564.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thelma Leenhouts, Designated Federal

Official, National Educational Research

Policy and Priorities Board, 80 F St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20208–7564.

Telephone: (202) 219–2065; fax: (202)

219–1528; e-mail:

ThelmalLeenhouts@ed.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board is authorized by

Section 921 of the Educational

Research, Development, Dissemination,

and Improvement Act of 1994. The

Board works collaboratively with the

Assistant Secretary for the Office of

Educational Research and Improvement

to forge a national consensus with

respect to a long-term agenda for

educational research, development, and

dissemination, and to provide advice

and assistance to the Assistant Secretary

in administering the duties of the Office.

The agenda for March 21 will cover

the adoption of proposed by-laws and a

proposed workplan; election of officers

for 1997–99; the approval of standards

for the conduct and evaluation of

research, and for assessing performance

on contracts, grants, and cooperative

agreements, as well as standards for

reviewing and designating exemplary

and promising programs. A final agenda

will be available from the Board’s office

on March 14.

Records are kept of all Board

proceedings and are available for public

inspection at the office of the National

Educational Research Policy and

Priorities Board, 555 New Jersey Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20208–7564.

Dated: February 20, 1997.

Eve M. Bither,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 97–4765 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–M

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

www.hanford.gov/eis/twrseis.htm and

on the DOE NEPA Web page (http://tisnt.eh.doe.gov/nepa).

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.
8694 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices

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 lowactivity 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:

• Upgrading tank farm infrastructure,

including waste transfer,

instrumentation, ventilation, and

electrical systems;

• Monitoring tanks and equipment to

support waste management and

regulatory compliance requirements;

• 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;

• Using rail or tanker truck systems to

transport waste to the tank farms;

• Completing construction of and

operating the new replacement crosssite 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

• 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:

• Constructing demonstration-scale

facilities to produce vitrified lowactivity waste and vitrified high-level

waste for future disposal;

• 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;

• Transferring liquid waste to

receiver tanks and transferring selected

waste for high-level waste processing

directly to the high-level waste facility;

• Performing separations to remove

selected radionuclides (e.g., cesium)

from the low-activity waste stream;

• Storing separated high-level waste

at the treatment facilities or in the

Canister Storage Building pending

future high-level waste treatment;

• Returning a portion of the sludge,

strontium, and transuranic waste from

separations processes to the doubleshell tanks for future retrieval and

treatment during Phase II;

• Vitrifying the low-activity waste

and high-level waste; and

• 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:

• Constructing full-scale facilities to

vitrify low-activity waste and vitrify

high-level waste;

• Installing and operating tank

retrieval systems to retrieve waste from

all single-shell tanks, double-shell

tanks, and miscellaneous underground

storage tanks;

• Pretreating the waste by sludge

washing and enhanced sludge washing

followed by separations of the liquid

and solids;

• Performing separations to remove

selected radionuclides from the lowactivity waste feed stream and

transferring the waste to the high-level

waste vitrification facility;

• Vitrifying the high-level waste

stream and the low-activity waste

stream;

• Packaging the high-level waste in

canisters for onsite interim storage and

future shipment to a national geologic

repository; and

• Placing the immobilized lowactivity 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices 8695

that it provides for retrieval of the

waste, separation of the high- and lowactivity 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 fullscale 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 longterm 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 singleand 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
8696 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices

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 longterm 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 lowactivity 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 highlevel 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 highlevel 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 postremediation 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 shrubsteppe habitat disturbance) that are

generally lower than those for the ex

situ alternatives because smaller
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices 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, longterm 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 shortterm 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 longterm 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 longterm 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
8698 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices 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 highlevel waste streams, vitrifying the highlevel 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.

• 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
8700 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices

requirements encompass a wide variety

of areas, including radiation protection,

facility design criteria, fire protection,

emergency preparedness and response,

and operational safety requirements;

• Measures will be taken to protect

construction and operations personnel

from occupational hazards and

minimize occupational exposures to

radioactive and chemical hazards;

• Emergency response plans will be

developed to allow rapid response to

potentially dangerous unplanned

events;

• 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;

• Areas for new facilities will be

selected to minimize environmental

impacts to the extent practicable;

• Pollution control or treatment will

be used to reduce or eliminate releases

of contaminants to the environment and

meet regulatory standards;

• Extensive environmental

monitoring systems will be

implemented to continually monitor

potential releases to the environment;

• 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;

• Historic, prehistoric, and cultural

resource surveys will be performed for

any undisturbed areas to be impacted;

• 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

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• U.S. Department of Energy Reading

Room, Washington State University, TriCities Campus, 100 Sprout Road, Room

130W, Richland, WA 99352, (509) 376–

8583, Monday–Friday, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

• 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.

• 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:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices 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:

• Effectiveness in practice of

technologies to remove and treat waste

from tanks,

• Costs of operations and offsite

waste disposal,

• Future policy and regulatory

environment,

• Characterization of tank wastes,

• Relation between tank waste

removal, remediation of the surrounding

environment, and ultimate land use at

the site, and

• 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 highlevel 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:

• 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;

• Completion of the tank waste

characterization program, which will

provide data relative to tank waste

safety issues and the contents of the

tanks;

• Determination of the level of

contamination in the vadose zone;

• Development of a comprehensive

plan to integrate tank waste remediation

with tank farm closure and other

remediation activities related with the

TWRS program;

• Integration of TWRS program

implementation with the plans for

developing a national geologic

repository for high-level waste;

• Demonstrations of the efficiency

and effectiveness of retrieval sluicing

technology to support the tank waste

remediation activities; and

• 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
8702 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices

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 geographicallyrelated 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices 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 shortterm 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
8704 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices

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 shrubsteppe habitat would be one of the

evaluation criteria used in site selection.

The site selection process would

include the following hierarchy of

measures:

• Avoid priority shrub-steppe habitat

to the extent feasible by locating or

configuring project elements in preexisting disturbed areas.

• 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 shrubsteppe 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 shrubsteppe 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 sagebrushdominated 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

Energy Information Administration

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request

SUMMARY: The Energy Information

Administration (EIA) is soliciting

comments concerning the proposed

three year clearance with no changes to

the forms EIA–800–804, 807, 810–814,

816, 817, 819M, and 820 of EIA’s

Petroleum Supply Reporting System.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before April 28, 1997.

If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of