3564 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

Issued in Washington DC on January 9,

2001.

John Rodney Clark,

Associate Director of Science for Resource

Management.

[FR Doc. 01–1182 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Science and Office of

Environmental Management; Office of

Science Financial Assistance Program

Notice 01–16: Environmental

Management Science Program: Basic

Science Research Related to High

Level Radioactive Waste

AGENCY: Office of Science and Office of

Environmental Management,

Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice inviting grant

applications.

SUMMARY: The Offices of Science (SC)

and Environmental Management (EM),

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),

hereby announce their interest in

receiving grant applications for

performance of innovative, fundamental

research to support specific activities for

high level radioactive waste; which

include, but are not limited to,

characterization and safety, retrieval of

tank waste and tank closure,

pretreatment, and waste immobilization

and disposal.

DATES: The deadline for receipt of

formal applications is 4:30 p.m. E.S.T.,

March 8, 2001, in order to be accepted

for merit review and to permit timely

consideration for award in Fiscal Year

2001.

ADDRESSES: Formal applications

referencing Program Notice 01–16

should be sent to: U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Science, Grants and

Contracts Division, SC–64, 19901

Germantown Road, Germantown, MD

20874–1290, ATTN: Program Notice 01–

16. This address must be used when

submitting applications by U.S. Postal

Service Express, commercial mail

delivery service, or when hand carried

by the applicant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Roland F. Hirsch, SC–73, Mail Stop F–

237, Medical Sciences Division, Office

of Biological and Environmental

Research, Office of Science, U.S.

Department of Energy, 19901

Germantown Road, Germantown, MD

20874–1290, telephone: (301) 903–9009,

fax: (301) 903–0567, E-mail:

roland.hirsch@science.doe.gov, or Mr.

Mark Gilbertson, Office of Basic and

Applied Research, Office of Science and

Technology, Office of Environmental

Management, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

telephone: (202) 586–7150, E-mail:

Mark.Gilbertson@em.doe.gov. The full

text of Program Notice 01–16 is

available via the World Wide Web using

the following web site address: http://

www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/

grants.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of Environmental Management, in

partnership with the Office of Science,

sponsors the Environmental

Management Science Program (EMSP)

to fulfill DOE’s continuing commitment

to the clean-up of DOE’s environmental

legacy. The program was initiated in

Fiscal Year 1996. Ideas for basic

scientific research are solicited which

promote the broad national interest of a

better understanding of the fundamental

characteristics of highly radioactive

chemical wastes and their effects on the

environment.

The DOE Environmental Management

program currently has ongoing applied

research and engineering efforts under

its Technology Development Program.

These efforts must be supplemented

with basic research to address long-term

technical issues crucial to the EM

mission. Basic research can also provide

EM with near-term fundamental data

that may be critical to the advancement

of technologies that are under

development but not yet at full scale nor

implemented. Proposed basic research

under this Notice should contribute to

environmental management activities

that would decrease risk for the public

and workers, provide opportunities for

major cost reductions, reduce time

required to achieve EM’s mission goals,

and, in general, should address

problems that are considered intractable

without new knowledge. This program

is designed to inspire ‘‘breakthroughs’’

in areas critical to the EM mission

through basic research and will be

managed in partnership with SC. The

Office of Science’s well-established

procedures, as set forth in the Office of

Science Merit Review System, available

on the World Wide Web at: http://

www.science.doe.gov/production/

grants/merit.html will be used for merit

review of applications submitted in

response to this Notice. Subsequent to

the formal scientific merit review,

applications that are judged to be

scientifically meritorious, will be

evaluated by DOE for relevance to the

objectives of the Environmental

Management Science Program and for

relevance to the technical focus of this

solicitation (see ‘‘Relevance to Mission’’

section below). Additional information

can be obtained at http://

emsp.em.doe.gov. Additional Notices

for the Environmental Management

Science Program may be issued during

Fiscal Year 2001 covering other areas

within the scope of the EM program.

Purpose

The purpose of the EMSP is to foster

basic research that will contribute to

successful completion of DOE’s mission

to clean-up the environmental

contamination across the DOE complex.

The objectives of the Environmental

Management Science Program are to:

1. Provide scientific knowledge that

will revolutionize technologies and

clean-up approaches to significantly

reduce future costs, schedules, and

risks;

2. ‘‘Bridge the gap’’ between broad

fundamental research that has wideranging applicability such as that

performed in DOE’s Office of Science

and needs-driven applied technology

development that is conducted in EM’s

Office of Science and Technology; and

3. Focus the Nation’s science

infrastructure on critical DOE

environmental management problems.

Representative Research Areas

Basic research is solicited in areas of

science with the potential for addressing

problems in the clean-up of high level

radioactive waste. Relevant scientific

disciplines include, but are not limited

to, chemistry (including actinide

chemistry, analytical chemistry and

instrumentation, interfacial chemistry,

and separation science), computer and

mathematical sciences, engineering

science (chemical and process

engineering), materials science

(degradation mechanisms, modeling,

corrosion, non-destructive evaluation,

sensing of waste hosts, canisters), and

physics (fluid flow, aqueous-ionic solid

interfacial properties underlying

rheological processes).

Project Renewals

Lead Principal Investigators of record

for Projects funded under Office of

Science Notice 98–08, Environmental

Management Science Program: Research

Related to High Level Radioactive

Waste, are eligible to submit renewal

applications under this solicitation.

Program Funding

It is anticipated that up to a total of

$4,000,000 of Fiscal Year 2001, Federal

funds will be available for new

Environmental Management Science

Program awards resulting from this

Announcement. Multiple-year funding

of awards is anticipated, contingent

upon the availability of appropriated

funds. Award sizes are expected to be

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3565

on the order of $100,000–$300,000 per

year for total project costs for a typical

three-year award. Collaborative projects

involving several research groups or

more than one institution may receive

larger awards if merited. The program

will be competitive and offered to

investigators in universities or other

institutions of higher education, other

non-profit or for-profit organizations,

non-Federal agencies or entities, or

unaffiliated individuals. DOE reserves

the right to fund in whole or part any

or none of the applications received in

response to this Notice. A parallel

announcement with a similar potential

total amount of funds will be issued to

DOE Federally Funded Research and

Development Centers (FFRDCs) and

may be accessed on the World Wide

Web at http://www.science.doe.gov/

production/grants/LAB01_16.html. All

projects will be evaluated using the

same criteria, regardless of the

submitting institution.

Collaboration and Training

Applicants to the EMSP are strongly

encouraged to collaborate with

researchers in other institutions, such as

universities, industry, non-profit

organizations, federal laboratories and

Federally Funded Research and

Development Centers (FFRDCs),

including the DOE National

Laboratories, where appropriate, and to

incorporate cost sharing and/or

consortia wherever feasible. Refer to

http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/

grants/Colab.html for details.

Applicants are also encouraged to

provide training opportunities,

including student involvement, in

applications submitted to the program.

Applications

Applicants are expected to use the

following format in addition to

following instructions in the Office of

Science Financial Assistance Program

Application Guide. Applications must

be written in English, with all budgets

in U.S. dollars.

• SC Face Page (DOE F 4650.2 (10–

91))

• Application classification sheet (a

plain sheet of paper with one selection

from the list of scientific fields listed in

the Application Categories Section)

• Table of Contents

• Project Abstract (no more than one

page)

• Budgets for each year and a

summary budget page for the entire

project period (using DOE F 4620.1)

• Budget Explanation. Applicants are

requested to include in the travel budget

for each year funds to attend the annual

National Environmental Management

Science Program Workshop, and also for

one or more extended (one week or

more) visits to a clean-up site by either

the Principal Investigator or a senior

staff member or collaborator

• Budgets and Budget explanation for

each collaborative subproject, if any

• Project Narrative (recommended

length is no more than 20 pages; multiinvestigator collaborative projects may

use more pages if necessary up to a total

of 40 pages)

• Goals

• Significance of Project to the EM

Mission

• Background

• Research Plan

• Preliminary Studies (if applicable)

• Research Design and Methodologies

• Literature Cited

• Collaborative Arrangements (if

applicable)

• Biographical Sketches (limit 2 pages

per senior investigator)

• Description of Facilities and

Resources

• Current and Pending Support for

each senior investigator

Application Categories

In order to properly classify each

application for evaluation and review,

the application must indicate the

proposer’s preferred scientific research

field, selected from the following list.

Field of Scientific Research

1. Actinide Chemistry

2. Analytical Chemistry and

Instrumentation

3. Separations Chemistry

4. Engineering Sciences

5. Geochemistry

6. Geophysics

7. Hydrogeology

8. Interfacial Chemistry

9. Materials Science

10. Other

Application Evaluation and Selection

Scientific Merit

The program will support the most

scientifically meritorious and relevant

work, regardless of the institution.

Formal applications will be subjected to

scientific merit review (peer review) and

will be evaluated against the following

evaluation criteria listed in descending

order of importance as codified at 10

CFR 605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of

the Project

2. Appropriateness of the Proposed

Method or Approach

3. Competency of Applicant’s Personnel

and Adequacy of Proposed Resources

4. Reasonableness and Appropriateness

of the Proposed Budget.

The evaluation will include program

policy factors such as the relevance of

the proposed research to the terms of

the announcement and the Department’s

programmatic needs. DOE shall also

consider, as part of the evaluation,

program policy factors such as an

appropriate balance among the program

areas, including research already in

progress. External peer reviewers are

selected with regard to both their

scientific expertise and the absence of

conflict-of-interest issues. Non-federal

reviewers may be used, and submission

of an application constitutes agreement

that this is acceptable to the

investigator(s) and the submitting

institution.

Relevance to Mission

Subsequent to the formal scientific

merit review, applications which are

judged to be scientifically meritorious

will be evaluated by DOE for relevance

to the objectives of the Environmental

Management Science Program and for

relevance to the technical focus of the

solicitation (see section below).

‘‘Researchers are encouraged to

demonstrate a linkage between their

research projects and significant clean

up related problems at DOE sites.

Researchers could establish this linkage

in a variety of ways—for example, by

elucidating the scientific problems to be

addressed by the proposed research and

explaining how the solution of these

problems could improve remediation

capabilities.’’ (National Research

Council, Board on Radioactive Waste

Management, December 1998)

DOE shall also consider, as part of the

evaluation, program policy factors such

as an appropriate balance among the

program areas, including research

already in progress. Research funded in

the Environmental Management Science

Program in Fiscal Year 1996 through

Fiscal Year 2001, can be viewed at 

http://www.doe.gov/em52/sciencegrants.html.

Application Guide and Forms

Information about the development,

submission of applications, eligibility,

limitations, evaluation, the selection

process, and other policies and

procedures may be found in 10 CFR Part

605, and in the Application Guide for

the Office of Science Financial

Assistance Program. Electronic access to

the Guide and required forms is

available via the World Wide Web at:

http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/

grants/grants.html. DOE is under no

obligation to pay for any costs

associated with the preparation or

submission of applications if an award

is not made.

3566 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

Technical Focus of the Solicitation

This research announcement has been

developed for Fiscal Year 2001, along

with a development process for a longterm program within Environmental

Management, with the objective of

providing continuity in scientific

knowledge that will revolutionize

technologies and clean-up approaches

for solving DOE’s most complex

environmental problems. A general

description of the high level waste

problem can be found in the

Background section of this Notice.

Detailed descriptions of the specific

technical (science) needs and areas of

emphasis associated with this problem

area are available on the Tanks Focus

Area web site at http://www.pnl.gov/tfa.

Long Term Research Agenda for High

Level Radioactive Waste

The National Academy of Science’s

National Research Council was

requested to assist the DOE in

developing a long-range science plan for

the management of radioactive highlevel waste at DOE sites. The Committee

empanelled to study that issue

determined that some High Level Waste

related problems will require further

research and development to minimize

risk and program cost and to improve

the effectiveness of clean-up. Their

recommendations in four topic areas are

the focus of this solicitation and are

described below. More detailed

descriptions of the specific technical

(science) needs in these four topic areas

are available on the Tanks Focus Area

web site at: http://www.pnl.gov/tfa.

1. Long-Term Issues Related to Tank

Closure

An example of research activities to

address this issue is innovative methods

for in situ characterization of the High

Level Waste remaining in the tanks after

retrieval to facilitate tank closure.

2. High-Efficiency, High-Throughput

Separation Methods That Would Reduce

High-Level Waste Program Costs Over

the Next Few Decades Including

a. High-efficiency separation, and

b. Minimization of the volume of

secondary waste.

Applications on separation sciences

addressing these two areas are

encouraged. The projects should

address all types of separations: solids

from liquids from gases, High Level

Waste from low level waste, and

radionuclides from organic compounds.

An example of a project addressing

separation issues could be research on

processes that remove multiple

radionuclides in a single step.

1. Robust, High Loading, Immobilization

Methods and Materials That Could

Provide Enhancements or Alternatives

to Current Immobilization Strategies

including

a. Alternatives to borosilicate glasses

using slurry-fed electric (Joule) melter as

an immobilization matrix, and

b. Alternatives melter techniques.

As an example, a research project

might study alternative immobilization

matrixes, tailored to either High Level

Waste or low level waste, such as

cement or crystalline ceramics.

Applications to conduct research on

alternative melter techniques that would

increase the processes available to

address different waste streams leading

to more efficient immobilization results

are encouraged.

4. Innovative Methods To Achieve RealTime, and, When Practical, in situ

Characterization Data for High Level

Waste and Process Streams That Would

Be Useful for all Phases of the Waste

Management Program With Emphasis

on

a. Characterization of the waste after

retrieval, for instance in process streams

and melter feeds.

Applications aimed at developing

techniques to achieve shorter turnaround times for the analytical results,

which in turn would allow better

control of High Level Waste processing

are encouraged. An example of such a

project is research on fiber-optical

interrogation to characterize process

streams.

Attendant to paragraph 1. above, there

was another area highlighted by the

National Research Council regarding

long-term issues related to

characterization of surrounding areas

including radionuclide and metal

contamination problems in the nearfield around the tanks, and engineered

surface or subsurface barriers. These

topics will be a matter of a future

solicitation for research regarding

subsurface contamination.

Specific High Level Waste Science

Needs

Detailed information on the specific

high level waste technical (science)

needs within the general topic areas of

this solicitation are available from the

Tanks Focus Area Home Page at: http:/

/www.pnl.gov/tfa. Relevance to mission

reviews will consider responsiveness to

the four topic areas of this solicitation

and these corresponding specific

technical needs. Additional general

science research needs and information

is also available at: http://

emsp.em.doe.gov/focus_area.htm.

The aforementioned areas of emphasis

do not preclude, and DOE strongly

encourages, any innovative or creative

ideas contributing to solving EM High

Level Waste challenges mentioned

throughout this Notice.

For further information regarding the

Tanks Focus Area please contact: Mr.

Theodore P. Pietrok, Tanks Focus Area,

U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box

550, Mail Stop K8–50, Richland, WA

99352, telephone: (509) 372–4546, Fax:

(509) 372–4037, E-mail:

Theodore_P_Pietrok@rl.gov.

Background

Environmental Management (EM) is

responsible for the development,

testing, evaluation, and deployment of

remediation technologies to

characterize, retrieve, treat, concentrate,

and dispose of radioactive waste stored

in the underground storage tanks at DOE

facilities and ultimately stabilize and

close the tanks. The goal is to provide

safe and cost-effective solutions that are

acceptable to both the public and

regulators.

Radioactive high level waste is stored

at four sites across the DOE complex:

1. Hanford Site near Richland,

Washington

2. Savannah River Site (SRS) near

Aiken, South Carolina

3. Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)

near Idaho Falls, Idaho

4. West Valley Demonstration Project

(WVDP) in West Valley, New York

At these sites, 282 underground

storage tanks have been used to process

and store radioactive and chemical

mixed waste generated from weapon

materials production and

manufacturing. Collectively, these tanks

hold approximately 90 million gallons

of high-level and low-level radioactive

liquid waste in sludge, saltcake, and as

supernate and vapor.

Tanks vary in design from carbon or

stainless steel to concrete, and concrete

with carbon steel liners. Two types of

storage tanks are most prevalent: the

single-shell and double-shell concrete

tanks with carbon steel liners.

Capacities vary from 5,000 gallons

(19m3) to 1,300,000 gallons (4920m3).

Most tanks are covered with a layer of

soil ranging from approximately 3 to 10

feet thick.

Most of the waste is alkaline and

contains a diverse mixture of chemical

constituents including nitrate and

nitrite salts (approximately half of the

total waste), hydrated metal oxides,

phosphate precipitates, and

ferrocyanides. The 784 MCi of

radionuclides are distributed primarily

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3567

among the transuranic (TRU) elements

and fission products, specifically

strontium-90, cesium-137, and their

decay products yttrium-90 and barium137. In-tank atmospheric conditions

vary in severity from near ambient to

temperatures over 93° C. Radiation

fields in the tank void space can be as

high as 10,000 rad/h.

Hanford has 177 tanks that contain

approximately 53 million gallons of

hazardous and radioactive waste. There

are 149 single-shell tanks that have

exceeded their original design life.

Sixty-seven of these tanks have known

or suspected leaks. Due to several

changes in the production processes

since the early 1940s, some of the tanks

contain incompatible waste

components, generating hydrogen gas

and excess heat that further compromise

tank integrity.

Radioactive waste at SRS consists of

33 million gallons of salt, salt solution,

and sludge stored in 51 double-shell

underground storage tanks, two of

which have been closed (emptied of all

waste and filled with grout). Twentythree tanks are being retired, because

they do not have full secondary

containment. Nine tanks have leaked

detectable quantities of waste from the

primary tank to secondary containment.

Unlike the other DOE sites,

radioactive waste at INEEL was stored

in acidic conditions in stainless steel

tanks rather than alkaline conditions.

The 11 stainless steel tanks at INEEL

store approximately 1.2 million gallons

of acidic radioactive liquids.

Additionally, approximately 4000 m3 of

calcined waste solids are stored in seven

stainless steel bin sets enclosed in

massive underground concrete vaults.

At the West Valley Demonstration

Project nearly all of the original 600,000

gallon of HLW has been retrieved and

vitrified. This site is now in the process

of cleaning the storage tanks and

preparing for closure.

The general process for waste tank

remediation involves a number of

critical steps including:

• Safe waste storage.

• Waste characterization.

• Retrieval of tank waste.

• Pretreatment and separation of tank

waste.

• Waste immobilization.

• Tank closure, and

• Immobilized waste disposal.

Tank remediation problems within

these critical process steps are described

below. Several process steps are

combined for the purpose of describing

related technical issues

Characterization and Safety

DOE, contractors, and stakeholders

have committed to a safe and efficient

remediation of HLW, mixed waste, and

hazardous waste stored in underground

tanks across the DOE complex.

Currently, there are only limited fully

developed or deployed in situ

techniques to characterize tank waste. In

situ characterization can eliminate the

time delay between sample removal and

sample analysis and aid in guiding the

sampling process while decreasing the

cost (approximately $1 million is spent

for one tank core extrusion) of waste

analysis. Most importantly, remote

analysis eliminates sample handling

and safety concerns due to worker

exposure. However, analysis of extruded

tank samples allows a more complete

chemical and physical characterization

of the waste when needed. Knowledge

of the chemical and radioactive

composition and physical parameters of

the waste is essential to safe and

effective tank remediation.

There are three primary drivers for the

development of new chemical analysis

methods to support tank waste

remediation: (1) Provide analyses for

which there are currently no reliable

existing methods, (2) replace current

methods that require too much time

and/or are too costly, and (3) provide

methods that evolve into on-line process

analysis tools for use in waste

processing facilities.

Characterization of the elemental and

isotopic chemical constituents in DOE

tank waste is an important function in

support of DOE tank waste operation

and remediation functions. Proper waste

characterization enables: safe operation

of the tank farms; resolution of tank

safety questions; and development of

processes and equipment for retrieval,

pretreatment, and immobilization of

tank waste. All of these operations are

dependent on the chemical analysis of

tank waste.

Current techniques of tank waste

analysis involve the removal of core

samples from tanks, followed by costly

and time consuming wet analytical

laboratory testing. Savings in both cost

and time could be realized in

techniques that involve in situ probes

for direct analysis of tank materials.

Leakage from the single shell tanks at

Hanford is among the safety concerns.

As indicated earlier many of the 149

single shell tanks are known or

suspected to leak. This presents a grave

problem for retrieval of waste from these

tanks since the baseline method for

retrieval is to sluice thousands of

gallons of water into the tank to dissolve

and suspend the waste. HLW waste

leakage into the environment can

threaten the ground water. There is a

need to develop instrumentation to

determine the location of a leak,

measure the amounts of contamination

that may have leaked, and assess the

environmental impact.

Another safety concern is the longterm performance of waste forms.

Performance assessments of

radionuclide containment rely primarily

on the geologic barriers (e.g., long travel

times in hydrologic systems or sorption

on mineral surfaces). The physical and

chemical durability of the waste form,

however, can contribute greatly to the

successful isolation of radionuclides;

thus the effects of radiation on physical

properties and chemical durability of

waste forms are of great importance. The

changes in chemical and physical

properties occur over relatively long

periods of storage, up to a million years,

and at temperatures that range from 100

to 300 degrees Celsius, depending on

waste loading, age of the waste, depth

of burial, and the repository-specific

geothermal agent. Thus, a major

challenge is to effectively simulate highdose radiation effects that will occur

over relatively low-dose rates over long

periods of time at elevated

temperatures. Similarly, there is a

paramount need for improved

understanding and modeling of the

degradation mechanisms and behavior

of primary radioactive waste hosts and/

or their containment canisters, corrosion

mechanisms and prevention in aqueous

and/or alkali halide containing

environments, and remote sensing and

non-destructive evaluation.

Examples of specific science research

challenges include but are not limited

to: basic measurement science and

sensor development required for remote

detection of low concentrations of

hydrogen inside tanks and in

containers; basic analytical studies

needed to develop new methods for

chemical and physical characterization

of solid and liquids in slurries and for

development of advanced processing

methodologies; basic instrument

development needed to perform in situ

radiological measurements and collect

spatially resolved species and

concentration data; basic materials and

engineering science needed to develop

radiation hardened instrumentation.

Retrieval of Tank Waste and Tank

Closure

Underground tanks throughout the

DOE complex have stored a diverse

accumulation of wastes during the past

fifty years of weapons and fuel

production. If these tanks were isolated

in a manner that would preclude the

3568 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

escape of radiation into the environment

for thousands of years, there would be

no reason to disturb them. However, a

number of the storage tanks are

approaching the end of their design life,

and 90 tanks have either leaked or are

suspecting of having leaked waste into

the soil and sediments near the tanks.

Recently, dewatering processes have

removed much of the free liquid from

the alkaline waste tanks. The tanks now

contain wastes ranging in consistency

from remaining supernate and soft

sludge to concrete-like saltcake. Tanks

also contain miscellaneous foreign

objects such as Portland cement,

measuring tapes, samarium balls, and

in-tank hardware such as cooling coils

and piping. Unlimited sluicing, adding

large quantities of water to suspend

solids, is the baseline method for sludge

removal from tanks. This process is not

capable of retrieving all of the material

from tanks. Besides dealing with aging

tanks and difficult wastes, retrieval also

faces the problem of the tank design

itself. Retrieval tools must be able to

enter the tanks, which are under an

average of 10 feet of soil, through small

openings called risers in the tops of the

tanks.

Retrieval of tank waste and tank

closure requires tooling and process

alternative enhancements to mixing and

mobilizing bulk waste as well as

dislodging and conveying heels. Heel

removal is linked to tank closure. The

working tools and removal devices

being developed include suction

devices, rubblizing devices, water and

air jets, waste conditioning devices, grit

blasting devices, transport and

conveyance devices, cutting and

extraction tools, monitoring devices,

and various mechanical devices for

recovery or repair of waste dislodging

and conveyance tools.

The areas directly below the access

risers are often disturbed or contain a

significant amount of discarded debris.

Therefore, evaluation of tank waste

characteristics by measurements taken

at these locations may not be

representative of the properties of the

waste in other areas of the tanks.

To monitor current conditions and

plan for tank remediation, more

information on the tank conditions and

their contents is required. Current

methods used at DOE tank sites are

limited to positioning sensors,

instruments, and devices to locations

directly below access penetrations or

attached to a robotic arm for off-riser

positioning. These systems can only

deploy one type of sensor, requiring

multiple systems to perform more than

one function in the tank.

Currently, decisions regarding

necessary retrieval technologies,

retrieval efficiencies, retrieval durations,

and costs are highly uncertain.

Although tank closure has been

completed on only two HLW tanks (at

Savannah River), the tank contents

proved amenable to waste retrieval

using current technology. DOE has just

begun to address the issue of how clean

a tank must become before it is closed.

Continued demonstration that tank

closure criteria can be developed and

implemented will provide substantial

benefit to DOE.

A related problem that retrieval

process development is examining the

current lack of a retrieval decision

support tool for the end users. As

development activities move forward

toward collection of retrieval

performance and cost data, it has

become very evident that the various

sites across the complex need to have a

decision tool to assist end users with

respect to waste retrieval and tank

closure. Tank closure is intimately tied

to retrieval, and the sensitivity of

closure criteria to waste retrieval is

expected to be very large.

All the existing processes and

technologies that could be used as a

baseline for tank remediation have not

yet been identified. Identifying these

processes is one of EM’s major issues in

addressing the tank problems. The

overall purpose of retrieval

enhancements is to continue to lead the

efforts in the basic understanding and

development of retrieval processes in

which waste is mobilized sufficiently to

be transferred out of tanks in a costeffective and safe manner. From that

basic understanding, data are provided

to end users to assist them in the

retrieval decision-making process. The

overall purpose of retrieval

enhancements is to identify processes

that can be used to reduce cost, improve

efficiency, and reduce programmatic

risk.

Basic engineering and separation

science studies are needed to support

tank remediation of liquids, which

contain high concentrations of solids.

Pretreatment and Separation Processes

for Tank Waste

About 90 million gallons of HLW are

stored in tanks at four primary sites

within the DOE complex. It is neither

cost-effective nor practical to treat and

dispose of all of the tank waste to meet

the requirements of the HLW repository

program and the Nuclear Waste Policy

Act. The pretreatment area seeks to

address multiple needs across the DOE

complex. The primary objectives are to

reduce the volume of HLW, reduce

hazards associated with treating LLW,

and minimize the generation of

secondary waste.

The current baseline technology

systems for waste pretreatment at DOE’s

tank waste sites are expensive, and

technology gaps exist. Large volumes of

HLW will be generated, while there is

limited space in the planned Nuclear

Waste Repository for HLW from DOE.

Even if adequate space were made

available, treatment and disposal of

HLW is still very expensive, estimated

to be about $1 million for each canister

of vitrified HLW. Only a small fraction

of the tank waste, by weight, is made up

of HLW radionuclides. The bulk of the

waste is chemical constituents

intermingled with, and sometimes

chemically bonded to, the

radionuclides. The chemicals and

radionuclides can be separated into

HLW and LLW fractions for less costly

treatment and disposal.

Most of the tank waste was generated

as a result of nuclear fuel processing for

weapons production. In that process,

irradiated fuel and its cladding were

first dissolved, uranium and plutonium

were recovered as products, and the

highly radioactive fission product

wastes were concentrated and sent to

the tanks for long-term storage.

Fuel processing at SRS did not change

substantially from the beginning of

operations in about 1955 to the present.

While these wastes are fairly uniform,

they still require pretreatment to

separate the LLW from HLW prior to

immobilization. Liquid waste at INEEL

is stored under acidic pH conditions in

stainless steel tanks. The original liquid

high level waste has been calcined at

high temperature to a dry powder. At

Hanford, several processes were used

over the years (beginning in 1944), each

with a different chemical process. This

resulted in different waste volumes and

compositions. Wastes at Hanford and

SRS are stored as highly alkaline

material so as not to corrode the carbon

steel tanks. The process of converting

the waste from acid to alkaline resulted

in the formation of different physical

forms within the waste.

The primary forms of tank waste

include sludge, saltcake, and liquid. The

bulk of the radioactivity is known to be

in the sludge which makes it the largest

source of HLW. Saltcake is

characteristic of the liquid waste with

most of the water removed. Saltcake is

found primarily in older single-shell

tanks at Hanford.

Saltcake and liquid waste contain

mostly sodium nitrate and sodium

hydroxide salts. They also contain

soluble radionuclides such as cesium.

Strontium, technetium, and transuranics

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3569

are also present in varying

concentrations. The radionuclides must

be removed; leaving a large portion of

waste to be treated and disposed of as

LLW and a very small portion that is

combined with HLW from sludge for

subsequent treatment and disposition.

Over the years, tank waste has been

blended and evaporated to conserve

space. Although sludge contains most of

the radionuclides, the amount of HLW

glass produced (vitrification is the

preferred treatment of HLW) could be

very high without pretreatment of the

sludge. Pretreatment of the sludge by

washing with alkaline solution can

remove certain nonradioactive

constituents and reduce the volume of

HLW. Pretreatment can also remove

constituents that could degrade the

stability of HLW glass. The pretreatment

area seeks to address multiple needs

across the DOE complex. The primary

objectives are to reduce the volume of

HLW, reduce hazards associated with

treating LLW, and minimize the

generation of secondary waste.

The concentration of certain chemical

constituents such as phosphorus, sulfur,

and chromium in sludge can greatly

increase the volume of HLW glass

produced upon vitrification of the

sludge. These components have limited

solubility in the molten glass at very

low concentrations. Some sludge has

high concentrations of aluminum

compounds, which can also be a

controlling factor in determining the

volume of HLW glass produced.

Aluminum above a threshold

concentration in the glass must be

balanced with proportional amounts of

other glass-forming constituents such as

silica. There are estimated to be 25

different types of sludge at Hanford

distributed among more than 100 tanks.

Samples from 49 tanks would represent

approximately 93 percent of the sludge

in Hanford tanks. Testing of enhanced

sludge washing, the combination of

caustic leaching and water washing of

sludge, on all of these samples is needed

to determine whether enhanced sludge

washing will result in an acceptable

volume of HLW glass destined for the

repository and will allow processing in

existing carbon steel tanks at Hanford

and SRS.

The efficiency of enhanced sludge

washing is not completely understood.

Inadequate removal of key sludge

components could result in production

of an unacceptably large volume of

HLW glass. Improvements are needed to

increase the separation of key sludge

constituents from the HLW.

Enhanced sludge washing is planned

to be performed batch-wise in large

double-shell tanks of nominal one

million gallon capacity. This will

generate substantial volumes of waste

solutions that require treatment and

disposal as LLW. Settling times for

suspended solids may be excessive and

the possibility of colloid or gel

formation could prohibit large-scale

processing. Alternatives are needed that

will reduce the amount of chemical

addition required and prevent the

possibility of colloid formation. Sludge

at SRS and Hanford will be washed to

remove soluble components prior to

vitrification. Removing suspended

solids from the wash solutions is

inherently inefficient due to long

intervals required for the solids to settle

out.

Approximately 1.2 million gallons of

acidic liquid waste are stored in singleshell, stainless steel, underground

storage tanks at INEEL. In 1992, a Notice

of Noncompliance was filed by the State

of Idaho stating that the tanks did not

meet secondary containment

requirements of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act.

Subsequently, an agreement was

reached between DOE, the

Environmental Protection Agency, and

the Idaho Department of Health and

Welfare that commits DOE to remove

the liquid waste from all underground

tanks by the year 2015. Recent

discussions with the state of Idaho have

accelerated this date to 2012.

The baseline treatment for INEEL

liquid and calcine waste was recently

reviewed as part of the site’s

Environmental Impact Statement

process. The site is now developing a

revised roadmap to pursue direct

vitrification of the liquid waste and

determine the best path to treat the

calcine.

The transuranic extraction process for

removal of actinides, or transuranics,

from acidic wastes has been tested on

actual Idaho waste in continuous

countercurrent process equipment. The

strontium extraction process shows

promise for co-extraction of strontium

and technetium and also has been

demonstrated on Idaho waste in

continuous countercurrent operation.

DOE’s underground storage tanks at

Hanford, SRS, and INEEL contain liquid

wastes with high concentrations of

radioactive cesium. Cesium is the

primary radioactive constituent found

in alkaline supernatant wastes. Since

the primary chemical components of

alkaline supernatants are sodium nitrate

and sodium hydroxide, the majority of

the waste could be disposed of as LLW

if the radioactivity could be reduced

below Nuclear Regulatory Commission

limits. Processes have been

demonstrated that removed cesium from

alkaline supernatants and concentrate it

for eventual treatment and disposal as

HLW.

At Hanford, cesium must be removed

to a very low level (3 Ci/m3) to allow

supernatant waste to be treated as LLW

and disposed of in a near-surface

disposal facility. The revised Hanford

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent

Order, or Tri-Party Agreement (between

DOE, Environmental Protection Agency

and the Washington State Department of

Ecology) also recommends treatment of

LLW in a contact-maintained or

minimally shielded vitrification facility

to speed remediation and reduce costs.

Cesium removal performance data are

needed to estimate dose rates for this

process and provide input to the design

of an LLW pretreatment facility for

Hanford supernatants.

At SRS, cesium removal from saltcake

waste was planned to be accomplished

through use of an in-tank precipitation

process. Due to safety and technical

challenges, that process was abandoned.

Three alternatives including alkaline

solvent extraction, cesium ion exchange

using crystalline silicotitanate and small

tank tetraphenylborate precipitation are

currently being evaluated for use in

treating the SRS saltcake waste. Cesium

removal may also be needed to separate

cesium from Defense Waste Processing

Facility recycle, or offgas condensate, to

greatly reduce the amount of cesium

that is routed back to the waste storage

tanks.

Technetium (Tc)-99 has a long halflife (210,000 years) and is very mobile

in the environment when in the form of

the pertechnetate ion. Removal of Tc

from alkaline supernatants and sludge

washing liquids is expected to be

required at Hanford to permit treatment

and disposal of these wastes as LLW.

The disposal requirements are being

determined by the long-term

performance assessment of the LLW

waste form in the disposal site

environment. It is also expected that Tc

removal will be required for at least

some wastes to meet Nuclear Regulatory

Commission LLW criteria for

radioactive content. To meet these

expected requirements, there is a need

to develop technology that will separate

this extremely long-lived radionuclide

from the LLW stream and concentrate it

for feed to HLW vitrification.

A number of liquid streams

encountered in tank waste pretreatment

contain fine particulate suspended

solids. These streams may include tank

waste supernatant, waste retrieval

sluicing water, and sludge wash

solutions. Other process streams with

potential for suspended solids include

evaporator products and ion exchange

3570 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

feed and product streams. Suspended

solids will foul process equipment such

as ion exchangers. Radioactive solids

will carry over into liquid streams

destined for LLW treatment, increasing

waste volume for disposal and

increasing the need for shielding of

process equipment. Streams with solid/

liquid separation needs exist at all of the

DOE tank waste sites.

Some examples of specific science

research challenges include but are not

limited to: fundamental analytical

chemical studies needed for

improvement of separation processes;

materials science of waste forms

germane to their performance;

elucidation of technetium chemistry;

basic engineering and separation

science studies required to support

pretreatment activities and the

development of solid/liquid separations;

fundamental separations chemistry of

precipitating agent and ion exchange

media needed to support the

development of improved methods for

decontamination of HLW; fundamental

physical chemistry studies of sodium

nitrate/nitrite needed for HLW

processing; basic materials science

studies concerned with the dissolution

of mixed oxide materials characteristic

of calcine waste needed to design

improved pretreatment processes; basic

chemistry of sodium when mixed with

rare earth oxides needed for the

development of alternative HLW forms.

Waste Immobilization and Disposal

Waste immobilization processes

convert radioactive waste into solid

waste forms that will last in natural

environments for thousands of years.

DOE tank wastes requiring

immobilization include LLW such as

the pretreated liquid tank waste and

HLW such as the tank sludge. There are

also a number of secondary wastes

requiring immobilization that result

from tank waste remediation operations,

such as resins from cesium and

technetium removal operations.

The baseline technologies to

immobilize radioactive wastes from

underground storage tanks at DOE sites

include converting LLW to either grout

or glass and converting HLW to

borosilicate glass. Grout is a cementbased waste form that is produced in a

mixer tank and then poured into

canisters or pumped into vaults. Glass

waste forms are created in a ceramiclined metal furnace called a melter.

Tank waste and dry materials used to

form glass are mixed and heated in the

melter to temperatures ranging from

1,800 F to 2,200 F. The molten mixture

is then poured into log-shaped canisters

for storage and disposal. The working

assumption is that the LLW will be

disposed of on site, or at the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant if transuranic

elements are present. The HLW will be

shipped for off-site disposal in a

licensed HLW repository, such as the

one proposed at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada.

Methods are needed to immobilize the

LLW fraction resulting from the

separation of radionuclides from the

liquid and high-level calcine wastes at

INEEL. LLW is to be mixed with grout,

poured into steel drums, and transferred

to an interim storage facility, but

alternatives are being considered. Tests

must be conducted with surrogate and

actual wastes to support selection of a

final waste form. SRS has selected

saltstone grout (pumped to above

ground concrete vaults and solidified)

as the final waste form for LLW.

DOE sites at Hanford, SRS, and INEEL

will remove cesium from the hazardous

radioactive liquid waste in the

underground storage tanks. If cesium is

removed, it costs less to treat the rest of

the waste. However, cesium removal

from tank waste, while cost-effective,

creates a significant volume of solid

waste that must be turned into a final

waste form for ultimate disposal. The

plan is to separate cesium from the

liquid waste using ion exchange or other

separations media, treat the cesiumloaded separations media to prepare it

for vitrification, and convert the cesium

product into a glass waste form suitable

for final disposal. Personnel exposures

during processing and the amount of

hazardous species in the offgases must

be kept within safe limits at all times.

The effectiveness of advanced

oxidation technology for treating

organic cesium-loaded separations

media prior to vitrification is not

proven. After a suitable melter feed is

obtained, vitrification of the cesiumloaded media must be demonstrated.

Technology development is needed

because: (1) Compounds are in the

separation media that must be destroyed

or they will cause flammability

problems in the melter and decrease the

durability and waste loading of the final

waste form; (2) High beta/gamma dose

rates are associated with handling

cesium-containing waste; and (3)

Cesium volatizes in the melter and

becomes a highly radioactive offgas

problem.

Confidence and assurance that longterm immobilization will be successful

in borosilicate glass warrants research

and improved understanding of the

structural and thermodynamic

properties of glass (including the

structure and energetics of stable and

metastable phases), systematic

irradiation studies that will simulate

long term self-irradiation doses and

spectra, (including archived glasses

containing Pu or Cm, and over the

widest range of dose, dose rate and

temperature) and predictive theory and

modeling based on computer

simulations (including ab initio, Monte

Carlo, and other methods).

Some examples of specific science

research challenges include but are not

limited to: fundamental chemical

studies needed to determine species

concentrations above molten glass

solutions containing heavy metals,

cesium, strontium, lanthanides,

actinides, with and without a cold cap

composed of unmelted material;

materials science studies of molten

materials that simulate conditions

anticipated during vitrification and

storage in vitrified form of HLW needed

to develop improved processes and

formulations; fundamental physical

chemistry studies of sodium nitrate/

nitrite mixtures needed for HLW

stabilization.

References for Background Information

Note: World Wide Web locations of these

documents are provided where possible. For

those without access to the World Wide Web,

hard copies of these references may be

obtained by writing Mark A. Gilbertson at the

address listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this Notice.

DOE. 2000. DOE’s Research and

Development Portfolio for FY 2001.

http://www.osti.gov/portfolio/.

DOE. 2000. Paths to Closure—A

collection of documents on accelerating

clean-up. http://www.em.doe.gov/

closure/.

DOE. 2000. Tanks Focus Area

References and Bibliography http://

www.pnl.gov/tfa/back/reference.stm.

DOE. 2000. Environmental

Management Dynamic Organization

Chart. http://www.em.doe.gov/

orgchart.html.

DOE. 2000. Environmental

Management Science Program. http://

www.em.doe.gov/.

DOE. 2000. Office of Science and

Technology (EM–50). http://

ost.em.doe.gov/.

NRC. 2000. Long-Term Research

Needs for High-Level Waste at

Department of Energy Sites: Interim

Report. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/

9992.html.

NRC. 2000. Alternatives for HighLevel Waste Salt Processing at the

Savannah River Site. http://

www.nap.edu/books/0309071941/html/.

NRC. 1999. Disposition of High-Level

Radioactive Waste Through Geological

Isolation: Development, Current Status,

and Technical and Policy Challenges.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3571

http://books.nap.edu/books/

0309067782/html/1.html.

NRC. 1999. Interim Report—

Committee on Cesium Processing

Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the

Savannah River Site. http://

books.nap.edu/books/NI000350/html/

index.html.

NRC. 1999. Alternative High-Level

Waste Treatments at the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory. http://books.nap.edu/books/

030906628X/html/129.html.

(The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number for this program is 81.049, and the

solicitation control number is ERFAP 10 CFR

Part 605.)

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9,

2001.

John Rodney Clark,

Associate Director of Science for Resource

Management.

[FR Doc. 01–1184 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy; Federal Energy

Management Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy; Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces an

open meeting of the Federal Energy

Management Advisory Committee

(FEMAC). The Federal Advisory

Committee Act (Public Law 92—463, 86

Stat. 770) requires that these meetings

be announced in the Federal Register to

allow for public participation. This

notice announces the second meeting of

FEMAC, an advisory committee

established under Executive Order

13123, ‘‘Greening the Government

through Efficient Energy Management.’’

DATES: Thursday, January 25, 2001; 1:30

p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Friday, January 26,

2001; 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel,

480 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington,

DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Huff, Designated Federal

Officer for the Committee, Office of

Federal Energy Management Programs,

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–3507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of meeting: To provide

advice and guidance on Federal Energy

Management.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will

include discussions on the following:

Thursday, January 25, 2001, and Friday,

January 26, 2001

• Federal energy management budget

• Energy-savings performance contracts

• Utility energy-efficiency service

contracts

• Procurement of ENERGY STAR

(Registered Trademark) and other

energy efficient products

• Building design

• Process energy use

• Applications of efficient and

renewable energy technologies

(including clean energy

technologies) at Federal facilities

• Public comment

Public Participation: In keeping with

procedures, members of the public are

welcome to observe the business of the

Federal Energy Management Advisory

Committee. If you would like to file a

written statement with the Committee,

you may do so either before or after the

meeting. If you would like to make oral

statements regarding any of these items

on the agenda, you should contact

Steven Huff at (202) 586–3507 or

Steven.Huff@ee.doe.gov. You must make

your request for an oral statement at

least five business days before the

meeting. Members of the public will be

heard in the order in which they sign up

at the beginning of the meeting.

Reasonable provision will be made to

include the scheduled oral statements

on the agenda. The Chair of the

Committee will make every effort to

hear the views of all interested parties.

The Chair will conduct the meeting to

facilitate the orderly conduct of

business. This notice is being published

less than 15 days before the date of the

meeting due to programmatic issues that

had to be resolved prior to publication.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting

will be available for public review and

copying within 30 days at the Freedom

of Information Public Reading Room;

Room 1E–190; Forrestal Building; 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and

4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Issued at Washington, D.C., on January 10,

2001.

Rachel M. Samuel,

Deputy Advisory Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–1183 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP01–201–000]

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Proposed

Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

January 9, 2001.

Take notice that on December 29,

2000, Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation (Columbia) tendered for

filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,

Second Revised Volume No. 1, the

following revised tariff sheets, bearing a

proposed effective date of February 1,

2001:

Forty-eighth Revised Sheet No. 25

Forty-eighth Revised Sheet No. 26

Forty-eighth Revised Sheet No. 27

Forty-third Revised Sheet No. 28

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 28B

Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 29

Twenty-second Revised Sheet No. 30A

Columbus states that this filing is

being submitted pursuant to an order

issued September 15, 1999, the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission

(Commission) approved an uncontested

settlement that resolves environmental

cost recovery issues in the abovereferenced proceeding. Columbia Gas

Transmission Corporation, 88 FERC ¶

61,217 (1999). The settlement

established environmental cost recovery

through unit components of base rates,

all as more fully set forth in Article VI

of the settlement agreement filed April

5, 1999 (Phase II Settlement).

Columbia is required to file annually

a limited NGA Section 4 filing to adjust

its environmental unit components

effective February 1 to recover its

environmental costs covered by the

Phase II Settlement, within agreed-upon

ceilings and recovery percentages. For

the annual period February 1, 2001

through January 31, 2002, the Phase II

Settlement permits Columbia to collect

‘‘no more than $14 million annually in

Main Program Costs’’, and ‘‘no more

than $3 million annually in Storage

Well Program Costs.’’ Article VI(B) of

the Phase II Settlement. The instant

filing satisfies that requirement. It

provides for the February 1, 2001

effectiveness of revised unit

components designed to collect $7.8

million in Main Program Costs and $2.8

million of Storage Well Program Costs

Columbia states that copies of its

filing have been mailed to all firm

customers, interruptible customers and

affected state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or a protest with the