[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19914-19917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11034]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Plutonium Finishing Plant Stabilization Environmental Impact 
Statement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Limited Reopening of Public Comment Period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is evaluating alternatives 
for stabilizing plutonium-bearing materials at the Plutonium Finishing 
Plant (PFP) Facility, located at the Hanford Site near Richland, 
Washington. On December 5, 1995 (60 FR 62244), the DOE announced the 
availability of the Plutonium Finishing Plant Stabilization Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0244-D). The Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and its implementing 
regulations. Subsequent to issuing the Draft EIS, DOE issued a proposed 
policy for comment regarding the treatment and disposition of excess 
residues with plutonium concentrations below 50 weight-percent. 
Following an analysis using this draft policy, DOE has concluded that 
it may be cost-effective to immobilize up to 280 kg (617 lb) of the 
plutonium-bearing materials at the PFP Facility and transport it to 
Hanford Site solid waste management facilities for storage. The EIS is 
therefore being revised to include an evaluation of the environmental 
impacts of implementing this alternative. A determination that this 
plutonium-bearing material lacks a beneficial use has not been made and 
this alternative would only be selected subsequent to such a decision. 
The intent of this notice is to notify the public of an additional 
alternative that would immobilize certain plutonium-bearing materials, 
and to reopen the comment period for 21 days in order to solicit 
comments on the proposed alternative.

DATES: DOE invites written and oral comments on the immobilization 
alternative from all interested parties. Comments or suggestions 
regarding the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the 
immobilization alternative will be

[[Page 19915]]

considered in preparing the Record of Decision, and should be submitted 
(postmarked) by May 24, 1996. Comments received after that date will be 
considered to the degree practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the immobilization alternative may be made 
during the comment period by calling DOE toll free at 1-888-946-3700; 
by facsimile to 509/946-3734; by electronic mail to InterNet address 
``b____ f____ jr____ <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4d6d1daebebebebd6c1c6c0dbdaf4c6d89ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e082858ebfbfbfbf829592948f8ea0928cce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>''; or by writing to PFP 
Stabilization EIS, Attn: Mr. Ben Burton, PO Box 550, MSIN B1-42, 
Richland, WA 99352.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the DOE 
NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director of NEPA 
Policy and Assistance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202/586-4600 or 1-800-
472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In two Notices of Intent published in the 
Federal Register on October 27, 1994 (59 FR 53969) and November 23, 
1994 (59 FR 60358), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced its 
intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to resolve 
safety issues associated with the continued presence of relatively 
large quantities of chemically reactive materials at the Plutonium 
Finishing Plant (PFP) Facility. A Draft EIS was prepared pursuant to 
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA in order to provide an objective, technical 
basis for decision makers and the public to evaluate alternatives to: 
(1) Convert plutonium-bearing materials at the PFP Facility into a more 
stable, safer form; (2) reduce radiation exposure to PFP Facility 
workers; and (3) reduce the cost of maintaining the PFP Facility and 
its contents. A preferred alternative for resolving the safety issue 
was identified to remove readily retrievable plutonium-bearing material 
in hold-up at the PFP Facility and stabilize these and other plutonium-
bearing materials at the PFP Facility through four treatment processes: 
(1) Ion exchange, vertical calcination, and thermal stabilization of 
plutonium-bearing solutions; (2) thermal stabilization using a 
continuous furnace for oxides, fluorides, and process residues; (3) 
repackaging of metals and alloys; and (4) pyrolysis of polycubes and 
combustibles. The availability of this Draft EIS was announced in a 
Federal Register notice on December 5, 1995 (60 FR 62244).
    Subsequent to issuing the Draft EIS, DOE issued a proposed policy 
for comment regarding the treatment and disposition of excess 
plutonium-bearing residues. This draft policy specifies that materials 
with plutonium concentrations less than 50 weight-percent are 
candidates for processing as waste for disposal, or separation from its 
residue matrix and packaging for storage according to DOE's safe 
storage criteria. Each responsible field office would evaluate which 
end state would be more cost-effective for each quantity, batch or 
category of plutonium-bearing residues. The performance factors for 
cost-effectiveness include worker exposure, waste generation, and cost. 
In addition, commentors during the public hearing requested that DOE 
consider an alternative of disposing of plutonium bearing material as 
waste.
    Following an analysis using this draft policy, an in consideration 
of comments received during the public hearing on the Draft EIS, DOE 
has concluded that it may be cost-effective to immobilize up to 280 kg 
(617 lb) of the plutonium-bearing materials at the PFP Facility, and 
transport it to Hanford Site solid waste management facilities for 
storage. The EIS is therefore being revised to include an evaluation of 
the environmental impacts associated with this alternative. The 
following information describes the proposed immobilization alternative 
and identifies the associated potential environmental impacts. It is 
organized as follows:

I. Process Description
II. Anticipated Environmental Impacts
    A. Health Effects
    B. Air Quality
    C. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Capacity
    D. Transportation
III. Alternatives for Immobilization
IV. Availability of the Immobilization Alternative

I. Process Description

    The current inventory of plutonium at the PFP Facility includes up 
to 280 kg (617 lb) of plutonium in concentrations less than 50 weight 
percent that DOE has identified as potentially being suitable for 
immobilization. This inventory includes oxides, process residues, and 
miscellaneous/other combustibles. The bulk of this material is stored 
in the PFP Facility vaults.
    These plutonium-bearing materials would be immobilized within 
gloveboxes at the PFP Facility. A cement system was selected as a 
reasonable method to represent the potential immobilization options 
because: (1) the ingredients are inexpensive, safe, and readily 
available; (2) the equipment needs are simple; (3) the final waste form 
has proven stability and meets the waste acceptance criteria for the 
Hanford site solid waste management facilities; (4) it has been used 
extensively at the Hanford Site for immobilizing wastes; and (5) 
impacts from its use should be similar to those incurred for any other 
reasonable immobilization technique.
    Equipment for the immobilization process would be identified and 
sized based on the follow special considerations: (1) waste and cement 
feeding equipment that would control feed rates; (2) cooling equipment 
to maintain a low temperature for the cement-waste-water mixture to 
minimize water vapor in the glovebox; and (3) reuse of containers when 
possible.
    The plutonium-bearing material would be mixed with cement, and the 
mixture would be placed within nominal 3.4-liter (0.9 gallon) 
containers. The containers would remain in the glovebox and allowed to 
cure. Curing hardens the mixture and fixes the plutonium into the 
cemented matrix. After curing, a lid would be placed over the 
container. Once three containers were readied in this manner, they 
would be removed from the glovebox and packaged.
    The containers would be packaged in accordance with the waste 
acceptance criteria for the Hanford Site solid waste management 
facilities. Packaging would include a 15.25-cm (6-in) diameter pipe 
container in 55-gallon drum configuration. The pipe container in drum 
configuration was selected as the preferred packaging technique 
compared to other packaging methods because it results in the fewest 
number of total drums and will, therefore, result in less exposure to 
workers. The pipe container in drum configuration would enable three 
steel encased, cemented waste containers to be placed in each drum. The 
maximum allowable limit for plutonium in each pipe container in drum 
configuration is 200 g (0.44 lb). Up to 1,600 drums of waste with a 
nominal plutonium content of 170 g (0.37 lb) per drum would be 
generated by this alternative.
    Following packaging, the drums would be managed as transuranic or 
radioactive mixed waste. All waste drums would be transferred from the 
PFP Facility to Hanford site solid waste management facilities for 
continued onsite storage.

II. Anticipated Environmental Impacts

    Impacts from the alternative for immobilizing plutonium-bearing 
materials were evaluated in terms of the following elements: health 
effects; air quality; waste treatment, storage, and disposal capacity; 
and transportation.

[[Page 19916]]

A. Health Effects

    Health effects to PFP Facility workers, other Hanford Site workers, 
and members of the public from exposure to ionizing radiation would 
result from implementing the immobilization alternative. Both normal 
operations and accident conditions would contribute to radiation 
exposures. Conservative estimates of the possible consequences from the 
immobilization activities were quantified in terms of dose and latent 
cancer fatalities probabilities. Tables 1 and 2 tabulate these possible 
consequences.

                           Table 1.--Anticipated Health Effects from Routine Releases                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Latent cancer fatality   
   Exposed individual or population                   Dose received                         probability         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFP Facility Workers.................  80 person-rem                               0.03                         
Hypothetical Maximally Exposed         1.2 x 10<SUP>-4 rem                              5.0 x 10<SUP>-8                   
 Individual (Hanford Site Worker).                                                                              
Hanford Site Workers.................  6.2 x 10<SUP>-4 person-rem                       2.5 x 10<SUP>-7                   
Hypothetical Maximally Exposed         2.3 x 10<SUP>-5 rem                              1.1 x 10<SUP>-8                   
 Individual (Off-site Public).                                                                                  
General Public (352,500 people)......  2.2 person-rem                              1.1 x 10<SUP>-3                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Table 2.--Anticipated Health Effects from Accident Releases                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hypothetical maximally exposed                                                     Latent cancer fatality   
              individual                              Dose received                         probability         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFP Facility Worker..................  210 rem                                     8.4 x 10<SUP>-2                   
Hanford Site Worker..................  1.6 x 10<SUP>-4 rem                              6.5 x 10<SUP>-8                   
Off-site Individual..................  5.7 x 10<SUP>-5 rem                              2.9 x 10<SUP>-8                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Air Quality

    Implementing the immobilization alternative would not result in 
appreciable impacts to air quality. High efficiency particulate air 
filters in use at the PFP Facility would minimize the amount of 
contaminants that would be discharged to the atmosphere. Although most 
expected air contaminants would be trapped by these filters, some fine 
particulates, referred to as PM<INF>10 (particulates less than 10 
microns in size) would be emitted. The total estimated release of 
respirable particles from the immobilization alternative is 7.1 x 
10<SUP>-10 g/sec (1.6 x 10<SUP>-12 lb/sec). The maximum downwind 
contaminant concentrations projected by an Environmental Protection 
Agency-approved computer model and the ambient air standards are 
provided in Table 3. The contaminant levels anticipated from the 
immobilization alternative are significantly lower than the regulatory 
ambient air standard.

             Table 3.--Projected Maximum Ground Level Concentrations of Particulate Air Contaminants            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Maximum                                 
                                                                        average       Background     Ambient air
                          Air contaminant                           concentration<SUP>a  concentration<SUP>b    standard  
                                                                      (<greek-m>g/   (<greek-m>g/   (<greek-m>g/
                                                                          m<SUP>3)             m<SUP>3)            m<SUP>3)    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM<INF>10 (24-hr)......................................................    1.9 x 10<SUP>-9             81            150  
PM<INF>10 (Annual).....................................................   3.9 x 10<SUP>-10             27            50   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: a. Modeled maximum ground-level concentrations occurred at 630 m from the stack.                         
b. Background concentrations for PM<INF>10 taken from 1987 data (Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1991, Air Quality   
  Impact Analysis, PNL-7681, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington)                                

C. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Capacity

    Implementing the immobilization alternative would also result in 
impacts to treatment, storage, and disposal capacity. Hanford site 
solid waste management facilities that would receive the 1,600 drums 
anticipated to be generated as a result of the immobilization alternate 
include the Low Level Burial Grounds, Transuranic Waste Storage and 
Assay Facility, Central Waste Complex, and the Waste Receiving and 
Processing Facility. The available capacity at these facilities for 
managing low-level radioactive and mixed waste is considered 
sufficient. The available capacity for managing transuranic and 
transuranic mixed waste is currently being evaluated. This information 
will be available in the Final EIS.

D. Transportation

    Finally, implementing the immobilization alternative would result 
in transportation impacts. Over a 6 to 12 month period, up to 90 truck 
trips would result from the shipment of the immobilized materials from 
the PFP Facility to Hanford Site solid waste management facilities. 
This corresponds to an average of 7 to 15 trips per month. These trips 
would be short in distance (2 km [1.2 miles] or less) and would be made 
during off-peak hours. Compared with the current volume of vehicular 
traffic on nearby Hanford Site transport roadways, the additional truck 
trips would not be expected to adversely impact the existing or future 
Hanford Site transportation system.

III. Alternatives for Immobilization

    Cementation using a pipe container in drum configuration was 
selected because of its ability to satisfy packaging and immobilization 
requirements based on worker safety and economic considerations. A 
cement system was selected because it would meet acceptance criteria 
for Hanford Site solid waste management facilities; the ingredients are 
inexpensive, safe, and readily available; equipment requirements can be 
very simple; the final form has proven stability; and the method has 
been used extensively at the Hanford Site for immobilizing transuranic 
materials.

[[Page 19917]]

    In contrast, immobilizing of materials in a glass (i.e., 
vitrification) or a ceramic matrix was not considered desirable because 
of the cost, specialized equipment required, lack of such equipment on 
the Hanford Site, and lack of site experience. These factors would 
result in delays in implementing these alternatives. The lack of site 
experience and anticipated delays would result in additional health and 
safety risks.
    Another alternative would be to mix the plutonium with uranium to 
produce a mixed oxide fuel suitable for energy production in a nuclear 
power reactor. Because of the relatively small quantity of plutonium 
material being considered, it was not considered reasonable to develop 
the technology at Hanford to support this alternative.

IV. Availability of the Immobilization Alternative

    Copies of the proposed immobilization alternative may be reviewed 
at the following locations, or may be obtained by calling DOE at 1-888-
946-3700:

U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters, Freedom of Information 
Reading Room, Forrestall Building, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Room 
1E-0190, Washington, DC 20585, 202/586-3142
DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State University, Tri Cities 
Branch, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352, 509/376-8583
University of Washington, Suzzallo Library, Government Publications, 
15th Ave N.E. and Campus Parkway, Seattle, WA 98185, 206/543-1937
Gonzaga University, Foley Center, E. 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 
99258, 509/324-5931
Portland State University, Branford Price Millar Library, SW 
Harrison and Park, Portland, OR 97207, 503/725-3690

    Signed in Richland, Washington, this 25th day of April, 1996 for 
the United States Department of Energy.
Paul F.X. Dunigan, Jr.,
NEPA Compliance Officer, Richland Operations Office.
[FR Doc. 96-11034 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>