Intent To Prepare Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statements, Richland, WA

Federal RegisterJan 28, 1994

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Intent To Prepare Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System

Environmental Impact Statements, Richland, WA

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare two Environmental Impact

Statements (EISs) for proposed actions at the Hanford Site, Richland,

Washington. One EIS will address the proposed Tank Waste Remediation

System (TWRS) activities, and the second will address the proposed

construction of six new tanks for the storage of high-level radioactive

waste as an interim action to the TWRS EIS.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to

prepare two EISs pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in accordance with the Council

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the DOE

implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021), and to conduct a series of

public scoping meetings. It is intended that the TWRS EIS cover all

TWRS activities that are ripe for decision. In addition, DOE proposes

to prepare an EIS for the construction and operation of six new storage

tanks as an interim action while the TWRS EIS is being prepared,

consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 1506.1. The public scoping

period being announced in this NOI provides an opportunity for the

public to comment on the scope of issues to be addressed in both the

TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS.

The TWRS program is conducted in concert with the Hanford Federal

Facility Agreement and Consent Order (also called the Tri-Party

Agreement or TPA) among DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The

scope of the TWRS Program includes: Resolution of high-level

radioactive waste tank safety issues; management of high-level waste

tank farm operations; upgrading the tank farm infrastructure; waste

characterization; storage of wastes generated from Hanford cleanup

activities; tank farm waste retrieval, conditioning (e.g., evaporation/

dilution), pretreatment (e.g., radionuclide separation), and

immobilization (e.g., vitrification); construction of new high-level

waste tanks; storage of immobilized high-activity waste; storage/

disposal of immobilized low-activity waste; management of encapsulated

strontium and cesium; and technology development.

DOE has identified the immediate need for additional interim high-

level waste storage capacity to support the resolution of safety issues

associated with ``Watchlist'' tanks as identified pursuant to ``Safety

Measures for Waste Tanks at Hanford Nuclear Reservation,'' section 3137

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, P.L.

101-510. As an interim action to the TWRS EIS, the new tanks EIS will

address the proposed construction and operation of six new underground

storage tanks to support the resolution of safety issues concerning the

high-level waste in existing tanks.

In March 1993, DOE completed a rebaselining of the TWRS program to

ensure that the program to remediate Hanford tank wastes is

comprehensive, integrated and technically sound. Subsequently, the TPA

was renegotiated and revised. Public meetings on the revised TPA were

held in several locations statewide during November 1993. The revised

TPA is expected to be signed by all parties on January 25, 1994.

The proposed TWRS program actions constitute a major Federal action

significantly affecting the environment and, accordingly, DOE has

developed a strategy for providing the appropriate NEPA reviews for the

actions. The strategy consists of a TWRS EIS for the overall proposed

action to treat, store, and dispose of Hanford's stored high-level tank

waste, and an EIS for the new tanks as an interim action. In addition,

separate NEPA reviews for other interim actions may need to be

initiated during preparation of the TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS.

Such interim actions would include activities needed to maintain the

current waste management system; collect data and resolve urgent

pretreatment issues; and protect both the workers, the public and the

environment. The TWRS EIS will address the cumulative impacts of the

TWRS program including the new tanks and other interim actions.

In December 1987 the DOE completed the ``Final Environmental Impact

Statement on the Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic

and Tank Wastes'' (HDW EIS), which addressed the environmental

consequences of alternatives for disposal of wastes generated during

national defense activities and stored at the Hanford site. A Record of

Decision (ROD) issued in April 1988 has formed the basis for DOE's

programs to manage these wastes at the Hanford site.

In the HDW EIS ROD, DOE deferred final disposal decisions for the

tank wastes contained in single-shell tanks (SSTs), pending further

evaluations in a supplemental EIS. However, to meet regulatory

requirements, DOE's current planning basis is to retrieve SST waste,

and to integrate double-shell tank (DST) and SST waste management

activities leading to final disposal. Because DOE now proposes to

integrate SST and DST waste management programs, the TWRS EIS described

in this NOI will replace the previously planned supplement to the HDW

EIS.

The TWRS EIS will address the DOE's proposal for the management,

treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste currently stored in the

existing 149 SSTs and 28 DSTs and other wastes to be generated during

future decontamination and decommissioning activities at Hanford. DOE

recognizes that removal of waste from the tanks may trigger Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) treatment and disposal

requirements to complete closure of the tanks. However, the impacts of

tank closure cannot be meaningfully evaluated at this time. DOE will

conduct an appropriate NEPA review, such as an EIS to support tank

closure, in the future.

The planned interim action EIS will address the construction of six

new tanks and associated new transfer lines, and the tank operations.

For the purposes of this interim action EIS, operations considered

would be limited to the retrieval, pH adjustment or alkalinity control,

and storage of wastes from the Watchlist safety tanks. The primary

focus of the EIS would be the resolution of safety issues related to

the three tanks that are on the Watchlist because of hydrogen

generation (241-SY-101, 241-SY-103 and 241-AN-104), but the tanks may

also be used to alleviate safety concerns in other Watchlist tanks (50

tanks are currently on the Watchlist). Further decisions regarding the

retrieval, treatment and disposal of wastes from the Watchlist tanks

will be the subject of the TWRS EIS.

DATES: DOE invites all interested parties to submit written comments or

suggestions concerning the scope of the issues to be addressed,

alternatives to be analyzed, and the environmental impacts to be

assessed in the TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS, during a 45-day comment

period ending March 14, 1994. The public is also invited to attend

scoping meetings in which oral comments will be received on the

proposed TWRS EIS and the new tanks EIS. Oral and written comments will

be considered equally in preparation of the EISs. Written comments must

be postmarked by March 14, 1994. Comments postmarked after that date

will be considered to the extent practicable. Oral and written comments

will be received at public scoping meetings to be held on the dates and

at the locations given below:

Richland, Washington. February 14, 1994.... Hanford House--Red Lion

802 George Washington

Way. Richland, WA 99352

Hood River, Oregon... February 16, 1994.... The Hood River Inn/Best

Western 1108 East Marina

Way Hood River, OR 97031.

Portland, Oregon..... February 17, 1994.... Bonneville Power

Administration

Auditorium, 911 N.E. 11th

Avenue Portland, OR

97204.

Seattle, Washington.. February 22, 1994.... The Mountaineer's 300

Third Ave. West Seattle,

WA 98105.

Spokane, Washington.. February 24, 1994.... Spokane Convention Center

334 West Spokane Falls

Blvd. Spokane, WA 99201.

Each scoping session will begin with a welcome and introduction of

DOE officials, followed by short presentations by DOE officials on the

EIS process, the Hanford TWRS program and the proposed interim actions.

Individuals and organization spokespersons will then have an

opportunity to present oral comments to DOE representatives. The agenda

will be repeated twice a day at each location, in afternoon and evening

sessions. The hours for the sessions are: 1 pm to 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm

to 10 pm.

Requests to speak at these meetings may be made by calling the

toll-free telephone number, 1-800-500-1660, by 3 p.m. the day before

the meeting or by writing to Donald Alexander (see ADDRESSES, below).

The meetings will be chaired by a presiding officer but will not be

conducted as evidentiary hearings; speakers will not be cross-examined

although the presiding officer and DOE representatives present may ask

clarifying questions. Individuals requesting to speak on behalf of an

organization must identify the organization. A 5-minute limit will be

imposed on each individual speaker except that a speaker representing

an organization (one per organization) will be given a 10-minute limit.

These limits are to ensure that all who wish to speak have an

opportunity to do so. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter and

will become part of the scoping meeting record.

Persons who have not submitted a request to speak in advance of the

scoping meetings may register at the meetings and will be called on to

speak on a first-come first-served basis as time permits. Written

comments will also be accepted at the meetings, and speakers are

encouraged to provide written versions of their oral comments for the

record.

DOE will review scoping comments to determine their applicability

to the two proposed EISs. Records of, and responses to, the scoping

comments will be provided as appropriate in either the Implementation

Plan (IP) for the TWRS EIS or the IP for the new tanks EIS. The IPs

will provide guidance for preparation of the TWRS and new tanks EISs

and establish their scopes and content (10 CFR 1021.312). The IPs will

be issued prior to the release of the draft EISs and copies will be

available for inspection in public reading room locations to be

announced.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the TWRS EIS and the new

tanks EIS, questions concerning the tank waste program, requests for

speaking times, and requests for copies of the IPs and/or the Draft

EISs (DEISs) should be directed to the designated contact below. If any

additional DEISs are prepared for other interim actions, their

availability will be announced in the Federal Register and opportunity

will be provided for public review and comment as required by CEQ and

DOE regulations. Any interim action DEISs may also be obtained from the

designated contact below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald H. Alexander, Attn: Scoping

Comments, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 550, Richland, WA

99352, Telephone: 509-372-2453 or 1-800-500-1660.

For information on the DOE NEPA process, contact: Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight (EH-25), U.S. Department

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

Telephone: 202-586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Federal government created the Hanford Site, near Richland,

Washington, in 1943, as part of the Manhattan Project, to produce

plutonium for national defense. Metallic uranium fuel was irradiated in

nuclear reactors and then the fuel was chemically processed to recover

plutonium. Plutonium production at the Hanford Site stopped in 1988.

Processing of reactor fuel and other waste management activities

created a wide variety of radioactive wastes, including high-level

wastes that have been stored in underground tanks. The high-level

wastes came from many different processes and sources, and they have

been processed and transferred among tanks so that chemical and

physical characteristics of the wastes vary greatly among tanks and

even within individual tanks. Typically, the tank wastes are highly

radioactive and chemically hazardous.

SSTs have one steel wall, surrounded by reinforced concrete; they

were constructed between 1944 and 1964 and received waste until 1980.

The capacity of most SSTs is 0.5 million gallons (Mgal) to 1.0 Mgal.

The tanks are situated below grade and are covered with 6 to 10 feet of

earth.

Waste in SSTs consists of liquids, sludges, and saltcake, i.e.,

crusty solids made of crystallized salts. Some of the liquids in the

SSTs are contained in the pores of the sludges and saltcake, and some

liquids are free standing in the tanks.

There are 149 SSTs storing about 36 Mgal of waste. This waste is

comprised of approximately 0.6 Mgal of free-standing liquid, 23.2 Mgal

of saltcake, and 12.5 Mgal of sludge. About half of the SSTs have

leaked or are assumed to have leaked. Approximately 0.6 to 0.9 Mgal of

waste has leaked or spilled into the nearby soil. Over the years, much

of the liquid stored in SSTs has evaporated or been pumped to DSTs.

There are 28 one Mgal DSTs at Hanford. The DSTs were constructed

between 1970 and 1986. Most of these tanks are designed for up to 50

years of storage. DSTs have a second steel containment wall. The space

between the two walls is monitored for leaks. DOE has used the DSTs

since 1970 and none has been known to leak. The DSTs are used to treat

and store a variety of liquid radioactive wastes from the SSTs and from

various Hanford Site processes. The wastes are stored in tanks based

upon composition, level of radioactivity, or origin. The DSTs now

contain about 25 Mgal of waste.

In the 1960s and 1970s, radioactive strontium and cesium were

extracted from wastes in some SSTs. The strontium and cesium were

converted to salt forms and placed in double-walled capsules. Most of

the 610 strontium capsules and 1323 cesium capsules are stored at

Hanford. Some capsules were shipped offsite for beneficial use as heat

or radiation sources. Because the capsules were only leased from DOE,

it is anticipated that they will be returned to Hanford.

In the April 1988 HDW EIS ROD, DOE decided to proceed with

preparing the DST waste for final disposal because it was readily

retrievable. Wastes were to be processed in a pretreatment facility

(planned to be the Hanford B-Plant and AR Vault) to separate DST waste

into two portions. The larger portion would be low activity waste, and

a much smaller portion would be highly radioactive. The low activity

waste was to be mixed with a cement-like material to form grout. The

grout was to be poured into large, lined, concrete, near-surface,

underground vaults where it would solidify.

The high activity waste fraction was to be made into a borosilicate

glass and poured into stainless-steel canisters (approximately 0.6 m

diameter by 3 m long) at the proposed Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant

(HWVP). The canisters were to be stored there until a geologic

repository was ready to receive this waste.

Existing and future DST wastes were to be characterized for

hazardous chemical constituents as well as other constituents that

might affect glass or grout formulations before processing. This

characterization would also help ensure that proper treatment, in

accordance with hazardous waste regulations, occurred before disposal

of the waste.

The HDW EIS ROD also called for storage of cesium and strontium

capsules to continue until a geologic repository is ready to receive

this waste for disposal. Before shipment to the repository, the

capsules would be packaged to meet repository acceptance criteria.

In the HDW EIS ROD, DOE decided to conduct additional development

and evaluation before making decisions on final disposal of SST wastes.

This development and evaluation effort was to focus both on methods to

retrieve and process SST wastes for disposal and to stabilize and

isolate the wastes near-surface. SST waste would continue to be stored

and monitored. Before a decision on the final disposal of the wastes

could be made, the alternatives were to be analyzed in a supplement to

the HDW EIS.

Several significant changes have occurred subsequent to the HDW

EIS. These include the identification of significant waste tank safety

issues; the DOE, EPA and Ecology signing the TPA; the elimination of B-

Plant from consideration as a waste pretreatment facility; the delay of

the HWVP; and the proposal to treat SST waste with DST waste. These

changes resulted in DOE's proposal to integrate all Hanford tank waste

remediation efforts. As a result, resolving waste tank safety issues,

planning for SST waste retrieval, and developing pretreatment

facilities have become major elements of the proposed Hanford tank

waste remediation program.

Purpose and Need for Agency

ACTION:

DOE needs to take action to treat, store, and dispose of Hanford's

stored high-level tank waste and encapsulated strontium and cesium and

to reduce the overall potential risks posed by the tank wastes. This

entails addressing four major programmatic elements: Retrieval,

pretreatment, immobilization, and storage/disposal. More specifically,

these programmatic elements include:

Retrieval of SST and DST wastes.

Conditioning (e.g., evaporation/dilution) of wastes.

Waste pretreatment.

New infrastructure such as facilities, tanks, and transfer

lines.

Production of a stabilized high-activity waste form.

Interim storage for the stabilized high-activity waste

form.

Production and disposal of a stabilized low-activity waste

form.

Management of encapsulated strontium and cesium inventory.

DOE also needs to address closure of tanks (including disposal of

tanks, piping, ancillary facilities, and contaminated soil). Although

tank closure is included in the TPA, closure is not included in the

proposed action for the TWRS EIS because the impacts of tank closure

cannot be meaningfully evaluated at this time. DOE will conduct an

appropriate NEPA review, such as preparing a tank closure EIS, in the

future.

TWRS EIS Alternatives

A number of alternatives can be constructed from the range of

options available for the four major subcomponents of the TWRS, which

are retrieval, pretreatment, immobilization and storage/disposal.

Combinations of these options comprise the range of reasonable

alternatives currently envisioned for TWRS. The TPA establishes one

specific case within the range of alternatives to be considered in the

TWRS EIS. The TWRS EIS will also evaluate a number of other

alternatives constructed from the range of options described for the

four major subcomponents of the TWRS and a no-action alternative in

order to adequately evaluate the full range of potential environmental

impacts.

TPA Preferred Alternative

On March 31, 1993, DOE, EPA, and Ecology agreed to enter into

formal negotiations on matters relating to Hanford tank waste

remediation, environmental restoration activities, cost control, and

implementation and administration of the Hanford Federal Facility

Agreement and Consent Order. The negotiations were concluded in

September 1993, with tentative agreement on all matters under

negotiation. The revised TPA received public review during November

1993, and the TPA was scheduled to be signed by the three parties on

January 25, 1994. The full TPA covers subjects outside the purview of

the TWRS program. The elements of the TPA which are within the scope of

the TWRS program constitute elements of the preferred alternative for

purposes of the TWRS EIS. Accordingly, the TPA preferred alternative

consists of the following activities:

Upgrading the infrastructure of the high-level waste tank

farms to provide improved facility management and operation.

Characterization of the wastes in all 177 SSTs and DSTs to

facilitate treatment, immobilization and disposal.

Construction and operation of additional DSTs (beyond the

six tanks proposed in the interim action EIS noticed here) as necessary

to support waste management and disposal.

Stabilization of SST waste by removing and storing the

pumpable liquids in DSTs, thus reducing the potential for leaks to the

surrounding soil.

Retrieval of the waste from SSTs and DSTs with priority on

the SSTs. The retrieval criterion is removal of 99% of the waste from

all SSTs on a tank-by-tank basis.

Construction and operation of a waste pretreatment

facility to treat the tank waste and to prepare the low-activity

fraction for final processing. The high-activity fraction of the waste

would be stored pending final processing. Separate complexes would be

constructed to house enhanced sludge washing and cesium and strontium

ion exchange processes. An evaporator would be included in the low-

activity waste pretreatment complex. These complexes could be stand-

alone facilities, a set of distributed facilities, or part of a central

processing complex.

Construction and operation of a low-activity waste

vitrification plant of appropriate capacity. Bounding analysis may be

used if definitive designs are not available. DOE would maintain in a

standby condition the capability to restart the grout facility if its

operation is necessary before new DSTs are available to provide tank

space to resolve safety issues.

Storage/disposal of the vitrified low-activity waste on-

site at Hanford.

Construction and operation of a high-activity waste

vitrification plant of appropriate capacity. Bounding analysis may be

used if definitive designs are not available.

Construction and operation of storage for vitrified high-

activity waste until a repository for permanent disposal is available.

Existing cesium and strontium capsules would be either

over-packed and stored, or dissolved and blended with the high-activity

vitrification waste stream.

Additional Alternatives

Additional alternatives will be constructed from the range of

options described below in order to adequately evaluate the full range

of potential environmental impacts.

Options for Retrieval

Waste can be retrieved by hydraulic sluicing, pneumatic or

mechanical systems. Hydraulic sluicing injects liquid into the tank to

dislodge and mobilize or dissolve the waste. Pumps transfer the liquid

and slurry out of the tank. Mechanical or pneumatic systems are placed

in contact with the waste. This equipment conditions the waste and

transfers it out of the tank. The retrieved waste is transferred to the

pretreatment process.

Options for Pretreatment

Pretreatment is performed to separate the waste into its high-

activity and low-activity components. One option is to perform no

pretreatment. Another option is to limit the volume of waste going to a

geologic repository by pretreating waste to accomplish some level of

high- and low-activity waste separation. Two bounding alternatives for

pretreating tank wastes have been identified, corresponding to the

reasonable limits of waste pretreatment (such as evaporation, acid

digestion, nuclide separation, ion exchange) to concentrate the

radionuclides in a smaller volume. For purposes of this discussion,

these bounds are referred to as ``minimal'' and ``extensive''

pretreatment. The pretreatment bounds may also influence the relative

volumes of high- and low-activity wastes to be stabilized and stored/

disposed of. The pretreated waste would be transferred to the waste

immobilization process.

Minimal pretreatment would use sludge washing to separate the waste

into a smaller volume fraction of high-activity waste (containing the

majority of radionuclide activity), and a larger volume fraction of

low-activity waste. The low-activity waste might be subjected to an

evaporation step to reduce the volume resulting from the sludge washing

process.

Extensive pretreatment would use advanced solvent extraction

methods to provide the maximum level of radionuclide partitioning.

Hazardous nitrates, metals, and other selected chemicals would be

removed from the low-activity waste stream, and the volume of the high-

activity waste fraction would be minimized.

Options for Immobilization

The immobilization would stabilize the waste coming from the

pretreatment process. Both the low-activity waste stream and the high-

activity waste stream would be stabilized. The stabilized waste would

be transferred to storage or disposal.

High-activity waste stabilization options include vitrification,

ceramic forms and calcination. After stabilizing, the high-activity

waste fraction would comply with any likely waste form criteria for

geologic repository acceptance and transportation.

Low-activity waste stabilization options include vitrification,

glass cullet in a sulfur cement and cement polymer-based grout. The

current plan provides that the encapsulated cesium and strontium would

meet the waste form criteria for geologic repository acceptance and

transportation. The first option is overpacking the capsules. If the

repository waste form criteria cannot be achieved by overpacking, the

capsules would be stabilized the same as the high-activity waste

fraction above (e.g., vitrification, ceramic or calcination).

Options for Disposal/Storage

The disposal options include disposal onsite, disposal offsite and

interim storage pending disposal.

High-activity waste disposal options include emplacement of the

stabilized waste in an offsite geologic repository or in interim

storage onsite pending availability of an offsite geologic repository.

Low-activity waste disposal options depend on the stabilized waste

form and include: Burial in onsite landfills in containers; burial in

onsite vaults; burial onsite in steel culverts with liners and leachate

collection; and soil melt slurry injection to a landfill. Some of these

options would accommodate retrievability if desired.

No Action Alternative

The no action alternative for TWRS would be continued storage of

tank wastes and encapsulated cesium and strontium without preparation

for disposal. However, the no action alternative includes continued

maintenance, monitoring, and safety upgrades. No action also includes

maintaining the low-activity waste grouting facility in a standby

condition in case its operation is necessary before new DSTs are

available to provide tank space to resolve safety issues. The no-

disposal action alternative was analyzed in the HDW EIS and the DOE

intends to update the HDW EIS analyses in the TWRS EIS. The no action

alternative is included to comply with the CEQ regulations (40 CFR

1502.14(d)) for consideration of a no action alternative.

Interim Actions

DOE plans to complete the TWRS EIS by approximately October 1996.

DOE may need to undertake interim actions while the TWRS EIS is being

prepared. Any interim actions undertaken would have to be independently

justified because, for example, they are activities needed to maintain

the current waste management system; collect data and resolve urgent

pretreatment issues; or protect workers, the public and the

environment. Any interim actions would be actions on which decisions

were needed prior to the scheduled completion of the TWRS EIS. None of

the interim actions would prejudice the ultimate decision to be made on

the basis of the TWRS EIS because they would be needed regardless of

which alternatives are selected in that EIS. As described previously in

this notice, DOE has already identified the construction of new tank

capacity needed to resolve tank safety issues (identified in the TPA as

the Multi-function Waste Tank Facility) as an interim action, and is

planning to prepare a separate EIS for that project. DOE plans to

complete the new tanks EIS by September 1994 to support a near-term TPA

milestone.

Other interim actions may include system and infrastructure

upgrades, replacement of the cross-site transfer system, waste

characterization, technology development and demonstration activities

including a compact processing unit, and initial retrieval or

pretreatment and immobilization activities. These activities, if

undertaken, would also require preparation of independent NEPA reviews

while the TWRS EIS is in preparation.

Proposed Actions, New Tanks EIS

The proposed new tanks would provide waste storage space needed for

resolution of tank safety issues and would not be used for storage of

newly generated high-level waste. The new tanks would be improved

versions of the existing DSTs. Each tank would be constructed of double

shell stainless steel surrounded by a concrete liner, and would have a

1 million gallon capacity. All tanks would have leak detection

monitoring systems and filtered ventilation systems. The EIS will

address the construction of new tanks and associated new transfer

lines, and the tank operations. For the purposes of this interim action

EIS, operations considered would be limited to the retrieval, pH

adjustment or alkalinity control, and storage of wastes from the

Watchlist safety tanks. The primary focus of the EIS would be the

resolution of safety issues related to the three tanks that are on the

Watchlist because of hydrogen generation (241-SY-101, 241-SY-103 and

241-AN-104), but the tanks may also be used to alleviate safety

concerns in other Watchlist tanks (50 tanks are currently on the

Watchlist). Further decisions regarding the disposition of these wastes

will be addressed by the TWRS EIS.

Alternatives, New Tanks EIS

The new tanks EIS will evaluate all reasonable alternatives.

Alternatives which have been tentatively identified for possible

evaluation in this EIS include but are not limited to the following:

TPA Preferred Alternative

The TPA preferred alternative is to construct two DSTs in the 200

West Area by 1997 and four DSTs in the 200 East Area by 1998. These new

tanks would be utilized to store wastes retrieved from Watchlist tanks

in order to resolve tank safety issues. Resolution of safety issues for

these Watchlist tanks may include up to a three-to-one dilution of the

wastes with water and/or caustic solutions. In order to achieve this

dilution a combination of new and existing tank space would be used.

Construct Fewer Tanks

Under this alternative, the need for additional tanks would be

reduced using alternatives to retrieval for tank safety issue

mitigation. An example would be the use of mixer pumps for mitigating

the flammable gas safety issue.

No Action

The EIS will also address the no action alternative, under which no

additional underground high-level waste storage tanks would be built in

the near term. No action would leave the safety issues for the

Watchlist safety tanks unresolved.

Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues

The issues listed below have been tentatively identified for

analysis in both EISs. This list is presented to facilitate public

comment on the scope of the EISs. It is not intended to be all-

inclusive or to predetermine the potential impacts of any of the

alternatives.

(1) Potential effects on the public and on-site workers from

releases of radiological and nonradiological materials during normal

operations and from reasonably postulated accidents;

(2) Pollution prevention and waste minimization;

(3) Potential effects on air and water quality and other

environmental consequences of normal operations and potential

accidents;

(4) Potential cumulative effects of operations at the Hanford Site,

including relevant impacts from other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable activities at the site;

(5) Potential effects on endangered species, floodplain/wetlands,

archaeological/historical sites;

(6) Potential effects on future decommissioning decisions;

(7) Effects from normal transportation and postulated

transportation accidents;

(8) Potential socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities;

(9) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects;

(10) Short-term uses of the environment versus long-term

productivity;

(11) Potential irretrievable and irreversible commitment of

resources.

Regulatory Framework

The TPA sets milestones to achieve coordinated cleanup of the

Hanford Site and provides a legal and procedural framework for

regulatory compliance during cleanup. During the development of both

EISs, DOE intends to fully comply with the TPA, as modified by the

change control process.

Federal and State laws that are of major importance to waste

management activities at Hanford include the Atomic Energy Act of 1954;

RCRA; the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act, Chapter

70.105 RCW; and the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The Atomic

Energy Act requires the management, processing, and use of radioactive

materials in a manner that protects workers, public health, and the

environment. RCRA and the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management

Act establish requirements for management of hazardous waste, including

generation, treatment, storage, transportation, and disposal. RCRA also

requires cleanup of hazardous waste releases from past and present

operations when the releases pose a threat to human health or the

environment.