Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) To Clean Out and Deactivate the Hanford, Washington Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Complex (Except for Storage Areas), To Stabilize PFP Plutonium- Bearing Materials and To Store the Stabilized Material

Federal RegisterOct 27, 1994

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) To Clean

Out and Deactivate the Hanford, Washington Plutonium Finishing Plant

(PFP) Complex (Except for Storage Areas), To Stabilize PFP Plutonium-

Bearing Materials and To Store the Stabilized Material

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI).

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

SUMMARY: DOE announces its intent to prepare an EIS pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (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). DOE invites public comment and will conduct a series of public

scoping meetings to provide an opportunity for the public and

interested agencies to comment on the alternatives and the scope of

issues to be addressed in the EIS.

The proposed action would clean out inactive PFP complex facilities

(except for storage areas), stabilize reactive residual plutonium-

bearing materials to a form suitable for long term storage, and store

the stabilized material until DOE makes final storage and disposition

decisions. The proposed action would minimize safety concerns, reduce

the exposure of site workers to radiation, and reduce the risk to the

public. Upon completion of the action, the PFP-complex would be

deactivated to a state ready for potential decontamination and

dismantlement (D&D) and/or potential future uses. Additional NEPA

documentation will be prepared by DOE before any decision is made to

D&D the PFP and/or to use it for other purposes. At this time, no

future missions beyond continued vault storage have been identified for

the PFP-complex. Future production of plutonium for defense purposes is

not being proposed and is not part of Hanford's current mission.

Existing vault storage of nuclear materials would continue pending

future NEPA documentation and a DOE decision on the ultimate storage or

disposition of the materials; on June 21, 1994, DOE issued a NOI to

prepare a programmatic EIS on the storage and disposition of weapons-

usable fissile materials.

DATES: DOE invites all interested parties, including affected Federal,

State and local agencies, Indian Nations, and the general public to

submit 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 Plutonium Finishing Plant Cleanout EIS by

December 12, 1994. To ensure that all relevant environmental issues are

considered, the public, agencies, and organizations are also invited to

attend public scoping workshops in which oral and written comments will

be welcomed on the proposed PFP EIS. Oral and written comments will be

given equal weight in the scoping process. Written comments must be

postmarked by December 12, 1994 to ensure their consideration. Comments

postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent

practicable.

Public scoping workshops to provide information and discuss and

receive comments on the scope of the EIS will be held on the dates and

at the locations given below:

Hood River, Oregon............ Date: Thursday, November 10, 1994................. Hood River Inn, Best

Western, 1108 E. Marina

Way, Hood River, OR 97031,

(503) 386-2200.

Portland, Oregon.............. Date: Friday, November 11, 1994................... Red Lion/Lloyd's Center,

1000 Multnomah, Portland,

OR 97204, (503) 281-6111.

Richland, Washington.......... Date: Tuesday, November 15, 1994.................. O'Callahan's at the Shilo,

50 Comstock, Richland, WA

99352, (509) 946-4661.

Seattle, Washington........... Date: Thursday, November 17, 1994................. Bellevue Hilton Hotel, 100

112th Avenue, Bellevue, WA

98004, (206) 455-3330.

Spokane, Washington........... Date: Monday, November 28, 1994................... Cavanaugh's Inn at the Park,

W. 303 North River Drive,

Spokane, WA 99352, (509)

326-8000.

Each public scoping workshop will begin with a welcome and brief

overview of the proposed EIS and will include sub-workshops on specific

items of interest in which the public can ask questions and provide

comments to DOE officials. Notes will be taken in the sub-workshops to

record public concerns for the official workshop record. Each workshop

will conclude with a session that will be recorded by a public

stenographer and will become part of the official workshop record. This

portion of the workshop will be chaired by a presiding officer, but

will not be conducted as an evidentiary hearing; speakers will not be

cross-examined although the presiding officer and DOE representatives

may ask clarifying questions. Individuals requesting to speak on behalf

of an organization must identify the organization. In the interest of

ensuring that all who wish to speak have an opportunity to do so, each

individual speaker will be given a 5-minute limit except that a speaker

representing an organization (one per organization) will be given a 10-

minute limit.

The agenda will be repeated twice a day at each location, in

afternoon and evening sessions. The hours for the sessions will be:

12:30 PM-1:30 PM (workshop session), 1:30 PM-4:30 PM (formal scoping

meeting), 5:30 PM-6:30 PM (workshop session), and 6:30 PM-9:30 PM

(formal scoping meeting).

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

toll-free telephone number, 1-800-516-3740 by 3:00 PM the day before

the meeting or by writing to the DOE (see ADDRESSES below).

Persons who have not submitted a request to speak in advance may

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 proposed PFP cleanout EIS. An Implementation Plan (IP) for the

PFP EIS will provide guidance for preparation of the PFP EIS and

establish its scope and content (10 CFR 1021.312). The IP will briefly

summarize the scoping comments received and their disposition. The IP

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

made available for inspection.

Written comments on the scope of the PFP EIS, questions or comments

concerning the PFP cleanout program, requests for speaking times at the

public scoping meetings, and requests for copies of the IP and/or the

Draft EIS (DEIS) should be directed to the designated Richland contacts

below. ADDRESSES:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jim Mecca, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 550 (MSIN B1-42),

Richland, WA 99352, Attention: NL Peters, Telephone: (509) 946-3683

Mr. Ben Burton, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 550 (MSIN B1-42),

Richland, WA 99352, Telephone: (509) 946-3683

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, D.C. 20585,

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

EIS technical reports, background data, materials incorporated by

reference, and other related documents are available either through the

contacts listed above or at:

DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Ave. S.W., Washington, D.C.

DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State University, Tri-Cities

Branch, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352.

and at the following DOE information repositories:

University of Washington, Suzzallo Library, Government Publication,

Seattle, WA 98195

Gonzaga University, Foley Center, E. 502 Boone, Spokane, WA 99258

Portland State University, Branford Price Millar Library, SW Harrison

and Park, Portland, OR 97207.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Federal government began operating the Hanford Site, near

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

produce plutonium for national defense purposes. Metallic uranium fuel

was irradiated in nuclear reactors at the Hanford Site to create

plutonium, which was converted to plutonium nitrate and purified

through chemical processing for use in nuclear weapons.

Initial production of plutonium metal at the PFP complex began in

July, 1949. The complex is located on Hanford's 200 West Area Plateau

approximately 32 miles northwest of Richland, Washington. The complex

includes production areas, reclamation processes, laboratories and

plutonium storage vaults. Several defense missions were carried out

within the PFP complex. As the need arose, processes were installed in

the PFP to recover as much plutonium as possible and metal production

capabilities were updated. Some of the process areas have been

deactivated over the last 20 years; however, plutonium recovery

activities continued until the production mission ended in 1989. Secure

materials storage vaults have been in operation since the early 1960s.

Today, operable areas of the complex include the Plutonium

Reclamation Facility (PRF), the Remote Mechanical ``C'' (RMC) line plus

process support and research laboratories, the secure storage vaults

and support areas. About 240 employees work at the PFP.

The DOE believes the continued presence of relatively large

quantities of chemically reactive materials in their present form and

location within the PFP poses an unacceptable long-term risk to the

workers and the environment. Consequently, in 1993, DOE announced its

proposal to operate certain processes in the PFP to stabilize those

materials and to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to

NEPA.

As part of the NEPA process for the proposed EA, DOE conducted

public meetings in the summer and fall of 1993 in Richland, WA;

Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Hood River, OR; and Spokane, WA to discuss

the proposal to stabilize the chemically reactive materials. As a

result of the public comments received, DOE decided that an EIS would

be the appropriate level of NEPA review. DOE also decided to expand the

scope of review to include cleanout of the PFP (except for storage

vaults) to a state where the facility would be ready for D&D and/or

future uses.

To alleviate immediate safety concerns, interim actions have been

taken or are underway to minimize the amount of reactive residual

materials left in process areas when the plutonium production mission

ended in 1989. The range of interim actions includes transferring

solutions into vented metal containers for safe storage, repackaging of

certain solutions from plastic bottles to safer containers, cleanup of

surface radioactive contamination to reduce worker exposure, and

removal of portions of ventilation ductwork and piping which contain

residual plutonium. The thermal stabilization of sludges is a proposed

interim action being addressed by an EA currently in progress. Other

interim actions could be proposed during the EIS preparation period to

address other specific safety concerns. All interim actions are or will

be covered by appropriate NEPA documentation.

The proposed action would place the PFP complex in a state ready

for potential D&D and/or a future mission while maintaining its current

material storage capability.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

The DOE needs to take action to minimize safety concerns, reduce

the exposure of Hanford Site workers to radiation, and reduce the risk

to the public. The proposed action would clean out inactive PFP complex

facilities (except storage areas), stabilize reactive residual material

for long-term storage, and store the stabilized material pending a DOE

decision on ultimate storage or disposition of fissile materials. Upon

completion of the proposed action, the PFP complex would be in a state

ready for D&D and/or future uses.

Preliminary Description of Cleanout Alternatives

The following cleanout alternatives are currently being considered

for detailed analysis in the EIS:

1. Wet Cleaning

Contaminated equipment or facility surfaces would be sprayed with

or soaked or immersed in nitric acid and rinsed with dilute acid. The

rinse solutions would be collected in tankage and stabilized in a

manner similar to other acid solutions. Acid washing could be enhanced

for greater cleaning by using additives such as cerium or silver

persulfate.

2. Mechanical Cleaning

Methods for mechanical cleaning include abrasive blasting, wiping,

scraping and brushing. Blasting would produce a fine powder containing

plutonium which would be collected and stabilized in a manner similar

to other solids, then stored in PFP vaults. Wiping or scraping would

produce a similar powder, plus waste in the form of wiping materials

(rags, paper, etc.) These methods require workers to be close to

contaminated surfaces.

Preliminary Description of Stabilization Alternatives

The PFP contains a variety of reactive plutonium-bearing materials

that need to be stabilized for long-term storage pending DOE decisions

on ultimate storage or disposition. Stabilized material has minimal

chemical reactivity and generally would be in solid form with a low

water or organic content to minimize radiolysis. Most of the reactive

materials are in process areas and equipment. (A portion of the

materials stored in PFP vaults must also continue to be repackaged and

stabilized as necessary for long-term storage).

For purposes of analysis, the reactive materials have been divided

into groups. The materials in each group are expected to be amenable to

the same stabilization process. The groups are as follows:

Nitrate solutions

Chloride solutions

Other solutions including organic solutions

Inorganic solids

Oxides

Metals and alloys

Combustibles (used rags, used filters, plastic forms)

Miscellaneous compounds

Each of these groups contains materials which are chemically

dissimilar to materials in other groups and may require separate

stabilization processing. Therefore, the preferred stabilization

alternative is likely to consist of more than a single process.

The following stabilization alternatives are currently being

considered for detailed analysis in the EIS.

1. Stabilization via Plutonium Reclamation Facility

This alternative would involve the restart and operation of the

Plutonium Reclamation Facility (PRF), portions of the Remote Mechanical

C (RMC) line and two small glovebox processes that would convert and

stabilize chemically reactive plutonium-bearing scrap for long-term

storage.

The PRF processes would be operated to convert certain plutonium-

bearing materials to an aqueous solution. These materials include the

plutonium oxide powder, incinerator ash, and scrap solutions. These

materials would be dissolved with various acids and other chemicals to

produce an impure plutonium nitrate solution. The process would use a

heavy organic solution to extract plutonium from other impurities.

The plutonium nitrate solutions would be converted to solid

plutonium oxide, which is suitable for long-term storage. The equipment

for this conversion process would be remotely operated from a shielded

control room. The process would involve mixing the nitrate feed with

oxalic acid to form a plutonium oxalate precipitate. The precipitate

would be filtered out of the liquid and thermally oxidized to plutonium

oxide.

2. Direct Denitration

This alternative would involve the operation of small scale

equipment which could be installed within two to four existing

gloveboxes in the RMC processing area.

The denitration process would be operated to stabilize materials

which can be dissolved in nitric acid to form a nitrate solution.

Materials would first be dissolved to form the impure nitrate solution,

then small amounts of solution would be heated slowly to evaporate the

water. The temperature would be increased to form a calcined plutonium

oxide powder with other impurities.

3. Alkaline Precipitation

As in the case of the direct denitration alternative, this

alternative would involve the operation of small scale equipment which

could be installed in two to four existing gloveboxes in the RMC

processing area.

The alkaline precipitation process would use alkaline hydroxides or

oxalate compounds to precipitate plutonium from solution. The

precipitate would then be filtered and thermally oxidized to plutonium

oxide.

4. Molten Salt Calcination

This alternative would involve the operation of small- to medium-

scale equipment which could be installed in two existing gloveboxes

plus a new glovebox in the RMC process area or in another suitable area

of the PFP.

The molten salt calcination process would use a gas-agitated pool

of molten sodium carbonate to convert plutonium-bearing materials to

plutonium oxide. The process could stabilize many types of materials

including solutions (nitrates, chlorides, organics) and solids such as

inorganic solids and combustibles. Some feeds would have to be

pretreated prior to processing via size reduction or dissolution in

various solutions.

No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, residues would remain in certain process

equipment, gloveboxes, process canyon areas and ductwork. Cleanout of

the facility would not take place and the residual material would not

be stabilized or stored. Vault storage would continue as an ongoing

action under this alternative; the materials in the vaults would

continue to be inventoried, repackaged, and stabilized as necessary.

Interim actions would be completed, along with basic safety upgrades.

Surveillance and maintenance would continue at present required levels.

DOE does not intend to analyze in detail the potential alternative

of cleaning out the PFP but not stabilizing the residual material

(i.e., storing the material without stabilization). Such an alternative

would present safety concerns, would not meet the purpose and need for

the proposed action, and is therefore unreasonable.

Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues

The issues listed below have been tentatively identified for

analysis in the PFP EIS. This list is presented to facilitate public

comment on the scope of the EIS. 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 radioactive and other hazardous materials during operations

and from reasonably postulated accidents;

(2) Potential waste from the proposal, including pollution

prevention and waste minimization;

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

environmental consequences of 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,

and archaeological/historical sites;

(6) Radiation exposure to workers;

(7) Potential socioeconomic impacts, including environmental

justice issues on surrounding communities;

(8) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects;

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

productivity; and

(10) Potential irretrievable and irreversible commitments of

resources.

Regulatory Framework

Federal and State laws that are of major importance to

environmental management activities at Hanford include the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954 as amended; the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA); the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act,

Chapter 70.105 RCW; the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992; and

the Clean Air Act. 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 and mixed waste, including generation,

treatment, storage, and disposal.

DOE has submitted an air operating permit application to EPA and

the permit is expected to be issued in the November 1995 timeframe; the

requirements of the existing air quality permits for PFP are expected

to encompass all the anticipated requirements of any new permit.