Plutonium Finishing Plant Stabilization Environmental Impact Statement

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____ [email protected]''; 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 10-4 rem 5.0 x 10-8

Individual (Hanford Site Worker).

Hanford Site Workers................. 6.2 x 10-4 person-rem 2.5 x 10-7

Hypothetical Maximally Exposed 2.3 x 10-5 rem 1.1 x 10-8

Individual (Off-site Public).

General Public (352,500 people)...... 2.2 person-rem 1.1 x 10-3

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

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 10-2

Hanford Site Worker.................. 1.6 x 10-4 rem 6.5 x 10-8

Off-site Individual.................. 5.7 x 10-5 rem 2.9 x 10-8

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

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 PM10 (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

10-10 g/sec (1.6 x 10-12 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 concentrationa concentrationb standard

(g/ (g/ (g/

m3) m3) m3)

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

PM10 (24-hr)...................................................... 1.9 x 10-9 81 150

PM10 (Annual)..................................................... 3.9 x 10-10 27 50

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

Notes: a. Modeled maximum ground-level concentrations occurred at 630 m from the stack.

b. Background concentrations for PM10 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