Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Alternatives to the In-Tank Precipitation Process at the Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement for Alternatives to the In-Tank Precipitation Process at the

Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) intends to prepare a

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) on the proposed

replacement of the in-tank precipitation (ITP) process at the Savannah

River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina. The ITP process was

intended to separate soluble high-activity radionuclides (for example,

cesium, strontium, uranium, and plutonium) from liquid high-level

radioactive waste before vitrifying the high-activity fraction of the

waste in the Defense Waste Processing Facility and disposing of the

low-activity fraction as saltstone in vaults at the SRS. Initial ITP

testing and operation and subsequent studies have demonstrated that the

ITP process as presently configured cannot achieve production goals and

safety requirements for processing high-level waste. In response, DOE,

Westinghouse Savannah River Company, and independent reviewers

evaluated a large number of alternative technologies to identify viable

alternatives to the ITP process. DOE determined that three technologies

should undergo further research and design to determine the most

appropriate replacement for the ITP process. Because replacement of the

ITP process constitutes a substantial change to the operation of the

Defense Waste Processing Facility as evaluated in a 1994 SEIS (DOE/EIS-

0082-S), DOE will prepare a second SEIS that will address the potential

environmental impacts of alternatives to the ITP process. DOE invites

comments on the scope of this SEIS.

DATES: The public scoping period begins with the publication of this

Notice and concludes April 8, 1999. DOE invites Federal agencies,

Native American tribes, State and local governments, and the public to

comment on the scope of this SEIS. DOE will consider all comments

received by the close of the scoping period, and will consider comments

received after that date to the extent practicable.

Two public scoping workshops will be held during the scoping

period:

March 11, 1999, 2:00-4:00 pm and 6:00-8:00 pm, Holiday Inn Coliseum,

630 Assembly Street, Columbia, South Carolina; and

March 18, 1999, 2:00-4:00 pm and 6:00-8:00 pm, North Augusta Community

Center, 101 Brookside Drive, North Augusta, South Carolina.

These scoping workshops will provide information about SRS high-

level waste processing and the proposal to replace the ITP process,

including the alternatives being considered. The workshops will provide

opportunities for the public to comment orally or in writing on the

SEIS scope, including the alternatives and issues that DOE should

consider in the SEIS.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the scope of the SEIS may be mailed to the

address below or sent by fax, voice mail, or electronic mail. Written

comments on the scope of this EIS may be mailed to Andrew Grainger,

NEPA Compliance Officer, Savannah River Operations Office, U.S.

Department of Energy, Building 742A, Room 183, Aiken, South Carolina

29802. Attention: ITP SEIS.

Otherwise, call 800-881-7292 for toll-free 24-hour fax and voice

mail (local and nationwide), or send electronic mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request information about this SEIS

and the public scoping workshops, or to be placed on the SEIS

distribution list, use any of the methods listed in ADDRESSES above.

For general information about the DOE National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) process, contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0119. Phone: 202-586-

4600, or leave a message at: 800-472-2756. Fax: 202-586-7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Need for Agency Action

At its inception in the 1950s, the primary mission of the SRS was

to produce nuclear materials to support the defense programs of the

United States. This mission largely ended and production of nuclear

materials ceased following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Before

production ended, however, chemical separation of irradiated nuclear

reactor fuel at SRS had generated special nuclear materials and high-

level radioactive waste consisting of acidic liquids bearing

radioactive fission products, including small amounts of transuranic

elements. This waste was made alkaline and stored as insoluble sludges

and liquid supernate containing high- and low-activity salts in

solution in 51 large underground tanks at the SRS F- and H-Area Tank

Farms. Two tanks have been closed, and now approximately 129 million

liters (34 million gallons) of high-level radioactive waste are stored

in 49 tanks.

These tanks are one of seven interconnected parts of the high-level

waste management system at the SRS:

(1) High-level Waste Storage and Evaporation (in the F- and H-Area

Tank Farms);

(2) Salt Processing (through the ITP process and in the Late Wash

Facility);

(3) Sludge Processing (in the Extended Sludge Processing Facility);

(4) High-level Waste Vitrification (in the Defense Waste Processing

Facility);

(5) Wastewater Treatment (in the Effluent Treatment Facility);

(6) Low-activity Salt Solidification (in the Saltstone Facility);

and

(7) Organic Waste Destruction (in the Consolidated Incineration

Facility).

This system, except for salt processing through ITP and in the Late

Wash Facility, is operational. ITP operations are currently limited to

safe storage and transfer of materials. The Late Wash Facility has been

tested and is in standby status.

The ITP process was first applied to radioactive waste in September

1995. The process was carried out in batches in a large tank.

Precipitating reagents were added to high-level liquid waste to

separate the high-activity waste fraction (for example, cesium,

strontium, uranium, and plutonium) from the low-activity fraction.

Monosodium titanate was used to adsorb strontium, uranium, and

plutonium, and then sodium tetraphenylborate was added to precipitate

cesium. The high-activity fraction (adsorbed radionuclides and

precipitate) was to be vitrified in the Defense Waste Processing

Facility for eventual disposal in a geologic repository, and the low-

activity fraction was to be solidified in the Saltstone Facility and

disposed of in the SRS saltstone vaults in the Z-Area.

In December 1995, DOE found that the ITP process was generating

benzene at higher rates than expected. The benzene is a flammable

decomposition byproduct of sodium tetraphenylborate. In August 1996,

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an independent executive

branch organization chartered to provide advice regarding public

[[Page 8559]]

health and safety issues at DOE defense nuclear facilities, recommended

that testing and operating the ITP process not proceed until DOE had an

improved understanding of how benzene could be generated and released

during the ITP process. ITP operations were suspended in January 1998.

Subsequent studies demonstrated that the ITP process as currently

configured cannot achieve production goals and meet safety requirements

for processing the high-activity salt fraction of high-level waste. In

response, DOE, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, and independent

reviewers evaluated a large number of alternative technologies to

identify viable alternatives to the ITP process (``DOE-SR Review Team

Final Report on the High Level Waste Salt Disposition Alternatives,''

December 1998). This evaluation resulted in the preparation of pre-

conceptual designs for four technologies: (1) small tank in-tank

precipitation (using tetraphenylborate), (2) ion exchange (using

crystalline silicotitanate), (3) direct disposal as grout, and (4)

caustic side solvent extraction. Of these four technologies, DOE has

determined that the solvent extraction alternative is not sufficiently

developed to warrant further analysis.

DOE has determined that replacing the ITP process would

substantially change the proposed operation of the Defense Waste

Processing Facility as evaluated in DOE's 1994 Supplemental EIS (DOE/

EIS-0082-S). DOE therefore will prepare a Supplemental EIS to evaluate

the potential environmental impacts of replacing the ITP process, in

accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality National

Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)).

The SEIS Schedule

DOE intends to complete this SEIS by about February 2000. DOE will

issue a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of

the Environmental Protection Agency notice of availability of the Final

SEIS. DOE will begin detailed design for an ITP replacement technology

only after issuing a Record of Decision that selects such a technology.

Alternatives

In the SEIS, DOE will assess the potential impacts of three ITP

replacement processes and a no-action alternative. DOE does not have a

preferred alternative at this time.

Small Tank In-Tank Precipitation: This alternative would use the

same chemicals and process as the existing ITP batch process, but would

operate continuously in smaller tanks. High-level liquid waste from the

tanks would undergo precipitation within continuously stirred tank

(chemical) reactors to separate the high-activity waste fraction from

the low-activity fraction. That is, strontium, uranium, and plutonium

would be adsorbed on monosodium titanate and cesium would be

precipitated with sodium tetraphenylborate. Benzene generation would be

at approximately the level predicted for the ITP process in the 1994

SEIS. The high-activity fraction (adsorbed radionuclides and

precipitate) would be vitrified in the Defense Waste Processing

Facility for eventual disposal in a geologic repository, and the low-

activity fraction would be solidified in the Saltstone Facility and

disposed of in the SRS saltstone vaults in the Z-Area. Implementation

of this alternative would require the construction and operation of a

new treatment facility in H-Area. Closure of the high-level waste

tanks, which DOE is now evaluating in an EIS (Notice of Intent, 63 FR

71628, December 29, 1998), would not be affected.

Ion Exchange: This alternative would use a different ion exchange

medium from that considered in the 1994 SEIS and would not result in

benzene formation. High-level liquid waste would first be mixed with

monosodium titanate and filtered to remove adsorbed uranium, plutonium,

and strontium. Then crystalline silicotitanate resin ion exchange

columns would be used to remove cesium from the salt solution. The

high-activity fraction (adsorbed radionuclides and cesium-bearing

resins) would be vitrified in the Defense Waste Processing Facility for

eventual disposal in a geologic repository, and the low-activity

fraction would be solidified in the Saltstone Facility and disposed of

in the SRS saltstone vaults in the Z-Area. Implementation of this

alternative would require the construction and operation of a new

treatment facility in H-Area. Closure of the high-level waste tanks

would not be affected.

Direct Disposal as Grout: In this alternative, high-level liquid

waste would be mixed with monosodium titanate and filtered to remove

adsorbed uranium, plutonium, and strontium. The adsorbed solids would

be vitrified in the Defense Waste Processing Facility for eventual

disposal in a geologic repository. The filtered salt solution, which

would contain radioactive cesium, would be combined with grout in a

facility that would be constructed under this alternative, and disposed

of in the SRS saltstone vaults in the Z-Area. Closure of the high-level

waste tanks would not be affected.

No-Action Alternative: The no-action alternative would be to

continue current activities without the ITP process. The Defense Waste

Processing Facility would vitrify only sludge from the high-level waste

tanks. Salt solution would not be removed from the high-level waste

tanks and therefore the tank closures could not be completed.

Related NEPA Decisions and Reviews

This SEIS will consider the information and analyses found in

several final DOE NEPA reviews that address high-level waste management

systems at SRS:

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Defense Waste

Processing Facility, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, S.C., DOE/EIS-0082,

1982.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Defense

Waste Processing Facility, DOE/EIS-0082-S, 1994.

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Savannah River Site

Waste Management, DOE/EIS-0217, 1995.

Supplement Analysis, Defense Waste Processing Facility

Salt Disposition Options at the Savannah River Site, DOE/EIS-0082-SA-

03, November 1998.

The documents are available in the following DOE public reading

rooms: DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Forrestal Building,

Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20585 (phone

202-586-6020); and DOE Public Document Room, University of South

Carolina, Aiken Campus, University Library, Second Floor, 171

University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 (phone 803-648-6851).

DOE also will use additional information and analyses, including

engineering design and research studies developed during the

preliminary evaluation of alternatives to the ITP process, and reviews

of the design and research conducted by independent experts.

Preliminary Identification of EIS Issues

DOE intends to address the following issues when considering the

potential environmental impacts of the ITP replacement alternatives in

this EIS. DOE invites comment from Federal agencies, Native American

tribes, State and local governments, and the public on these and any

other issues that should be addressed in the EIS.

Effects on air, soil, and surface and ground water from

construction, routine operations, and reasonably foreseeable accidents.

[[Page 8560]]

Impacts to ecological resources, including threatened and

endangered species, floodplains, and wetlands.

Health impacts to the public and SRS workers from exposure

to radiological and hazardous materials during routine operations and

reasonably foreseeable accidents.

Socioeconomic impacts, including impacts associated with

the workforce required to construct and operate an ITP replacement.

Disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority

and low-income populations (environmental justice).

Compliance with applicable Federal, State and local

requirements and agreements.

Effects of constructing and operating an ITP replacement

technology on SRS waste management operations and facilities.

Relationship to SRS land use plans.

Pollution prevention, waste minimization, and energy and

water use reduction technologies to reduce the use of energy, water,

and hazardous substances and to minimize environmental impacts during

construction and operation of an ITP replacement.

Impacts on cultural and historic resources.

Cumulative environmental impacts of past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future operations at the SRS.

Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 16, 1999.

Peter N. Brush,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary

Environment, Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 99-4288 Filed 2-19-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P