1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), must make decisions on how to manage and dispose of Hanford Site tank waste and encapsulated cesium and strontium to reduce existing and potential future risk to the public, Site workers, and the environment. The waste includes radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste currently stored in 177 underground storage tanks, approximately 60 other smaller active and inactive miscellaneous underground storage tanks (MUSTs), and additional Site waste likely to be added to the tank waste, which is part of the tank farm system. In addition, DOE proposes to manage and dispose of approximately 1,930 cesium and strontium capsules that are by-products of tank waste. The tank waste and capsules are located in the 200 Areas of the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington (Figure 1.0.1).
The alternatives selected for the final management and disposal of this waste must comply with Federal and Washington State environmental laws and regulations, and be within the context of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) (Ecology et al. 1994). Permanent solutions to tank waste risk are a major goal of the agreement. The Tri-Party Agreement was signed by DOE, Ecology, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address waste management and cleanup of the Hanford Site.
On January 28, 1994, in a Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register (FR), DOE announced its intent to prepare two Environmental Impact Statements (EISs): 1) an interim action EIS to resolve urgent tank safety issues; and 2) this Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) EIS (59 FR 4052).
The TWRS proposed action is subject to the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (10 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 to 1508) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). Both acts require analysis of potential environmental impacts in the decision-making process. DOE and Ecology signed a Memorandum of Understanding on February 15, 1994 to jointly prepare the EIS for the proposed TWRS action (MOU 1994). The co-preparation of the EIS streamlines the environmental review process while ensuring compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and policies.
A 45-day scoping and public participation process began on January 28, 1994 and ended on March 15, 1994. During the scoping process, DOE and Ecology conducted five public meetings and accepted both verbal and written comments. The scoping process provided opportunities for the public to review information and comment on the proposed action. DOE and Ecology considered both verbal and written comments on the scope of the proposed action, alternatives, and environmental issues in preparing the TWRS EIS Implementation Plan (DOE 1995b) and the TWRS EIS.
On April 12, 1996, in a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register (FR 16248), DOE announced the availability of the Draft EIS for review and comment. A 45-day public comment period began on April 12, 1996 and ended on May 28, 1996. During the public comment period, DOE and Ecology conducted five public meetings and accepted both verbal and written comments. Consultation meetings were also held with local, State, and Federal agencies, Tribal Nations, and DOE advisory boards. DOE and Ecology considered both verbal and written comments on the Draft EIS in preparing the Final EIS. Information on the public comment period is provided in Volume One, Section 7.0. Verbal and written comments and DOE and Ecology responses to comments are presented in Volume Six, Appendix L.
NEPA and SEPA provide decision makers with an analysis of environmental impacts (both positive and negative) of proposed actions for consideration during decision making. This EIS presents the impacts of the proposed action and its reasonable alternatives for review and comment by the public and interested parties.
The decisions made by DOE will be discussed in a Record of Decision to be issued no earlier than 30 days after issuing the Final EIS. Also to be issued following the completion of the Final EIS is a Mitigation Action Plan, which will detail the commitments to mitigate impacts to the environment made in the Record of Decision.
In the following sections, an overview of the history of the tank waste and capsules is provided, along with an explanation of the policy and regulatory developments that require DOE to manage and dispose of the tank waste. This is followed by a review of technical and programmatic developments that have influenced DOE's tank waste remediation plans. The section concludes with a brief summary of the alternatives development process, an explanation of the contents of the EIS, and definitions of technical terms, data, and concepts used in the EIS.
1.1 POLICY BACKGROUND
The Federal government established the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington in 1943 to produce plutonium for national defense purposes. The Hanford Site occupies approximately 1,450 square kilometers (km2) (560 square miles [mi2]) of land north of the city of Richland. The production mission ended at the Hanford Site in 1988. The current Hanford Site mission is waste management and environmental restoration, which includes programs to manage and dispose of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste that exists at the Site. This TWRS EIS addresses tank waste, MUST waste, and cesium and strontium capsules located in the 200 Areas of the Site.
1.1.1 Hanford Site Tank Waste and Cesium and Strontium Capsules
At the Hanford Site, there are 149 single-shell tanks (SSTs) constructed between 1944 and 1964, which received waste until 1980. Waste in the SSTs consists of liquid, sludges, and saltcake (i.e., crusty solids made of crystallized salts). Over the years, much of the liquid stored in SSTs has been evaporated or pumped to double-shell tanks (DSTs). There are 28 DSTs at the Hanford Site that were constructed between 1968 and 1986. The DSTs are used to store liquid radioactive waste from the SSTs and various Hanford Site processes. The waste is partially segregated and stored in tanks based on composition, level of radioactivity, or origin.
In addition to the 177 underground storage tanks, there are approximately 40 inactive and 20 active MUSTs located in the 200 Areas. The MUSTs contain small quantities of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste similar in content and composition to the waste in the SSTs and DSTs. The MUSTs, which are part of the tank waste system, consist of buried steel tanks used for collecting spills and leaks during waste transfer and buried concrete vaults with carbon or stainless-steel tanks used for waste recovery (WHC 1994a).
Cesium and strontium are stored in approximately 1,930 double-walled capsules. In the 1960's and 1970's, radioactive cesium and strontium were extracted from waste in some SSTs to reduce the sources of heat in the tanks (WHC 1995h). The cesium and strontium were converted to salt forms and placed in capsules. Some capsules were shipped offsite to be used as heat or radiation sources. All the capsules will be returned to the Hanford Site for final disposal (DOE 1994c). All strontium capsules have been returned to the Site, and all cesium capsules are scheduled to be returned to the Site in 199 7 . The capsules at the Hanford Site are stored in the 200 Areas in the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility, which began operating as a capsule production facility in 1974. For the purpose of analysis in this EIS, it is assumed that all capsules will be returned to the Hanford Site and stored in the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility. The capsules currently are classified as waste by-product material, which means they could be put to productive uses if a need is identified and a user acceptable to DOE desires the material. For example, the strontium could be used as a source of heat and the cesium could be used to sterilize medical equipment or to irradiate food to extend its shelf life. DOE is attempting to find uses for these materials. If no future use can be found, the cesium and strontium capsules may be classified as high-level waste (HLW) for disposal purposes. The final determination as to whether the capsules are HLW will be made in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The number of capsules requiring treatment and disposal could increase slightly if capsule contents, previously removed during research and development programs, are reencapsulated. The volume of tank waste and number of capsules are summarized in Figure 1.1.1.
1.1.2 Regulatory Developments
From the 1943 to 1989, the Hanford Site's principal mission was the production of weapons-grade plutonium. To produce plutonium, uranium metal was irradiated in a plutonium production reactor. The irradiated uranium metal, also known as spent fuel, was cooled and then treated in a chemical separations or reprocessing plant. At the reprocessing plant, the spent fuel was dissolved in acid and the plutonium was separated from uranium and many radioactive by-products. The plutonium then was used for nuclear weapons production. Several tons of spent fuel were produced to generate enough plutonium to make a nuclear weapon. The process resulted in a large volume of radioactive waste.
The Hanford Site processed more than 100,000 metric tons (mt) (110,000 tons) of irradiated uranium and generated several hundred thousand metric tons of chemical and radioactive waste. The waste included HLW, transuranic waste, low-activity waste (LAW), hazardous waste, and mixed waste (radioactive and hazardous waste).
For many years, the waste produced at the Hanford Site was managed in a manner that complied with standards at that time. For the HLW generated by the chemical reprocessing plants, waste management initially involved making the waste caustic with sodium hydroxide and calcium carbonate and storing the waste in large underground tanks until a long-term solution could be found for disposal of HLW. In the 1940's through the early 1960's, 149 SSTs were built to store HLW in the 200 Areas of the Hanford Site.
Figure 1.1.1 Hanford Site Tank and Capsule Overview
During the 1950's, uranium was extracted from some of the SSTs, an action that introduced new chemicals to the tanks. Also, to free up tank space for the large volume of new waste being generated by fuel reprocessing, chemicals were added to the tanks to cause many of the radionuclides to settle to the bottom of the tanks (Gephart-Lundgren 1995) . The remaining liquid contained a low concentration of radioactivity that did not require tank storage. Large volumes of the liquid waste could be siphoned off and disposed of as LAW. As waste flowed from one tank to another, much of the solids were separated off from the waste along the way, and the LAW liquid that resulted was sent to unlined cribs where it percolated into the soil. This process resulted in increasing the concentration of the cesium-137 and strontium-90, which concentrated the heat being generated enough that waste in some tanks began to boil and the heat threatened the integrity of the tanks. To address this problem, chemicals were added to the tanks in the 1960's to separate cesium and strontium from the waste and waste was recovered from the tanks . Cesium and strontium then were extracted from the waste in B Plant , placed in capsules, and stored in a separate facility.
In the mid-1950's, leaks were detected in SSTs. By the late 1980's, 67 of the SSTs were known or suspected leakers, and an estimated 3.8 million liters (L) (1 million gallons [gal]) of HLW had been released into the soil beneath the tanks. To address concerns with the design of SSTs, the Hanford Site adopted a new DST design. The DST design would allow leaks to be detected and remedial action taken before waste could reach soil surrounding the tanks. Between 1968 and 1986, 28 DSTs were constructed. Through the end of July 199 6 , 115 SSTs have been stabilized by removing pumpable liquids to minimize future leaks. The stabilization program will be completed in 2000. Newly generated waste and pumped interim SST stabilization waste is stored in the DSTs.
Throughout much of the history of plutonium production at the Hanford Site, there were few laws regulating waste management and environmental protection. In the 1970's and 1980's, new environmental laws were enacted regulating waste management, storage, disposal, and pollution emissions to the air and water. Because of national security concerns, nuclear production facilities like the Hanford Site were self-regulated. Under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, DOE was authorized to establish standards to protect health or minimize dangers to life or property for activities under DOE's jurisdiction. In the 1980's, much of DOE's authority to self-regulate facilities was eliminated, and other agencies became responsible for regulating many aspects of DOE's activities.
The Clean Air Act originally was passed in 1970 and has been amended several times, including extensive amendments in 1977 and 1990. This law requires DOE to meet national air quality standards, ensure hazardous air emissions from existing and new sources are controlled to the extent practical, and obtain an operating permit for all major emission sources. The Clean Water Act, which underwent major amendments in 1972, 1977, and 1987, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, originally passed in 1974 and amended in 1986, regulate discharges to surface water, set national drinking water standards, and regulate emissions of hazardous constituents to surface and groundwater.
In 1976, with the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Federal government for the first time assumed a major role in the management of hazardous waste. Through RCRA, the 1984 amendment to RCRA (known as the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984), and as amended by the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, the EPA and EPA-authorized states were authorized to regulate hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage, and disposal. RCRA's provisions excluded radioactive waste from regulation by EPA, and it was not until 1984 that EPA's jurisdiction over DOE's nonradioactive waste was firmly established. In 1987, mixed waste at DOE facilities was recognized under RCRA regulations. In November 1987, Ecology, the administrating agency for the state Hazardous Waste Management Act, was delegated RCRA enforcement authority. RCRA established regulations for newly generated hazardous waste but did not address past waste disposal practices. To clean up past hazardous and radioactive waste disposal sites, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. CERCLA was significantly amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. The 1986 amendments required Federal agencies to investigate and remediate releases of hazardous substances, including radioactive contaminants, from their facilities.
Beginning in 1986, regulators from EPA, Ecology, and DOE's Richland Operations Office began to examine how best to bring the Hanford Site into compliance with RCRA and CERCLA. The regulators and DOE agreed to develop one compliance agreement that set agreed-upon milestones for cleaning up past disposal sites under CERCLA and bring operating facilities into compliance with RCRA. Negotiations concluded in late 1988, and the Tri-Party Agreement was signed by the three agencies on January 15, 1989. The Tri-Party Agreement is the primary framework for CERCLA and RCRA regulation of the Hanford Site, including the tank farms. The existing hazardous and mixed waste and new waste added to the tank farms is regulated through the Tri-Party Agreement's RCRA enforcement provisions. Hazardous, mixed, and radioactive waste from the tanks that was disposed of through the cribs to the soil is regulated through the Tri-Party Agreement's CERCLA enforcement provisions. Neither RCRA nor CERCLA provide the regulatory framework for the disposal of radioactive waste.
In response to the continued accumulation of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, other hazardous waste, and growing public awareness and concern for public health and safety, Congress has passed numerous laws including the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The purpose of these laws was to establish a national policy and programs that would provide reasonable assurance that the public and the environment would be adequately protected from the hazards posed by these wastes. The action by Congress was influenced by a national consensus that the potential hazards of spent nuclear fuel and HLW needed to be permanently isolated from the human environment with minimal reliance on institutional controls. Permanent isolation consists of containment of the waste within engineered and natural barriers, which are likely to contain the material for a very long time. Minimal reliance on institutional controls means the isolation is not dependent on ongoing maintenance of facilities, human attention, or commitment by governments or other institutions. The national consensus has been reflected in the Northwest by strong support among DOE, Federal and State agencies, Tribal Nations, and citizens and stakeholders to clean up the Hanford Site.
In 1974, Congress passed the Energy Reorganization Act, which authorized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate and license DOE facilities constructed for the express purpose of long-term storage and disposal of high-level radioactive waste, which is not part of DOE's research and development program. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has established regulations for radioactive waste that can be disposed of in land disposal sites (10 CFR Part 61), as well as radioactive waste requiring geologic disposal (10 CFR Part 60). The EPA was authorized to establish standards for managing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel, HLW, and transuranic waste. These regulations are contained in 40 CFR Part 191 and would apply to HLW disposed of at the Hanford Site.
A number of evaluations and decisions regarding the disposal of commercial and defense HLW were completed in the late 1970's and early 1980's. These evaluations included NEPA analysis for management of commercial radioactive waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and the Immobilization Research and Development program at Savannah River. For these evaluations, it was decided that HLW and transuranic waste should be disposed of in potential geologic repositories.
Congress then enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, authorizing Federal agencies to develop geologic repositories for disposing of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors. In 1983, DOE submitted the Defense Waste Management Plan, which provided deep potential geologic repository disposal of HLW as the planning basis for all DOE HLW, and in 1985, the President approved a DOE recommendation to dispose of defense waste in a commercial repository. In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to focus potential geologic repository development activity at one site, the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.
In addition to applicable laws and regulations, DOE has established a set of policies to guide DOE activities. In 1988, DOE issued DOE Order 5820.2A, which stated DOE's policy to process and dispose of HLW in a potential geologic repository. For planning purposes, DOE assumes that some or all of the defense HLW that satisfies the repository acceptance criteria could be placed in the first potential geologic repository developed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. By law, the first repository is limited to a total capacity of 70,000 mt (77,000 tons) of spent nuclear fuel or HLW, or a quantity of solidified HLW resulting from the reprocessing of such a quantity of spent fuel prior to operating a second repository. The allocated capacity for defense HLW in the first repository is 7,000 mt (7,700 tons). At this time, sufficient quality and quantity of information is not available to determine whether the Yucca Mountain site is a suitable candidate for geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and HLW. DOE will prepare a repository EIS to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the repository's construction and operation.
1.1.3 Hanford Defense Waste Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision
In April 1988, after completing the Hanford Defense Waste EIS, DOE decided to proceed with preparing the DST waste for final disposal. Based on the Hanford Defense Waste EIS Record of Decision, the waste was to be processed in a pretreatment facility to separate DST waste into two waste streams (53 FR 12449). The larger waste stream would be LAW, and a smaller waste stream would be HLW. The LAW was to be mixed with a cement-like material to form grout. The grout was to be encased in large underground concrete vaults at the Hanford Site. The HLW portion was to be vitrified into a glass-like material and encased in stainless-steel canisters at the proposed Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant. The canisters were to be stored at the Hanford Site until a potential geologic repository was available to receive this waste. The Hanford Defense Waste EIS Record of Decision also called for the continued storage of cesium and strontium capsules until a potential geologic repository was ready to receive the capsules for disposal. Before shipment to the repository, the capsules would be packaged to meet the repository acceptance criteria.
In the Hanford Defense Waste EIS Record of Decision, DOE decided to perform additional development and characterization before making decisions on final disposal of SST waste. The SST waste would continue to be stored and monitored. The development and characterization effort was to focus on methods to retrieve and process SST waste for disposal and stabilize and isolate the waste near the surface. Before a decision would be made on the final disposal of the waste, alternative disposal methods were to be examined in a supplemental analysis to the Hanford Defense Waste EIS.
The Hanford Defense Waste EIS Record of Decision formed the planning basis for DOE programs to manage tank waste and cesium and strontium capsules at the Hanford Site. The TWRS program is responsible for tank farm routine operations, including tank farm management, regulatory compliance, reporting, surveillance, and operations and maintenance of facilities and equipment. Additional ongoing TWRS activities include: 1) characterizing waste to support safety, retrieval and transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal; 2) addressing tank safety issues; 3) isolating and removing pumpable liquid from SSTs to reduce the potential of future leakage; and 4) operating the 242-A Evaporator to concentrate waste by reducing the amount of liquid. Other projects initiated under the 1988 Record of Decision included technology development, design, and construction of the facilities needed to implement the planned retrieval, pretreatment, immobilization, and storage and disposal of DST waste.
1.1.4 Developments Since the Hanford Defense Waste Record of Decision
The TWRS EIS satisfies the DOE commitment made in the Hanford Defense Waste EIS Record of Decision to prepare a supplemental NEPA analysis. The TWRS EIS also is being prepared in response to several important changes since the 1988 Hanford Defense Waste Record of Decision requiring DOE to prepare the TWRS EIS. The following changes affected the planned approach for managing the disposal of Hanford Site tank waste.
- B Plant, which was selected in the Hanford Defense Waste Record of Decision as the facility for pretreatment processes to comply with current environmental and safety requirements, was found not to be viable or cost-effective.
- The Tri-Party Agreement was signed by DOE, Ecology, and EPA in 1989, establishing an approach for achieving environmental compliance at the Hanford Site, including specific milestones for the retrieval, treatment, and disposal of tank waste.
- Safety issues were identified for about 50 DSTs and SSTs, which became classified as Watchlist tanks in response to the 1990 enactment of Public Law 101-510.
- The planned grout project was terminated, and a vitrified waste form was adopted as the proposed approach as a result of stakeholders' concerns with the long-term adequacy of near-surface disposal of grouted LAW in vaults.
- The construction of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant was delayed because of insufficient capacity to vitrify the HLW fraction of all DST and SST waste in the planned time frame.
- The planning basis for retrieval of the waste from underground storage tanks was changed to include the SSTs and treating the retrieved SST waste in combination with DST waste.
These changes resulted in an extensive reevaluation of the waste treatment and disposal plan that culminated in adopting a revised strategy to manage and dispose of tank waste and encapsulated cesium and strontium. The reevaluation of the waste treatment and disposal plan began following a December 1991 decision by the Secretary of Energy to reconsider the entire tank safety and treatment and disposal program and to accelerate the retrieval and disposal of SST waste (DOE 1995i) (Figure 1.1.2).
In March 1993, DOE submitted proposed changes to the Tri-Party Agreement to Ecology and EPA to reflect the new technical strategy. DOE, Ecology, and EPA agreed to negotiate changes to the agreement. As part of the reevaluation process and the renegotiation of the Tri-Party Agreement, DOE involved the public by conducting a series of 10 public meetings and forming the Tank Waste Task Force to receive stakeholder input on the revised technical strategy (HTWTF 1993) . In September 1993, formal negotiations ended, and the negotiated changes underwent a public comment period from October through December 1993. The changes to the Tri-Party Agreement were incorporated into an amended agreement signed by DOE, Ecology, and EPA in January 1994.
The agencies negotiated changes to the Tri-Party Agreement in 1996 . The proposed changes underwent a 45-day public comment period that ended on February 15, 1996 and were approved in July 1996 . Major changes to the tank waste system program contained in the amendment reflect the incorporation of DOE's proposed privatization (contracting with private companies) using one of two approaches.
The primary approach would involve two or more facilities that would be designed, owned, built, and operated by private contractors. The alternative approach, which would be implemented only if the primary approach was abandoned, would provide a fall back technical and regulatory approach to privatization. Under the primary approach, all LAW would be processed by 2024, which is 4 years earlier than under the alternative approach or the current Tri-Party Agreement schedule. The proposed changes also would result in the LAW pretreatment milestones being included with milestones for LAW vitrification. Under the alternative approach, DOE and Ecology have agreed to milestones that serve as a fall back technical and regulatory approach for privatization.
Figure 1.1.2 Hanford Site Tank Waste Remediation Timeline
The revised technical strategy embodied in the Tri-Party Agreement addressed the need to manage and dispose of tank waste because the waste has an unacceptable potential to release radioactive and hazardous waste to the environment and thereby poses risk to human health and the environment. The risk posed by tank waste includes urgent tank safety issues and long-term risk. Urgent tank safety issues include flammable gas generation, potential uncontrolled reaction of ferrocyanide-containing waste, potential uncontrolled reaction of organic-containing waste, high heat, tank vapor, and the potential for nuclear criticality. DOE is implementing corrective actions or mitigation measures to resolve urgent tank safety issues. As part of the technical strategy to address tank farm safety issues, DOE proposed implementing tank farm improvements to address near-term safety issues that required resolution before the completion of the TWRS EIS. These improvements included constructing new storage tanks (DSTs), a replacement cross-site transfer system between the 200 East Area and the 200 West Area, and associated tank waste retrieval systems.
In January 1994, the interim action Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Waste EIS was initiated by DOE and Ecology to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed interim actions and their reasonable alternatives (DOE 1995i). The Safe Interim Storage EIS dealt with only urgent tank waste safety concerns that require action before implementing decisions based on the TWRS EIS. The Final Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Waste EIS was issued in October 1995, and a Record of Decision was issued in November 1995 (60 FR 61687).
In the Safe Interim Storage EIS and the Record of Decision, DOE and Ecology decided that existing mitigation measures and tank farm waste inventory management strategies had diminished the risk associated with Watchlist tanks. Therefore, DOE decided not to construct additional DSTs to store waste retrieved from Watchlist tanks. In the Record of Decision, DOE also stated that safe interim storage of tank waste required constructing a replacement cross-site transfer system between the 200 West Area and the 200 East Area. The transfer system will permit DOE to continue to stabilize SST waste in the 200 West Area. The waste transfer system also will provide operational flexibility should one or more tanks in the 200 West Area require retrieval before implementing the management and disposal decisions based on the TWRS EIS.
1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF EIS ALTERNATIVES
In this EIS, DOE and Ecology examine a range of reasonable alternative approaches, including no action, for implementing the technical strategy for retrieving, pretreating, and immobilizing tank waste. These approaches include either full implementation by DOE or phased implementation. The phased approach to implementing the TWRS technical strategy would have, as a first phase, constructing and operating demonstration-scale tank waste pretreatment and immobilization facilities at the Hanford Site. Following completion of the demonstration phase, a second phase would be implemented. The second phase would consist of full-scale waste separations and immobilization.
Managing and disposing of the tank waste and the encapsulated cesium and strontium involves a number of components including waste retrieval, pretreatment, immobilization, storage, and disposal. Numerous technologies are available to accomplish each component. For analysis in the EIS, DOE and Ecology developed alternatives that cover the full range of reasonable alternatives and reflect the results of the public scoping process for this EIS. Representative alternatives that incorporate the range of cost, human and ecological health risk, and technologies have been developed for analysis in the EIS. To provide a meaningful comparison of the alternative, a representative tank farm closure scenario was assumed for all tank waste alternatives. However, closure is beyond the scope of this EIS, and the EIS does not provide sufficient analysis to support a closure decision.
The first step in developing the alternatives for analysis in the EIS was to identify the available components and associated technologies. The candidate technologies then were screened to identify technologies that would be incorporated into the representative alternatives analyzed in the EIS. The screening process resulted in three groups of alternatives: 1) representative alternatives analyzed in the EIS (Section 3.0 and Volume Two, Appendix B); 2) technologies that, though not directly included in the representative alternatives, are considered in the EIS and are therefore available for potential implementation by decision makers (Volume Two, Appendix B); and 3) alternatives that were considered but excluded from analysis and therefore would not be available for selection by the decision makers (Volume Two, Appendix C).This process resulted in the development of 10 tank waste alternatives and four cesium and strontium capsule alternatives.
1.3 DOE AND ECOLOGY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
DOE and Ecology have identified the Phased Implementation alternative as the preferred alternative for managing and disposing of tank waste. The Phased Implementation alternative analyzed in the EIS is based on the integrated technical strategy for tank waste outlined in the Tri-Party Agreement. The DOE and Ecology preferred alternative for managing and disposing of encapsulated cesium and strontium is the No Action alternative.
1.4 CONTENTS OF THE EIS
A separate summary provides an overview of the EIS. Volume One includes the text of the EIS and is organized into eight sections, including this introduction. The sections in Volume One are described as follows.
1.0 Introduction
This section provides background on the development of the TWRS EIS, the content of the EIS, and information to help the reader understand technical information and data presented in the EIS.
2.0 Purpose and Need for Action
The need for agency action is described in this section. The environmental conditions and the legal and regulatory requirements that the proposed action and alternatives address are summarized in this section.
3.0 Description and Comparison of Alternatives
This section explains the approach used for developing the alternatives and describes each of the alternatives in detail. Each alternative then is summarized, and the major features of the alternatives are compared. Other technologies available for inclusion in the alternatives are identified. Alternatives considered but dismissed from further analysis are identified, and the decisions to dismiss these alternatives are explained.
4.0 Affected Environment
This section describes the current environment (e.g., land, water, air, wildlife, and socioeconomics) that potentially would be affected by the proposed TWRS action and the alternatives addressed in the EIS. The description of the affected environment provides the basis for 1) analyzing the impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives; and 2) making comparisons among the potential impacts of the alternatives (Section 5.0).
5.0 Environmental Consequences
This section describes the potential environmental impacts of each alternative. The impacts analysis is presented in terms of the specific components of the natural and human environment (e.g., air, water, wildlife, and socioeconomics). For each component of the environment, the potential positive and negative impacts of each alternative are presented to provide a basis for comparing the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives.
Methods to mitigate adverse impacts are described in this section. The section also summarizes: 1) cumulative impacts of TWRS activities plus the impacts of other Federal and non-Federal activities; 2) short-term impacts and long-term environmental productivity and irretrievable resource commitments; and 3) potential conflicts among land-use plans of various agencies. Identified are energy and natural resource consumption and conservation and pollution prevention measures related to each alternative. Also identified are any adverse impacts and disproportionate impacts on minority communities and low-income communities.
6.0 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
This section describes Federal and Washington State statutes, regulations, and policies applicable to each alternative and the ability of each alternative to meet these requirements.
7.0 Scoping, Public Participation, and Consultations
This section describes how the scope of the TWRS EIS was established and the public participation processes through the public comment period of the Draft EIS. A summary of interagency and intergovernmental consultations also is provided.
8.0 List of Preparers
The agencies responsible for preparing the EIS are identified, and the names and roles of the individuals primarily responsible for preparing the EIS are listed.
Volumes Two through Six consist of appendices to the EIS. The 12 appendices provide detailed technical materials and data to support the analyses summarized in the text of the EIS. Figure 1.4.1 illustrates the relationship between the major volumes and sections of the EIS.
1.5 READERS GUIDE AND HELPFUL INFORMATION
The following information is provided to help the reader understand the technical data and format of this EIS. Definitions of technical terms can be found in the Glossary at the end of this volume. Listings of acronyms, and abbreviations, radionuclides, and chemical compounds can be found following the Table of Contents.
Reference Citations
Throughout the text of this document, in-text reference citations are presented where information from the referenced document was used. These in-text reference citations are contained within parentheses and provide a brief identification of the referenced document. This brief identification corresponds to the complete reference citation located on the reference list at the end of Volume One and following each appendix in Volumes Two to Five. An example of an in-text reference citation is (DOE 1995b), which corresponds to the complete reference citation provided at the end of the volume or appendix. On the reference list, DOE 1995b is listed in the following manner.
DOE 1995b. Implementation Plan for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/RL-94-88. U.S. Department of Energy and Washington State Department of Ecology. Richland, Washington. December 1995.
Figure 1.4.1 Relationship of the Contents of the TWRS EIS
Rounding
Throughout the text of this document, numbers were rounded to two significant figures (e.g., 212 would be rounded to 210 and 0.126 would be rounded to 0.13). In many cases, rounding is done to reflect the degree of uncertainty inherent in the analysis or to simplify the relative differences among alternatives. In certain cases, numbers were not rounded to two significant digits to preserve the differences in impacts between alternatives.
Scientific Notation
Scientific notation is used in this document to express very large or very small numbers. For example, the number one million could be written in scientific notation as 1.0E+06 or in traditional form as 1,000,000. Translating from scientific notation to the traditional number requires moving the decimal point either right or left from the number being multiplied by 10 to some power depending on the sign of the power (negative power move left or positive power move right).
Chemical Elements and Radioactive Isotopes
Many chemical elements and radioactive isotopes are referenced in this document. Examples of the chemical elements are cesium-137, strontium-90, plutonium-239, and uranium-235. For the most part, these elements are spelled out; however, these elements may be presented in tables and figures in this format: Cs-137 or cesium-137, Sr-90 or strontium-90. The most common chemical elements and radioactive isotopes used in this EIS are listed following the Table of Contents.
Units of Measure
The primary units of measure used in this EIS are metric. However, the approximate equivalent in the U.S. Customary System of units is shown in parentheses directly following the use of a metric unit. For example, a distance presented as 10 meters (m) is followed by 33 feet [ft]. This example would be presented in the text of the document as follows: 10 m (33 ft).
Radioactivity Units
Radioactivity is presented in radioactivity units. The curie (Ci) is the basic unit used to describe an amount of radioactivity. Concentrations of radioactivity generally are expressed in terms of curies or fractions of curies per unit mass, volume, and area. One curie is equivalent to 37 billion disintegrations per second, and is the quantity of any radionuclide that decays at a rate of 37 billion disintegrations per second. Disintegrations generally produce emissions of alpha or beta particles, gamma radiation, or combinations of these. An explanation of radiation is contained in Section 4.11.
Radiation Dose Units
The amount of energy deposited by radiation in a living organism is the radiation dose. For humans, the radiation dose usually is reported as effective dose equivalent, expressed in terms of rem. For example, the average dose rate from natural sources (cosmic radiation, natural radioactivity in the earth, and other natural sources) is approximately 0.3 rem/year. This document reports radiation dose in millirems (mrem). One millirem is equal to one-thousandth of a rem. Therefore, 0.3 rem per year could be restated as 300 mrem/year or 3.0E-01 rem/year.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
