6.0 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
In response to the continued nationwide accumulation of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, other hazardous wastes, and a growing public awareness and concern for public health and safety, Congress has passed numerous laws including the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The purpose of these laws was to establish a national policy and program 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 high-level waste (HLW) needed to be permanently isolated from the human environment with minimal reliance on institutional controls. Permanent isolation consists of containing the waste within engineered and natural barriers that would be likely to contain the material for a very long time. Minimal reliance on institutional controls means the isolation would not be dependent on ongoing maintenance of facilities, human attention, or commitment by government or other institutions. The national consensus has been reflected in the Northwest by strong support from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Federal and State agencies, Tribal Nations, and citizens and stakeholders to clean up the Hanford Site.
It is DOE's policy to conduct its operations in an environmentally safe and sound manner in compliance with applicable environmental statutes, regulations, and standards. Statutory, regulatory, and permit requirements potentially applicable to the management and disposal of Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) tank waste and cesium and strontium capsules are described in this section.
6.1 RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
In 1994 DOE committed to a standards-based management program for "protecting the environment and the safety and health of the public and workers" and for "demonstrating good stewardship of resources" (DOE 1994k). This new program included the "necessary and sufficient" approach in which DOE and its contractor(s) would determine the set of standards appropriate for a facility, a site, or an activity. Applicable requirements contained in Federal, State, and local laws and regulations must be part of the set of standards. The DOE and its contractor(s) would have considerable latitude to agree on other standards that are needed. Current and new DOE Orders would not automatically be invoked. This program is an effort by DOE to appropriately apply human health and environmental standards to specific projects rather than applying all requirements to all projects without considering whether or not the requirement adds any value. However, DOE and its contractor(s) cannot use the necessary and sufficient process to set aside requirements from other agencies. Applicable requirements contained in Federal, State, and local laws and regulations must be part of the necessary and sufficient set.
This section describes the Federal, Washington State, and DOE regulations and requirements that may apply to the proposed action and alternatives considered in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Table 6.1.1 summarizes these requirements.
Table 6.1.1 Relevant Federal Environmental Statutes and Regulations
6.1.1 Federal Environmental Statutes and Regulations National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code [USC] §4321 et seq.)
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) establishes a national policy to promote awareness of the consequences of human activities on the environment and analysis of potential environmental impacts during the planning and decision-making stages of proposed Federal actions. NEPA requires all Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on the potential environmental effects that a major proposed Federal action may have on the quality of the human environment.
This EIS has been prepared in response to those NEPA requirements and policies. It identifies reasonable alternatives for the proposed action and the potential environmental consequences of each alternative. The EIS has been prepared according to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA as listed in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 through 1508, and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021).
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC §2011 et seq.)
The Atomic Energy Act authorizes DOE to establish standards to protect health or minimize dangers to life or property for activities under DOE's jurisdiction. Through a series of DOE Orders, an extensive system of standards and requirements has been established to ensure safe operation of facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which also has regulatory responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act for establishing standards for the commercial disposal of radioactive waste, has established regulations for radioactive waste that can be disposed of in near-surface disposal sites (10 CFR 61) and for radioactive waste requiring geologic disposal (10 CFR 60). Under authority of the Atomic Energy Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented standards for managing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel, HLW, and transuranic waste (40 CFR 191). 40 CFR 191 would apply if HLW is disposed of on the Hanford Site.
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC §7401 et seq.)
The Clean Air Act is intended to protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air resources and to promote public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population. Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires that each Federal agency, with jurisdiction over any property or facility that might result in the discharge of air pollutants, comply with all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements regarding the control and abatement of air pollution.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health, with an adequate margin of safety, from any known or anticipated adverse health effects of a regulated pollutant (42 USC 7409). The Clean Air Act also requires establishing national standards of performance for new or modified stationary sources of atmospheric pollutants (42 USC §7411), and permitting of specific emission increases to prevent a deterioration in air quality (42 USC §7470). Hazardous air pollutants, including radionuclides, are regulated separately (42 USC §7412). Air emissions are regulated by the EPA in 40 CFR 50 through 99. In particular, radionuclide emissions are regulated by the EPA under the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants Program (40 CFR 61).
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which amended the Federal Clean Air Act of 1977, require that the EPA develop a national Air Operating Permit Program, which would require each state to develop an Air Operating Permit Program to identify all sources of regulated pollutants. Regulated pollutants include criteria pollutants (oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, total suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 10 microns in size, and lead) plus 189 other hazardous air pollutants. In July 1992, the EPA responded to this directive by promulgating 40 CFR 70.
In November 1994, the EPA approved the Washington State Air Operating Permit Regulation, promulgated as Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Chapter 173-401. This permit became effective December 1994. DOE has applied for a Sitewide Air Operating Permit.
Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 USC §300 [F] et seq.)
The primary objective of the Safe Drinking Water Act is to protect the quality of the public water supplies and all sources of drinking water. The implementing regulations, which are administered by the EPA unless delegated to the states, establish standards applicable to public water systems. Public water systems are defined as water systems that serve at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents, or regularly serve at least 25 year-round residents. These regulations establish maximum contaminant levels (including those for radionuclides) in public water systems. The Safe Drinking Water Act requirements have been implemented by the EPA in 40 CFR 100 through 149. Other programs established by the Safe Drinking Water Act include the Sole Source Aquifer Program, the Wellhead Protection Program, and the Underground Injection Control Program.
Clean Water Act, as amended (33 USC §1251 et seq.)
The Clean Water Act, which amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's water. The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States. Section 313 of the Clean Water Act requires all branches of the Federal Government, engaged in any activity that might result in a discharge or runoff of pollutants to surface waters, to comply with Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements.
The Clean Water Act establishes guidelines and limitations for effluents from point-source discharges and authorizes the EPA to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting Program. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting Program is administered by the Water Management Division of the EPA pursuant to regulations in 40 CFR 122 et seq.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (42 USC §6901 et seq.)
The treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste are regulated under the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, and the Federal Facility Compliance Act, which are described separately from RCRA in this section. RCRA sets forth requirements for generators and transporters of hazardous waste and also establishes a specific permit program for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The EPA regulations implementing RCRA are found in 40 CFR 260 through 280. Washington State regulations implementing the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) hazardous waste program are described in Section 6.1.2.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 USC §9601 et seq.)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a statutory framework for the cleanup of waste sites containing hazardous substances and, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, provides an emergency response program in the event of a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance to the environment. Using the Hazard Ranking System, Federal and private sites are ranked and may be included on the National Priorities List. CERCLA requires Federal facilities having such sites to undertake investigations and remediation as necessary. CERCLA also includes requirements for reporting releases of certain hazardous substances in excess of specified amounts to Federal and State agencies. CERCLA could be applicable in the event of a release of hazardous substances to the environment. The implementing regulations for CERCLA are found in 40 CFR 300.
Federal Facility Compliance Act (42 USC §6921 et seq.)
The Federal Facility Compliance Act waives sovereign immunity for RCRA violations at Federal facilities. However, provisions in the act postpone compliance with RCRA mixed waste storage regulations at DOE sites. Instead DOE is required to prepare Site Treatment Plans for developing required treatment capacity for mixed waste stored or generated at each facility unless a State-enforceable agreement for RCRA compliance is put into effect. The Federal Facility Compliance Act provides that DOE will not be subject to fines and penalties for violating prohibitions on land disposal of mixed waste as long as it is in compliance with an approved Site Treatment Plan and meets all other applicable regulations. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement (Ecology et al. 1994), among Ecology, EPA, and DOE constitutes a State-enforceable agreement that meets the Federal Facility Compliance Act requirements.
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (29 USC §651 et seq.)
The Occupational Safety and Health Act establishes standards to enhance safe and healthful working conditions in places of employment throughout the United States. The Act is administered and enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Department of Labor. While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and EPA both have mandates to reduce exposures to toxic substances, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction is limited to safety and health conditions in the workplace environment. DOE implements these standards at the Hanford Site through DOE Orders 3790.1B, 5483.1A, and 5480.1B.
Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended (42 USC §4901 et seq.)
Section 4 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 directs all Federal agencies to carry out, to the fullest extent within their authority, programs within their jurisdictions in a manner that furthers the national policy of promoting an environment free from noise that may jeopardize health and welfare.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 USC 11001 et seq.) (Also known as Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act [SARA] Title III)
Under Subtitle A of this Act, Federal facilities, including those owned by DOE, provide information, such as specific chemical inventories used or stored and accidental releases that occur from these facilities to the State Emergency Response Commission and the Local Emergency Planning Committee to ensure that emergency plans sufficiently respond to unplanned releases of hazardous substances.
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 USC §10101 et seq.)
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a national policy for disposal of HLW and spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository, and directed DOE to characterize the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for suitability as the site of a first United States repository. The Act authorizes disposal of HLW and spent nuclear fuel, in the first repository, subject to a limit on repository capacity and the payment of appropriate fees. The Act specifically instructs the NRC to limit the potential first geologic repository to 70,000 metric tons (mt) (77,000 tons) of heavy metal or a quantity of solidified HLW resulting from the reprocessing of such a quantity of spent nuclear fuel until such time as a second geologic repository is in operation. For planning purposes, DOE assumes that some or all of the Hanford Site HLW that satisfies the repository's acceptance criteria could be placed in the potential geologic repositories developed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Sufficient information is not available to determine at this time whether the Yucca Mountain site is a suitable candidate for geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. DOE, however, is in the early planning stages for a repository EIS, which will be prepared pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. DOE has issued a formal notice of its intent to prepare this analysis. The repository EIS would evaluate potential environmental impacts, based on the best available information and data, that would be associated with the repository's development and operation, and to support the Secretary of Energy's final recommendation to the President, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The repository EIS would examine the site-specific environmental impacts from construction, operation, and eventual closure of the repository, including potential post-closure radiological effects to the environment and would assess the impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and HLW to a repository.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides that any repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste resulting from atomic energy defense activities only shall be subject to licensing under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 USC §5842). Further, Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act authorizes NRC licensing of facilities authorized for the express purpose of long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste that are not used for, or are not a part of, research and development activities. Therefore, to the extent that any decision based on this EIS requires defense HLW to be placed in a repository constructed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or a facility subject to licensing under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act, such a repository or facility would be subject to licensing by the NRC. NRC regulations governing the licensing of a geologic repository are contained in 10 CFR 60.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directed EPA to promulgate waste standards pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act. EPA responded on September 19, 1985, by issuing the Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level, and Transuranic Wastes (final rule) in 40 CFR 191. Over a period of years, 40 CFR 191 was vacated and remanded by the court in response to petitions for review. Certain sections of 40 CFR 191 were reinstated and on December 20, 1993, EPA promulgated the current final rule including a revised Section 191.15, Individual Protection Requirements and a new Subpart C, Environmental Standards for Ground-Water Protection. The final rule announcement (58 FR 66398) notes that 40 CFR 191 does not apply to the candidate Yucca Mountain site .
The final 40 CFR 191 rule consists of three subparts. Subpart A established dose limits for members of the public including doses resulting from management and storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level or transuranic waste at any disposal facility operated by DOE that is not regulated by NRC or by agreement States . Subpart B establishes containment requirements, assurance requirements, and individual protection requirements for disposal systems for spent nuclear fuel, HLW, and transuranic waste. This part specifies a 10,000-year design objective, discusses requirements for institutional controls, monitoring performance of the disposal system, designation by records, markers, and passive controls, avoidance of resource areas, and finally retrievability of wastes. Subpart C establishes groundwater protection standards for underground sources of drinking water for disposal systems for spent nuclear fuel, HLW, and transuranic waste.
The rule was developed primarily for mined geologic repositories. However, EPA states that "Although developed primarily through consideration of mined geologic repositories, 40 CFR 191 ... applies to disposal of the subject wastes by any method with three exceptions." The standards do not apply to ocean disposal or disposal that occurred before the 1985 standards. The groundwater protection requirements of Subpart C may not apply to disposal systems located within a quarter mile of an underground source of drinking water.
40 CFR 191 could apply to some waste that would be disposed of onsite under the TWRS alternatives. If the waste that is disposed of onsite is classified as high-level or transuranic radioactive waste, 40 CFR 191 would apply. It would not apply to waste classified as incidental or low-activity waste (LAW). It would not apply to TWRS HLW assumed to be disposed of at the potential geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Much of the DST waste is considered HLW and onsite disposal would be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 191. The NRC has not determined the classification of SST waste or residual waste that cannot be recovered from the tanks (see Section 6.2.1, Tank Waste Classification). Depending on how these wastes are classified, 40 CFR 191 may or may not apply to in situ disposal of these wastes. In support of the repository program, waste acceptance system requirements are being developed (DOE 1995q) that would be applicable to any HLW emplaced in the repository. These include requirements for waste form, waste characteristics, waste composition, waste container specifications, and records.
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 USC §13101 et seq.)
The Pollution Prevention Act establishes a national policy for waste management and pollution control that focuses first on source reduction, followed sequentially by environmentally safe recycling, treatment, and disposal. Disposal or releases to the environment should only occur as a last resort. DOE requires each site to establish site-specific goals to reduce generation of all waste types.
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 USC §470 et seq.)
The National Historic Preservation Act requires that sites with national historic value be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. There are no permits or certifications required under the National Historic Preservation Act. However, if a Federal activity may impact a historic property resource, consultation is required with the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The consultation will normally result in the generation of a Memorandum of Agreement, including stipulations that must be followed to minimize adverse impacts. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer is also part of the consultation process undertaken to ensure that potentially important sites are properly identified and appropriate mitigative actions are implemented.
Archaeological Resource Protection Act, as amended (16 USC §470 aa et seq.)
The Archaeological Resource Protection Act provides for the preservation of historical and archaeological data (including relics and specimens) that might otherwise be irreparably lost or destroyed as a result of actions by any Federal agency or its contractors. If a Federal agency finds that its activities may cause irreparable loss or destruction of important scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archaeological data, the agency must notify the U.S. Department of Interior and may request the Department undertake the recovery, protection, and preservation of such data. This Act requires a permit for excavating or removing archaeological resources from public or Tribal lands. Excavations must be undertaken for the purpose of furthering archaeological knowledge in the public interest, and resources removed remain the property of the United States.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC §1996)
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act was enacted to protect and preserve the rights of Native Americans to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. The Act also requires that Federal actions avoid interfering with access of Native Americans to sacred locations and traditional resources that are integral to the practice of traditional religions.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC §3001)
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act established Federal agency responsibility for inventories and summaries of cultural items, including associated funerary objects, unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and cultural patrimony items, in Federal collections. Agencies are given procedural directions for planned excavation when cultural items may be present or discovered.
Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 USC §1531 et seq.)
The Endangered Species Act is intended to prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and restore these species and their habitats. The Endangered Species Act is jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Interior. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies proposing action to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended (16 USC §703 et seq.)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is intended to protect birds that have common migration patterns between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. This Act regulates the harvest of migratory birds by specifying things such as the mode of harvest, hunting seasons, and bag limits. Federal agencies proposing action are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding impacts to migratory birds and to evaluate ways to avoid or minimize impacts in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended (16 USC §668-668d)
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act makes it unlawful to take, pursue, or disturb bald (American) and golden eagles, their nests, or their eggs anywhere in the United States (Section 668, 668c). A permit must be obtained from the U.S. Department of Interior to relocate a nest that interferes with resource development or recovery operations.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended (16 USC §1271 et seq. 71:8301 et seq.)
The Wild and Scenic River Act was enacted to protect selected rivers that possess outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or other similar values. These rivers are to be preserved in free-flowing condition to protect water quality and promote other conservation activities. The Act authorizes creating a national wild and scenic rivers system, designating rivers that are initially a part of that system, and developing standards for adding new rivers to the system.
6.1.2 Washington State Environmental Statutes and Regulations
Washington State environmental requirements applicable to the proposed action and alternatives evaluated in this EIS are administered by Ecology and the Washington State Department of Health. These requirements are described in the following sections.
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington)
The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and its implementing regulations (WAC 197-11) require any Washington State or local agency to analyze all reasonable alternatives and their potential environmental impacts prior to taking an action that may significantly impact the environment. The SEPA action necessitating this EIS is the issuance of State permits required for this proposal. Because SEPA and NEPA (Section 6.1.1) are very comparable in their purpose, intent, and procedures, Ecology and DOE are co-preparing this EIS in compliance with the requirements of SEPA and NEPA.
Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.105 Revised Code of Washington)
The Hazardous Waste Management Act and its implementing regulations (WAC 173-303) apply to the management of all dangerous and mixed waste at the Hanford Site. The EPA has delegated the RCRA base program to Ecology, which gives Ecology the authority to regulate mixed waste in Washington State (Section 6.1.1). The Tri-Party Agreement provides the framework for applying the State's requirements for dangerous waste treatment, storage, and disposal units at the Hanford Site. WAC 173-303 specifies requirements for design, permitting, operation, and closure of dangerous and mixed waste management sites.
Washington Clean Air Act (Chapter 70.94 Revised Code of Washington)
Ecology regulates releases of nonradioactive pollutants while the Washington State Department of Health regulates radioactive pollutants to the air under the WAC 173-400 and 173-460. These regulations require that new sources of toxic air pollutants comply with requirements for measurement of emissions and best available control technologies for potential toxic releases to the environment.
Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washington)
The Water Pollution Control Act and its implementing regulations (WAC 173-200 and 173-216) require that a permit be obtained for any discharge to the soil column, and the quality of the groundwater in the vicinity be protected and not degraded. Protecting groundwater quality involves applying all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment. Both toxic pollutants and radionuclides are included in the groundwater quality standards for the State. WAC 173-201A establishes surface water quality standards for Washington State and requires that toxic substances that have the potential to adversely affect water uses not be introduced into surface waters of the State above natural background levels. EPA retains regulatory authority over the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program for the Hanford Site under 40 CFR 122-136. WAC 173-226 provides the basis for a general waste discharge permit program for the State. The WAC 173-226-100 prohibits the discharge of any high-level radioactive waste into State waters.
6.1.3 DOE Regulations and Directives
Through the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, DOE is responsible for establishing comprehensive programs at its facilities to protect health, safety, and the environment. Formerly, DOE carried out this responsibility by directing the activities of its employees and contractors with a series of DOE Orders. Since August 1994, DOE has begun shifting to a system of regulations and directives, in a standards-based management approach, to ensure the excellence in performance that DOE expects of its employees and contractors (DOE 1994k). Directives include orders, policy statements, contractor requirements documents, and manuals to give advice on how to implement requirements. A necessary and sufficient process will be used by DOE and its contractor to decide what directives apply to a particular facility, activity, or site.
DOE regulations are generally found in Title 10 CFR. For purposes of this EIS, relevant regulations include 10 CFR 820, Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities; 10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management; 10 CFR 834, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (Draft); 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection; 10 CFR 1021, Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; and 10 CFR 1022, Compliance with Floodplains/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements. As DOE issues formal regulations, and as the standards-based management approach continues to be implemented, some DOE Orders are no longer needed, while others need to be consolidated. Thus, the new directives are in transition. In September 1995, DOE canceled 58 orders. Nevertheless, the remaining directives give DOE expectations for the environment, safety, and health, These are DOE Policy 450.2, Identification, Implementation, and Compliance with Environment, Safety, and Health Requirements (DOE 1995n) and DOE Order 231.1, Safety and Health Reporting Requirements (DOE 1995o).
DOE Policy 450.2 is a policy statement that sets forth the framework for identifying, implementing, and complying with environment, safety, and health requirements so that work is performed in the DOE complex in a manner that ensures adequate protection of workers, the public, and the environment. This framework is an integral part of DOE's commitment to a standards-based management system. This policy statement reaffirms the commitments in the DOE Nuclear Safety Policy Statement (September 9, 1991) and the DOE Environment, Safety, and Health Policy Statement (July 20, 1993), including the commitments to excellence and continuous improvement in all DOE operations. DOE Order 460.1 establishes onsite packaging and transportation safety requirements (DOE 1995p). DOE Order 231.1 directs the collection and reporting of information on the environment, safety, and health that is required by law or regulation to be collected, or that is essential for evaluating DOE operations and identifying opportunities for improvement needed for planning purposes within DOE (DOE 1995o).
DOE Order 5820.2A establishes policies, guidelines, and minimum requirements for managing radioactive or mixed waste facilities (DOE 1988). Specific requirement limits include 1) external exposure to waste and concentrations of radioactive material that may be released into surface water, groundwater, soil, plants, or animals and is limited to an effective dose equivalent not to exceed 25 millirems/year to any member of the public; and 2) atmospheric releases that are required to comply with the limits specified in 40 CFR 61. Limits are imposed on the cumulative effective dose received by an individual intruder at any time after 100 years, when there is an assumed loss of active institutional control. DOE's historic planning strategy has been to dispose of the majority of their HLW in a national repository. However, DOE does not view disposal in a national repository as being legally required, and DOE intends to determine the appropriate disposition of HLW on a case-by-case basis. For purposes of disposal, DOE Order 5820.2A differentiates between new and readily retrievable existing HLW and HLW that is not readily retrievable. The order provides for new and readily re trievable existing waste to be processed and the HLW fraction disposed of in a geologic repository. For HLW that is not readily retrievable , the order provides for evaluation of such methods as in-place stabilization as well as possible retrieval and processing as stated for new and readily re trievable HLW.
DOE Order 1230.2, American Indian Tribal Government Policy (DOE 1992d), issued April 8, 1992, commits to consult with tribal governments to ensure that tribal rights and concerns are considered before DOE takes actions that may affect tribes. DOE also commits to avoid unnecessary interference with traditional tribal religious practices.
6.1.4 Federal Transportation Regulations
In addition to the packaging and transportation requirements in DOE Orders, offsite shipping of radioactive materials on public right-of-ways is regulated by the NRC and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Table 6.1.2 summarizes applicable Federal regulations for transporting nuclear material.
Table 6.1.2 Summary of Major Federal Transportation Requirements
6.1.5 Tri-Party Agreement
The Tri-Party Agreement, signed by DOE, Ecology, and EPA on May 14, 1989, is an agreement to clean up radioactive and hazardous waste at the Hanford Site over a 30-year period. The Tri-Party Agreement establishes an action plan for clean up that addresses priority actions, methods for resolving problems, and milestones. The Tri-Party Agreement sets milestones to achieve coordinated cleanup of pthe Hanford Site and provides for the enforcement of these milestones to keep the program on schedule. In addition, the Tri-Party Agreement establishes the applicability of RCRA and CERCLA and their amendments to the Hanford Site.
In January 1994, the Tri-Party Agreement was amended to incorporate the revised TWRS program technical strategy, which includes remediation of single-shell tank (SST) and double-shell tank (DST) waste. The requirements in the Tri-Party Agreement reflect the plan for remediating the tank waste for purposes of analysis in this EIS. DOE has committed to comply with requirements of the Tri-Party Agreement related to managing tank waste at the Hanford Site. These tank-farm specific requirements are being assessed in the TWRS EIS and compared to other alternatives for tank waste remediation as well as to the No Action alternative. The Tri-Party Agreement does not address the encapsulated cesium and strontium. The major requirements of the Tri-Party Agreement schedule related to TWRS are shown in Table 6.1.3. DOE, Ecology, and EPA negotiated additional amendments to the agreement in 1996. The primary changes to the agreement are to 1) incorporate DOE's proposed approach for contracting with private companies to perform certain aspects of the TWRS activities; and 2) combine the LAW pretreatment and LAW vitrification milestones.
Table 6.1.3 Tri-Party Agreement Schedule of Tank Waste Milestones
6.2 ABILITY OF TANK WASTE ALTERNATIVES TO COMPLY WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Section 6.1 describes relevant Federal and State laws and regulations, permits, compliance agreements, and DOE Orders that may be applicable to the alternatives addressed in the EIS. Review of the prequirements has raised a number of regulatory issues that could affect the regulatory compliance status of certain alternatives. Section 6.2.1 describes the regulatory issues. The list of permits and approvals that may be required to implement the alternatives is provided in Table 6.2.1. In many cases, specific operating requirements or pollution control equipment would be required to ensure compliance with air and water quality regulations.
However, certain alternatives may not be fully compliant with existing regulations or may require regulatory relief (modification or waiver of regulations) to be compliant. Specific items of compliance or noncompliance are described in Section 6.2.2 for each of the tank waste alternatives. The key requirements that may affect the compliant implementation of alternatives include the following:
- DOE, NRC, and EPA disposal requirements for LAW, HLW, and mixed waste;
- RCRA and State of Washington Hazardous Waste Management Act requirements for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste; and
- HLW capacity limitations and waste acceptance criteria of the potential national geologic repository.
These are key regulatory requirements that govern remediation of the tank waste. The ability of the alternatives to meet these requirements is an important factor in the evaluation and comparison of the alternatives.
Table 6.2.1 Potential Permits and Approvals Needed for Tank Waste and Capsule Alternatives
6.2.1 Waste Disposal Regulatory Issues
A number of regulatory issues have been identified that, depending upon how they are resolved, could affect the ability to implement one or more of the tank waste alternatives. Some issues, such as classification of tank waste, are the subject of ongoing discussions with regulatory authorities.
Tank Farm Closure
Under the Tri-Party Agreement, both SSTs and DSTs are RCRA hazardous waste management units that will be eventually closed under State Dangerous Waste regulations (WAC 173-303). The three existing options for closure in accordance with the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit (No. WA7890008967) are 1) clean closure, involving removal of all waste and waste constituents, including tanks, debris, contaminated equipment, and contaminated soil and groundwater; 2) modified closure, which permits closure to a specified level to be determined in consultation with the regulatory authority, a period of institutional controls, and periodic assessments to determine the effectiveness of the closure; and 3) closure as a landfill with waste remaining in-place and corrective action taken for contaminated media under post-closure requirements. All options would require the submittal to and approval of closure plans by Ecology. Although closure is not within the scope of this EIS, the decisions made on how to treat and dispose of the tank waste may impact the choice of closure activities. Implementing one of the in situ alternatives precludes clean closure options for the treatment, storage, and disposal unit, and post-closure monitoring and maintenance would be required. Implementing one of the ex situ alternatives does not preclude any closure option.
RCRA Permit Modification
Facilities used to treat tank waste would be RCRA-permitted treatment units that may generate radioactive or hazardous emissions. Effluent treatment systems would be included in these units where required to ensure that any airborne emissions and liquid effluents would meet air and water quality standards. The Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit requires all air emissions from treatment, storage, or disposal units to comply with all applicable Federal and State regulations pertaining to air emission controls, including but not limited to WACs 173-400, 173-460, and 173-480. In addition, the Dangerous Waste Permit requires that the permittee obtain all other necessary permits for work performed under the Dangerous Waste Permit. This is interpreted to mean that the requirements of WACs 173-216, 173-226, and 173-201A also apply to any wastewater or other liquid discharges from treatment facilities. Therefore, before any technologies could be implemented, the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit would need to be modified with the approval of Ecology.
Hanford Site Air Operating Permit Modification
DOE has applied for a Sitewide Air Operating Permit under the Washington State Air Operating Permit Regulation. WAC 173-401-650(1) allows the facility to identify reasonably anticipated operating scenarios. Operating scenarios included in the permit can be implemented without a permit revision. These operating scenarios must comply with all applicable requirements and any terms or conditions of the permit. Once DOE has determined what TWRS alternative will be implemented, the activities will be examined for new source review applicability, and Notices of Construction will be prepared as needed. Specific Notice of Construction requirements may require a permit modification.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Modification
The Clean Water Act applies to all discharges to waters of the United States. At the Hanford Site, the regulations are applied through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit governing effluent discharges to the Columbia River. The Hanford Site currently has two of these permits, which specify discharge points (called outfalls), effluent limitations, and monitoring requirements. One permit (No. WA000374-3) is for eight outfalls and the other permit (No. WA002591-7) is for one outfall associated with the 300 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility. Any actions that would result in a new or increased discharge to waters of the United States would require a permit modification or a new permit.
Tank Radioactive Waste Classification
The disposal or storage of radioactive waste is regulated by DOE and the NRC pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act. DOE's guidance for classifying waste is contained in DOE Order 5820.2A, Radioactive Waste Management (DOE 1988). The order classifies waste into HLW, low-level waste (LLW), transuranic waste, hazardous waste, and mixed waste. WAC 173-303-040 defines mixed waste. Waste designation procedures under WAC 173-303-070 are also applicable. NRC guidance on waste classification is contained in 10 CFR 60 (Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories) and in 10 CFR 61 (Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste). HLW is defined in 10 CFR 60 as 1) irradiated reactor fuel, 2) liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, and 3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted. LLW is classified as A, B, C, and greater-than-Class C in 10 CFR 61.55. Determination of the classification of radioactive waste involves two considerations. First, consideration must be given to the concentration of long-lived radionuclides whose potential hazard will persist long after such precautions such as institutional controls, waste form, and deep disposal have ceased to be effective. Second, consideration must be given to the concentration of shorter-lived radionuclides for which requirements on institutional controls, waste form, and disposal methods are effective. DOE LLW disposal is not regulated by the NRC; however, NRC rulings regarding waste treatment and waste feed limitations will affect classifying waste that is subject to HLW disposal requirements.
Proper classification of waste from each tank is required to determine what regulations or DOE Orders are applicable to the waste streams. It is also necessary to determine the disposal requirement to be applied to residual waste left in tanks after retrieval. Tank waste remaining after the removal of the practicable amount of HLW does not fit the DOE definition of LLW (DOE 1988) because this waste was initially derived from spent nuclear fuel. Therefore, to preserve the distinction and the origin of this waste, the DOE (Hanford Site) terminology for this waste is LAW. Design specifications for HLW and LAW treatment will require that waste forms meet applicable criteria (DOE 1995q) for disposal in the potential geologic repository, or as LAW for onsite disposal.
Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 requires NRC to regulate and license facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste, generated by DOE, which is not used for, or part of, research and development activities. Thus, it is important to determine which tank waste is HLW and must be disposed of at a licensed facility. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act defines HLW as:
- The highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and
- Other highly radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation.
The Hanford Site underground storage tanks contain HLW, transuranic waste, and mixed waste. In the current storage mode they are managed as HLW and are listed as HLW in the Integrated Data Base Inventory. Criteria must be formalized as to the extent to which the HLW in the tanks must be separated for the residual waste to be determined to be LAW by the NRC . DOE disposal of LAW is not regulated by the NRC.
DOE and the NRC have had formal discussions on the way tank waste is classified and how the LAW portion might be regulated. These consultations were carried out in the context of the previously planned grouted LAW, but the logic may be applied to vitrified LAW as well (although DOE would need to solicit an opinion from the NRC). The NRC's likely position on classifying Hanford Site tank waste may be inferred from the Denial of Petition (58 Federal Register [FR] 12344, March 4, 1993), which documents DOE and NRC consultations. In the Denial of Petition, NRC cites and summarizes documents that discuss principles derived from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's overall regulatory objectives that led to the promulgation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix F in 1970. Among other things, these principles state that "a high degree of decontamination capability" will be achieved, implying that the facility should separate for disposal as much of the radioactivity as possible using processes that are technically and economically practical. Residual radioactive contamination also must be sufficiently low as to not endanger public health and safety.
In 58 FR 12344, the NRC cited a previous finding that DOE's former plans for handling DST waste (as presented in the Hanford Defense Waste EIS [DOE 1987]) were consistent with the NRC's principles of waste decontamination and protection of the public. As such, NRC stated that the waste materials resulting from the process described by DOE for the treatment of DST waste would be incidental waste, provided that the largest practical amount of total radioactivity attributable to first cycle solvent extraction waste be segregated for disposal as HLW. The residual waste after processing, to be disposed of as incidental waste, would not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C low-level waste, as defined in 10 CFR 61 .
In 58 FR 12344, the NRC did not provide a view on the waste classification of SST waste. NRC indicated that "the appropriate classification of some Hanford waste remains to be determined--specifically, any SST waste...A case-by-case determination of the appropriate waste classification might be necessary." As such, some consideration may be required for the regulation of SST waste by the NRC. The NRC did not address the classification of residual waste that could not be recovered from the tanks or the contaminated equipment used for waste management or remediation and disposal. These are closure issues that require further discussion among DOE, Ecology, and NRC.
Therefore, classification of some tank waste is subject to the results of ongoing waste characterization studies and regulatory decision making. The current planning basis for the applicability of NRC regulations to the alternatives has several components depending on the alternative. For the in situ alternatives and the in situ component of the combination alternative the planning basis includes the following.
- Most DST waste is currently designated HLW. In situ disposal of this waste would be subject to NRC licensing.
- SSTs contain HLW , which may be classified on a case-by-case basis as LAW or incidental waste. The NRC would make the classification determination. In situ disposal of this incidental waste would not be subject to NRC regulation or licensing.
For the ex situ alternatives and the ex situ component of the combination alternative, the planning basis includes the following.
- HLW components would be separated out and disposed of in a geologic repository. The repository would be subject to NRC regulations including licensing.
- HLW processing facilities and immobilized HLW storage facilities at the Hanford Site would not be regulated or licensed by the NRC unless the facilities are owned by a private entity such as is proposed under the privatization initiative.
- It is assumed that residual waste remaining in the tanks after retrieval of as much of the waste as practicable would be classified as incidental waste (not HLW) and would be disposed of in-place as LLW. The NRC would make the classification determination. Disposal of incidental waste would not be subject to NRC regulation or licensing.
- LAW remaining after processing the high-level tank waste to remove as much of the high-level radioactivity as practicable could be classified as incidental waste as previously indicated by the NRC (58 FR 12344). It is assumed that this waste will not be greater than Class C LLW. Onsite disposal facilities (vaults) for this waste would not be subject to NRC regulation or licensing.
- Waste disposed of under the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 alternatives would follow the combined planning basis described earlier for the various components.
In summary, the tank waste alternatives that involve a separations process for Hanford Site tank waste would be designed to produce HLW and LAW streams. Current design assumptions are that at least 90 percent of the activity would be in the high-level stream. The concentrated activity stream would be classified as HLW and could be disposed of in the potential geologic repository. The LAW stream, based on the NRC's published opinion, could be classified as incidental waste and subject to less stringent disposal requirements for LAW, if it does not exceed the Class C LLW requirements.
Onsite Disposal of Low-Activity Waste
Onsite disposal of LAW would be consistent with DOE's policies and requirements for low-level radioactive waste management and disposal activities. LAW disposal vaults would be regulated under DOE Order 5820.2A. DOE Order 5820.2A establishes performance objectives for LAW disposal as well as radiological performance assessment requirements. The DOE Order provides guidance on waste characterization, waste acceptance criteria, disposal site selection, facility design, operations and closure/post closure. EPA is considering the need for additional regulation of DOE LAW facilities. At this time, however, DOE LAW facilities are not subject to regulation either by EPA or the NRC. The LAW could be disposed onsite in compliance with Tri-Party Agreement and DOE requirements.
Onsite Storage of High-Level Waste
DOE requirements for storage of HLW are defined in DOE Order 5820.2A. This order specifies that all HLW shall be considered to be radioactive mixed waste and subject to both the Atomic Energy Act and RCRA. Thus, in addition to meeting all applicable DOE radiation protection standards, HLW storage facilities must be RCRA compliant. With respect to mixed waste, DOE retains authority over the radiological components while EPA retains authority over the hazardous component s . Designs for HLW storage facilities must meet the requirements of DOE Order 6430.1 (General Design Criteria) and 40 CFR 264 (requirement for RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities).
Disposal of High-Level Waste
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provided for the development of repositories for disposal of HLW and commercial spent nuclear fuel and required the President to evaluate the use of commercial repository capacity for the disposal of defense high-level nuclear waste. In February 1985, the then Secretary of Energy submitted a memorandum to the President recommending "that the Department proceed with plans and actions to dispose of defense waste in a commercial repository." In an April 1985 Presidential Memorandum, the President approved proceeding on the basis of the recommendation. Subsequently, in September 1988, DOE issued DOE Order 5820.2A, which stated requirements to process and dispose of DOE's new and readily retrievable HLW in a geologic repository and to consider options such as in-place stabilization or retrieval, processing and disposal in a geologic repository for permanent disposal of a singly contained tank waste.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987 ordered termination of activities at all geologic repository candidate sites other than the Yucca Mountain site and required that the Secretary of Energy report to the President and Congress between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2010 on the need for a second repository. Therefore, the current planning basis for disposal of DOE's new or readily retrievable HLW is for disposal at a geologic repository, which may be Yucca Mountain should that site be shown to be acceptable and approved as a geologic repository.
Waste Acceptance System Requirements
Of the many waste acceptance requirements that are being developed, a few are of particular relevance to implementation of the alternatives for disposal of tank waste or encapsulated cesium and strontium presented in this EIS. They include the following requirements (DOE 1995q):
Waste Form
Particulate waste forms shall be consolidated (e.g., by incorporation into an encapsulating matrix) to limit the availability and generation of particulates. This requirement affects the acceptability of the encapsulated strontium fluoride and calcined HLW, both of which are compacted powders. The waste form shall not contain explosive, pyrophoric, or chemically reactive materials in an amount that could compromise the repository's ability for waste isolation or the ability to satisfy the performance objectives. This requirement affects the acceptability of the encapsulated cesium chloride and strontium fluoride, which are potentially corrosive.
The standard canistered HLW form shall be borosilicate glass sealed inside stainless steel canister(s) with a concentric neck and lifting flange. A footnote to this requirement states that other standard HLW forms will be defined in subsequent revisions of the waste acceptance requirements. Waste forms such as soda-lime glass or calcined HLW waste forms produced under the Ex Situ No Separations alternative could be considered if they can be fully qualified for licensing but may be subject to delayed acceptance. Delayed acceptance would occur after a license is granted.
Repository Capacity
The repository shall not accept in excess of 70,000 mt (77,000 tons) uranium or equivalent in the first repository prior to operation of a second repository. Within this capacity ten percent, or 7,000 mt (7,700 tons) heavy metal, has been set aside for disposal of HLW and DOE spent nuclear fuel. How DOE intends to allocate the 7,000 mt (7,700 tons) heavy metal capacity has not been decided (i.e., spent nuclear fuel first with the balance from HLW; Savannah River waste before Hanford Site waste). However, for purposes of analysis in the EIS, it is assumed that 2,465 (approximately equal to 7,000 mt [7,770 tons]) waste packages from the Hanford Site could be disposed of in the potential geologic repository.
Repository Availability
The repository shall have the capability to accept spent nuclear fuel beginning in 2010 and HLW beginning in 2015 for disposal at the geologic repository at a specified receipt rate. The current repository program planning assumption is that any DOE material (vitrified HLW or spent nuclear fuel) qualified and selected for emplacement in the first repository would be disposed beginning in 2015. The disposition of remaining DOE spent nuclear fuel and vitrified HLW not emplaced in the first repository would not be decided until DOE makes a recommendation on the need for a second repository. This decision would consider such factors as the physical and statutory limits of the first repository.
Mixed Waste
DOE Order 5820.2A states that unless demonstrated to the contrary, all HLW shall be considered to be radioactive mixed waste and subject to the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and RCRA. DOE has determined that HLW that contains hazardous characteristics or RCRA listed waste may not be disposed of in the potential first geologic repository.
Hanford Site high-level radioactive waste and cesium and strontium capsules contain hazardous, characteristic, and/or listed wastes. Hanford Site tank waste is both characteristic waste and listed waste under RCRA, and the encapsulated cesium and strontium are characteristic waste (the characteristic of corrosivity) under RCRA (once they are determined to be waste). Any alternative that includes disposal offsite must include all necessary requirements to treat, and/or delist, the waste prior to shipment. The DOE generator of HLW, and DOE as a whole, will continue to examine every technical and regulatory option for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and cesium and strontium capsules. Such options may include pursuing treatability variances and/or delisting options in the appropriate regulatory agencies, working to ensure the safe management of radioactive mixed waste through current modifications to the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule promulgated by EPA (60 FR 66344), or through changes in statute. In any case, appropriate Federal and State agencies (including the receiving state for ex situ options) will be consulted. Treatment standards and delisting must be approved by the receiving state, in addition to Washington State.
6.2.2 Regulatory Compliance
This section describes the ability of each tank waste alternative to enable DOE to comply with Federal and State regulations. The permits and approvals that are potentially required for the alternatives are listed in Table 6.2.1. Implementation of the alternatives would in some cases require regulatory relief. Regulatory relief includes amendment of existing permits, renegotiation of the Tri-Party Agreement, or changes in Federal or State laws or regulations. A summary of potential regulatory relief that might be required to implement each of the tank waste alternatives is presented in Table 6.2.2.
6.2.2.1 No Action Alternative (Tank Waste)
Under the No Action alternative the waste would continue to be stored in underground tanks. No action would be taken to remediate the waste.
Table 6.2.2 Regulatory Relief Requirements - Tank Waste Alternatives
Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal
The SSTs do not meet RCRA or State Hazardous Waste Management Act requirements for storing hazardous waste. While the DSTs meet these requirements, parts of the tank waste transfer system do not. The RCRA land disposal restrictions require that established treatment requirements be met prior to land disposal of hazardous waste. Implementation would require an amendment to the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit and possibly modification of the Washington Administrative Code .
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal
Implementing this alternative would not comply with the requirements of DOE Order 5820.2A and would be inconsistent with the planned disposal of other HLW in a potential geologic repository. In addition, this alternative may require changes to the requirements for disposal of high-level radioactive waste if no closure action is taken.
Air Quality Standards
Implementing this alternative would not result in violation of air quality standards.
Water Protection Standards
Implementing this alternative would not meet the water protection requirements of 40 CFR 191 (without treating the water) in the future when the tanks are assumed to degrade resulting in migration of the waste if no closure action is taken. Final closure action would be addressed in a closure plan and may result in lower levels of water contamination.
6.2.2.2 Long-Term Management Alternative
Under the Long-Term Management alternative, the tank waste would continue to be stored in underground tanks. The SST waste would have minimal free liquids and would be left in place and monitored. Ultimate decisions on the treatment and disposal of the tank waste, as well as decisions regarding tank closure, would be deferred until some future date. DST waste would be monitored, retrieved, and placed into new DSTs at 50-year intervals.
Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal
The SSTs do not meet RCRA or State Hazardous Waste Management Act requirements for storing hazardous waste. The DSTs do meet these requirements but parts of the tank waste transfer system do not. The RCRA land disposal restrictions require that established treatment requirements be met prior to land disposal of hazardous waste. Implementation would require an amendment to the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit and may require modification of the Washington Administrative Code.
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal
This alternative would be implemented so as to comply with DOE, NRC, and State Hazardous Waste Management Act requirements for the storage of HLW. This alternative would not comply with the requirements of DOE Order 5820.2A and would be inconsistent with the planned disposal of other HLW in a potential geologic repository. Implementation of this alternative may require changes to the requirements for disposal of HLW if no closure action is taken.
Air Quality Standards
Implementing this alternative would not result in violation of air quality standards.
Water Protection Standards
Implementing this alternative would not meet the water protection requirements of 40 CFR 191 (without treating the water) in the future when the tanks are assumed to degrade resulting in migration of the waste. This alternative would require changes to the groundwater protection requirements if no closure action is taken. Final closure action would be addressed in a closure plan and may result in lower levels of water contamination.
6.2.2.3 In Situ Fill and Cap Alternative
Under this alternative waste would be disposed of in place, no treatment would be performed, the tanks would be filled with gravel, and the tank farm would be capped with a Hanford Barrier.
Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal
Implementing this alternative would not meet the land disposal restrictions of the State Dangerous Waste Regulations (including the requirements of RCRA) because the hazardous characteristics of the waste would be retained. Implementation would require an amendment to the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit and may require modification of the Washington Administrative Code . This alternative would preclude clean closure of the tanks under RCRA.
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal
Near-surface disposal of any readily retrievable HLW would not meet the requirements of DOE Order 5820.2A and would be inconsistent with the planned disposal of other HLW in a potential geologic repository. Implementation of this alternative would require changes to the requirements for disposal of HLW if additional closure action is not taken.
Air Quality Standards
Implementing this alternative would not result in violation of air quality standards. A new source review would need to be conducted to determine if a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit would be required.
Water Protection Standards
Implementing this alternative would not meet the water protection requirements of 40 CFR 191 (without treating the water). Water quality requirement exceedances are based on the combination of the alternative and the representative closure scenario included in the analysis. Final closure actions would be addressed in a closure plan and may result in lower levels of water contamination.
6.2.2.4 In Situ Vitrification Alternative
Under this alternative all waste would be immobilized with in situ vitrification and disposed of in place.
Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal
This alternative is designed to stabilize the tank waste in a manner that would remove its hazardous characteristics. Implementation would require an amendment to the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit and may require modification of the Washington Administrative Code . This alternative would preclude clean closure of the tanks under RCRA.
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal
Near-surface disposal of any readily retrievable HLW would not meet the requirements of DOE Order 5820.2A and would be inconsistent with the planned disposal of other HLW in a geologic repository. In addition, this alternative would require changes to the requirements for the disposal of HLW.
Air Quality Standards
Implementing this alternative would meet the air quality standards. A new source review would need to be conducted to determine if a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit would be required.
Water Protection Standards
Implementing this alternative would not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 191 (without treating the water). Water quality requirement exceedances are based on the combination of the alternative and the representative closure scenario included in the analysis. Final closure actions would be addressed in a closure plan and may result in lower levels of water contamination.
6.2.2.5 Ex Situ Intermediate Separations Alternative
Under this alternative, all of the waste that could be practicably removed (assumed to be 99 percent) would be recovered and separated into HLW and LAW fractions and vitrified. The LAW would be disposed in an onsite near-surface disposal facility and the HLW would be shipped offsite to a potential geologic repository.
Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal
Implementation would require an amendment to the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit.
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal
This alternative would meet the requirements for the disposal of HLW and LLW. The EPA is considering a rule to further regulate LLW disposal facilities; the final design of the onsite LAW disposal facility may be impacted by the EPA rule (40 CFR 193). The Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document (DOE 1995q) for the potential first geologic repository limits the total quantity of defense HLW for all of DOE activities. The 3,050 waste packages that would be produc ed under this alternative would exceed the assumed Hanford Site portion of the limit.
Air Quality Standards
Implementing this alternative would not result in violation of air quality standards. A new source review would need to be conducted to determine if a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit would be required.
Water Protection Standards
Implementing this alternative would not meet the dose limit requirements of 40 CFR 141 (without treating the water) due to conservative assumptions regarding release of residuals remaining in the tanks after retrieval. Incidental waste disposed of in vaults would meet water protection requirements. Residuals left in tanks would not meet the water protection requirements if additional closure action is not taken. However, tanks and residuals would be addressed in a future closure plan.
6.2.2.6 Ex Situ No Separations Alternative
Under this alternative, all waste that could be practicably removed (assumed to be 99 percent) would be recovered and vitrified. The HLW would be shipped offsite to a potential geologic repository.
Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal
The calcine waste form may not qualify as the Best Demonstrated Available Technology for treatment under RCRA. Implementation would require an amendment to the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit.
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal
This alternative would meet the requirements for the disposal of HLW and LLW. The EPA is considering a rule to further regulate LLW disposal facilities; the final design of the onsite LAW disposal facility may be impacted by the EPA rule (40 CFR 193). The 10,300 to 29,100 waste packages that would be produced under the Ex Situ No Separations alternative would exceed the assumed Hanford Site portion of the potential first geologic repository limit. The compacte d particulate waste form of the calcination option under this alternative would not meet the current waste acceptance system requirements for the potential first geologic repository, which requires incorporating particulate waste into an encapsulating matrix. Neither soda-lime glass or calcine are currently an approved standard waste form.
Air Quality Standards
Implementing this alternative would not result in violation of air quality standards. A new source review would need to be conducted to determine if a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit would be required.
Water Protection Standards
Implementing this alternative would not meet the dose limit requirements of 40 CFR 141 (without treating the water) due to conservative assumptions regarding release of residuals remaining in the tanks after retrieval. Incidental waste disposed of in vaults would meet water protection requirements. Residuals left in tanks would not meet the water protection requirements if additional closure action is not taken. However, tanks and residuals would be addressed in a future closure plan.
6.2.2.7 Ex Situ Extensive Separations Alternative
Under this alternative, all waste that could be practicably removed (assumed to be 99 percent) would be recovered and separated into HLW and LAW fractions and vitrified. The LAW would be disposed of in an onsite near-surface disposal facility and the HLW would be shipped offsite to a potential geologic repository.
Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal
Implementation would require an amendment to the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit.
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal
This alternative would meet the requirements for disposal of HLW and LLW. The EPA is considering a rule to further regulate LLW disposal facilities; the final design of the onsite LAW disposal facility may be impacted by the EPA rule (40 CFR 193). The 143 waste packages that would be produced under the Ex Situ Extensive Separations alternative is well within the assumed Hanford Site portion of the potential first geologic reposit ory limit .
Air Quality Standards
Implementing this alternative would not result in violation of air quality standards. A new source review would need to be conducted to determine if a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit would be required.
Water Protection Standards
Implementing this alternative would not meet the dose limit requirements of 40 CFR 141 (without treating the water) due to conservative assumptions regarding release of residuals remaining in the tanks after retrieval. Incidental waste disposed of in vaults would meet water protection requirements. Residuals left in tanks would not meet the water protection requirements if additional closure action is not taken. However, tanks and residuals would be addressed in a future closure plan.
6.2.2.8 Ex Situ/In Situ Combination Alte rnative 1
Under this alternative approximately one-half of the waste by volume would be recovered and treated, consistent with the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. Approximately 90 percent of the waste constituents that contribute to risk would be contained within this material. The other half of the waste would be disposed of in situ, consistent with the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative.
Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal
Implementing the in situ portion of this alternative would not meet the land disposal restrictions of RCRA because the hazardous characteristics of the waste remaining in the tanks would be retained. Implementation would require an amendment to the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit and may require modification of the Washington Administrative Code .
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal
Near-surface disposal of any readily retrievable HLW would not meet the requirements of DOE Order 5820.2A (DOE 1988) . Implementing this alternative would be inconsistent with the planned disposal of other HLW in a potential geologic repository. In addition, this alternative would require changes to the requirements for disposal of HLW if additional closure action is not taken. The ex situ portion of the alternative would meet the requirements for the disposal of HLW and LLW. The approximately 2,130 waste packages that would be produced under the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative would be within the assumed Hanford portion of the potential first geologic repository limit .
Air Quality Standards
Implementing this alternative would meet the air quality standards. A new source review would need to be conducted to determine if a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit would be required.
Water Protection Standards
Implementing this alternative would not meet the dose limit requirements of 40 CFR 141 or 40 CFR 191 (without treating the water). The ex situ portion would follow the discussion for the ex situ alternatives and the in situ portion would follow the discussion for the in situ alternatives.
6.2.2.9 Ex Situ/In Situ Combination Alternative 2
Under this alternative, approximately one-third of the waste by volume would be recovered and treated, consistent with the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. Approximately 85 percent of the waste constituents that contribute to risk would be contained within this material. The other two-thirds of the waste would be disposed of in situ, consistent with the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative.
Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal
Implementing the in situ portion of this alternative would not meet the land disposal restrictions of RCRA because the hazardous characteristics of the waste remaining in the tanks would be retained. Implementation would require an amendment to the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit and may require modification of the Washington Administrative Code.
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal
Near-surface disposal of any readily retrievable HLW would not meet the requirements of DOE Order 5820.2A (DOE 1988). Implementing this alternative would be inconsistent with the planned disposal of other HLW in a potential geologic repository. In addition, this alternative would require changes to the requirements for disposal of HLW if additional closure action is not taken. The ex situ portion of the alternative would meet the requirements for the disposal of HLW and LLW. The approximately 1,230 waste packages that would be produced under the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative are within the assumed Hanford portion of the potential first geologic repository limit.
Air Quality Standards
Implementing this alternative would meet the air quality standards. A new source review would need to be conducted to determine if a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit would be required.
Water Protection Standards
Implementing this alternative would not meet the dose limit requirements of 40 CFR 141 or 40 CFR 191 (without treating the water). The ex situ portion would follow the discussion for the ex situ alternatives and the in situ portion would follow the discussion for the in situ alternatives.
6.2.2.10 Phased Implementation Alternative
Under this alternative, all of the waste that could be practicably removed (assumed to be 99 percent) would be recovered and separated into HLW and LAW fractions and vitrified. The LAW would be disposed of in an onsite near-surface disposal facility, and the HLW would be shipped offsite to a potential geologic repository. One separations and demonstration-scale LAW vitrification facility, and one separations, LAW vitrification, and HLW vitrification facility would be constructed to test the process. Following completion of Phase 1, a full-scale separations, LAW, and HLW vitrification facility would be constructed to remediate the remaining tank waste.
Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal
Implementation would require an amendment to the Hanford Site Dangerous Waste Permit.
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal
This alternative would meet the requirements for the disposal of HLW and LLW. The EPA is considering a rule to further regulate LLW disposal facilities; the final design of the onsite LAW disposal facility may be impacted by the EPA rule (40 CFR 193). The 3,050 waste packages that would be produced under the Phased Implementation alternative would exceed the assumed Hanford portion of the potential first geologic repository limit.
Air Quality Standards
Implementing this alternative would meet the air quality standards. A new source review would need to be conducted to determine if a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit would be required.
Water Protection Standards
Implementing this alternative would not meet the dose limit requirements of 40 CFR 141 (without treating the water) due to conservative assumptions regarding release of residuals remaining in the tanks after retrieval. Incidental waste disposed of in vaults would meet water protection requirements. Residuals left in tanks would not meet the water protection requirements if additional closure action is not taken. However, tanks and residuals would be addressed in a future closure plan.
6.3 ABILITY OF CESIUM AND STRONTIUM CAPSULE ALTERNATIVES TO COMPLY WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
6.3.1 Regulatory Issues
Presently, the encapsulated cesium and strontium are in storage and may have a beneficial value as irradiation or heat sources. This discussion of the disposal of the capsules includes the underlying assumption that these by-products remain HLW for purposes of permanent disposal once they have been determined to have no beneficial value. The final classification of the cesium and strontium will be made in consultation with the NRC when and if they are determined to be waste.
These radionuclides were originally removed from the tank HLW to reduce the generation of heat which was a potential threat to the integrity of the tanks. They therefore meet part (A) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act HLW definition that refers to any solid material derived from liquid waste produced from reprocessing that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations [Section 2.(12)(A)]. Also, because of the highly concentrated form of the encapsulated cesium and strontium, they could also be candidates for disposal in a geologic repository under Part (B) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act HLW definition relating to "other highly radioactive that the commission . . . determines by rule requires permanent isolation [Section 2.(12)(B)]." At this time no such ruling has been made for the encapsulated cesium and strontium.
They are subject to the radioactive waste management requirements of DOE Order 5820.2A and the Safety Requirements for the Packaging and Transportation of Hazardous Wastes (DOE Order 5480.3), as well as the relevant requirements listed in Tables 6.1.1 and Table 6.1.2. In addition to these requirements, the encapsulated cesium and strontium, if overpacked or vitrified, would have to meet the waste acceptance criteria for the potential geologic repository including treatment and/or delisting if they are determined to be mixed waste under RCRA.
6.3.2 Regulatory Compliance
This section describes the ability of each capsule alternative to enable DOE to comply with Federal and State regulations. The permits and approvals that are potentially required for the alternatives are listed in Table 6.2.1. Implementation of the alternatives would in some cases, require regulatory relief. Regulatory relief includes amendment of existing permits or changes in Federal or State laws or regulations. A summary of potential regulatory relief that might be required to implement each of the capsule alternatives is presented in Table 6.3.1.
6.3.2.1 No Action Alternative (Capsules)
Under this alternative, the capsules would
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
