NOI - Tank Closure and Waste Management (Hanford)

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices 5655

addressed as follows: Office of with DOE on or before the date listed NEPA claims in the case State of
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability above. Washington v. Bodman (Civil No. 2:03–
(Mail Code OE–20), U.S. Department of Comments on the MAG E.S. cv–05018–AAM), which addressed the
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, application to export electric energy to Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0350 (FAX Canada should be clearly marked with and Hazardous) Waste Program EIS,
202–586–5860). Docket EA–306. Additional copies are to Richland, Washington (HSW EIS, DOE/
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
be filed directly with Martin Gauthier, EIS–0286, January 2004).
Director, MAG E.S. Energy Solutions Ecology will continue its role as a
Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202–586–
Inc., 486 Ste-Catherine W, #402, Cooperating Agency in the preparation
9624 or Michael Skinker (Program
Montreal, QC, Canada H3B 1A6. of the TC & WM EIS. Ecology already
Attorney) 202–586–2793.
A final decision will be made on this was acting in that capacity during the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of application after the environmental ongoing preparation of the EIS for
electricity from the United States to a impacts have been evaluated pursuant Retrieval, Treatment and Disposal of
foreign country are regulated and to the National Environmental Policy Tank Waste and Closure of the Single-
require authorization under section Act of 1969, and a determination is Shell Tanks at the Hanford Site,
202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) made by the DOE that the proposed Richland, Washington (TC EIS, DOE/
(16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). action will not adversely impact on the EIS–0356, Notice of Intent [NOI] at 68
On December 14, 2005, the reliability of the U.S. electric power FR 1052, January 8, 2003). The TC &
Department of Energy (DOE) received an supply system. WM EIS will revise, update and
application from MAG E.S. to transmit Copies of this application will be reanalyze groundwater impacts
electric energy from the United States to made available, upon request, for public previously addressed in the HSW EIS.
Canada. MAG E.S. is a Canadian inspection and copying at the address That is, the TC & WM EIS will provide
corporation with its principal place of provided above or by accessing the a single, integrated analysis of
business in Montreal, Quebec. MAG E.S. program’s Home Page at http:// groundwater at Hanford for all waste
has requested an electricity export www.electricity.doe.gov. Upon reaching types addressed in the HSW EIS and the
authorization with a 5-year term. MAG the Home page, select ‘‘Divisions,’’ then TC EIS. As a result, the TC & WM EIS
E.S. does not own or control any ‘‘Permitting Siting & Analysis,’’ then will include a reanalysis of onsite
transmission or distribution assets, nor ‘‘Electricity Imports/Exports,’’ and then disposal alternatives for Hanford’s low-
does it have a franchised service area. ‘‘Pending Proceedings’’ from the options level radioactive waste (LLW) and
The electric energy which MAG E.S. menus. mixed low-level radioactive waste
proposes to export to Canada would be Issued in Washington, DC, on January 26,
(MLLW) and LLW and MLLW from
purchased from electric utilities and 2006. other DOE sites. The TC & WM EIS will
Federal power marketing agencies revise and update other potential impact
Anthony J. Como,
within the U.S. areas previously addressed in the HSW
Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of
MAG E.S. will arrange for the delivery EIS as appropriate. Finally, the TC &
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
of exports to Canada over the WM EIS will incorporate existing
[FR Doc. E6–1392 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
international transmission facilities analyses from the HSW EIS that do not
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P affect and are not directly affected by
owned by Basin Electric Power
Cooperative, Booneville Power the waste disposal alternatives after
Administration, Eastern Maine Electric review or revision as appropriate. DOE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY will continue its ongoing analysis of
Cooperative, International Transmission
Co., Joint Owners of the Highgate Notice of Intent To Prepare the Tank alternatives for the retrieval, treatment,
Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Closure and Waste Management storage, and disposal of underground
Power Company, Maine Public Service Environmental Impact Statement for tank wastes and closure of underground
the Hanford Site, Richland, WA single-shell tanks (SST). In addition,
Company, Minnesota Power, Inc.,
DOE plans to include the ongoing Fast
Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., New
AGENCY: Department of Energy. Flux Test Facility Decommissioning EIS
York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk
ACTION: Notice of intent. (FFTF EIS, DOE/EIS–0364, NOI at 69 FR
Power Corp., Northern States Power
50178, August 13, 2004) in the scope of
Company and Vermont Electric SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the new TC & WM EIS, in order to
Transmission Co. Energy (DOE) announces its intent to provide an integrated presentation of
The construction, operation, prepare a new environmental impact currently foreseeable activities related to
maintenance, and connection of each of statement (EIS) for its Hanford Site waste management and cleanup at
the international transmission facilities (Hanford) near Richland, Washington, Hanford.
to be utilized by MAG E.S. has pursuant to the National Environmental In accordance with the Settlement
previously been authorized by a Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its Agreement, DOE will not ship offsite
Presidential permit issued pursuant to implementing regulations at 40 CFR waste to Hanford for storage, processing,
Executive Order 10485, as amended. Parts 1500–1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021. or disposal until a Record of Decision
Procedural Matters: Any person The new EIS, to be titled the Tank (ROD) is issued pursuant to the TC &
desiring to become a party to this Closure and Waste Management WM EIS, except under certain limited
proceeding or to be heard by filing Environmental Impact Statement for the exemptions as provided in the
comments or protests to this application Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC Settlement Agreement.
should file a petition to intervene, & WM EIS), will implement a DOE is soliciting comments on the
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES

comment or protest at the address Settlement Agreement announced on proposed scope of the new TC & WM
provided above in accordance with January 9, 2006, among DOE, the EIS. Comments previously submitted in
§§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC’s Washington State Department of response to the 2003 NOI for the TC EIS
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 Ecology (Ecology) and the State of and the 2004 NOI for the FFTF EIS are
CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of Washington Attorney General’s office. being considered and need not be
each petition and protest should be filed The Agreement serves as settlement of resubmitted.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Feb 01, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:FRFM02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1

5656 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices

DATES: DOE invites Federal agencies, To this end, DOE manages several types importation, treatment, and disposal of
American Indian tribal nations, state of radioactive wastes at Hanford: (1) radioactive and hazardous waste
and local governments, and the public High-level radioactive waste (HLW) as generated offsite as a result of nuclear
to comment on the scope of the planned defined under the Nuclear Waste Policy defense and research activities. The
TC & WM EIS. DOE will consider all Act [42 U.S.C. 10101]; (2) transuranic Court enjoined shipment of offsite TRU
comments received by March 6, 2006, as (TRU) waste, which is waste containing waste to Hanford for processing and
well as comments received after that alpha-particle-emitting radionuclides storage pending shipment to WIPP.
date to the extent practicable. DOE with atomic numbers greater than In January 2004, DOE issued the HSW
plans to hold public meetings at the uranium (i.e., 92) and half-lives greater EIS and a ROD (69 FR 39449), which
following locations: than 20 years in concentrations greater addressed ongoing solid waste
Hood River, Oregon; February 21, than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste; management operations, and announced
2006. (3) LLW, which is radioactive waste that DOE’s decision to dispose of Hanford
Portland, Oregon; February 22, 2006. is neither HLW nor TRU waste; and (4) and a limited volume of offsite LLW and
Seattle, Washington; February 23, MLLW, which is LLW containing MLLW in a new Integrated Disposal
2006. hazardous constituents as defined under Facility in the 200-East Area of Hanford.
Richland, Washington, February 28, the Resource Conservation and DOE also decided to continue sending
2006. Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Hanford’s MLLW offsite for treatment
The public meetings will address the 6901 et seq.). and to modify Hanford’s T-Plant for
scope of the planned TC & WM EIS. At present, DOE is constructing a processing remote-handled TRU waste
DOE will provide additional notification Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) in the and MLLW (which require protective
of the meeting times and locations 200-East Area of the site. The WTP will shielding).
through newspaper advertisements and separate waste stored in Hanford’s Ecology amended its March 2003
other appropriate media. underground tanks into HLW and low- complaint in 2004, challenging the
ADDRESSES: To submit comments on the activity waste (LAW) fractions. HLW adequacy of the HSW EIS analysis of
scope of the TC & WM EIS or to request will be treated in the WTP and stored offsite waste importation. In May 2005,
copies of the references listed herein, at Hanford until it can be shipped to the the Court granted a limited discovery
including references listed in Appendix proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, period, continuing the injunction
A, contact: Mary Beth Burandt, Nevada. Immobilized LAW waste would against shipping offsite wastes to
Document Manager, Office of River be treated in the WTP and disposed of Hanford, including LLW and MLLW
at Hanford as decided in the ROD issued (State of Washington v. Bodman [Civil
Protection, U.S. Department of Energy,
in 1997 (62 FR 8693), pursuant to the No. 2:03–cv–05018–AAM]). In July
Post Office Box 450, Mail Stop H6–60,
Tank Waste Remediation System, 2005, while preparing responses to
Richland, WA 99352. Electronic mail:
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, discovery requests from Ecology,
TC&WMEIS@saic.com. Fax: 509–376–
Final EIS (TWRS EIS, DOE/EIS–0189, Battelle Memorial Institute, DOE’s
3661. Telephone and voice mail: 509–
August 1996). DOE is processing contractor who assisted in preparing the
373–9160.
Hanford’s contact-handled TRU waste HSW EIS, advised DOE of several
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For differences in groundwater analyses
(which does not require special
information on DOE’s NEPA process, protective shielding) for shipment to the between the HSW EIS and its
contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near underlying data.
Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance Carlsbad, New Mexico, consistent with DOE promptly notified the Court and
(EH–42), U.S. Department of Energy, the 1998 RODs (63 FR 3624 and 63 FR the State and, in September 2005,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 3629) for treatment and disposal of TRU convened a team of DOE experts in
Washington, DC 20585. Telephone 202– waste under the Final Waste quality assurance and groundwater
586–4600, or leave a message at 1–800– Management Programmatic EIS for analysis, as well as transportation and
472–2756. Managing Treatment, Storage, and human health and safety impacts
This NOI will be available on DOE’s Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous analysis, to conduct a quality assurance
NEPA Web site at http:// Waste (WM PEIS, DOE/EIS–0200) and review of the HSW EIS. The team
www.eh.doe.gov/nepa and the TC & WM the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal completed its Report of the Review of
EIS Web site at http://www.hanford.gov/ Phase Final Supplemental the Hanford Solid Waste Environmental
orp/ (click on Public Involvement). Environmental Impact Statement (WIPP Impact Statement (EIS) Data Quality,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SEIS-II, DOE/EIS–0026–S–2, September Control and Management Issues,
1997). DOE is disposing of Hanford’s January 2006 (hereafter referred to as the
I. Background
LLW and MLLW onsite, consistent with Quality Review).
The Hanford Site is located in the ROD for treatment and disposal of Because both Ecology and DOE have
southeastern Washington State along the these wastes under the WM PEIS (65 FR a shared interest in the effective cleanup
Columbia River, and is approximately 10061). This ROD also designates of Hanford, DOE and Ecology
586 square miles in size. Hanford’s Hanford as a regional disposal site for announced a Settlement Agreement
mission included defense-related LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites. ending the NEPA litigation on January
nuclear research, development, and In January 2003, DOE issued an NOI 9, 2006. The Agreement is intended to
weapons production activities from the (68 FR 1052) to prepare the TC EIS resolve Ecology’s concerns about HSW
early 1940s to approximately 1989. (DOE/EIS–0356). The proposed scope of EIS groundwater analyses and to
During that period, Hanford operated a the TC EIS included closure of the 149 address other concerns about the HSW
plutonium production complex with underground SSTs and newly available EIS, including those identified in the

nine nuclear reactors and associated information on supplemental treatment Quality Review.
processing facilities. These activities for the LAW from all 177 tanks, which The Agreement calls for an expansion
created a wide variety of chemical and contain a total of approximately 53 of the TC EIS to provide a single,
radioactive wastes. Hanford’s mission million gallons of waste. integrated set of analyses that will
now is focused on the cleanup of those In March 2003, Ecology initiated include all waste types analyzed in the
wastes and ultimate closure of Hanford. litigation on issues related to HSW EIS (LLW, MLLW, and TRU



waste). The expanded EIS will be of to facilitate cleanup of Hanford and Complex, that were included in the
renamed the TC & WM EIS. Pending these sites. HSW EIS.
finalization of the TC & WM EIS, the DOE proposes to retain all of the
III. Proposed Action scope identified in the 2003 NOI for the
HSW EIS will remain in effect to
support ongoing waste management DOE proposes to retrieve and treat TC EIS as modified by public scoping
activities at Hanford (including waste from 177 underground tanks and comments. Proposed modifications to
transportation of TRU waste to WIPP) in ancillary equipment and dispose of this the alternatives identified in the 2003
accordance with applicable regulatory waste in compliance with applicable NOI are provided in Section VI. That is,
requirements. The Agreement also regulatory requirements. Vitrified HLW the new TC & WM EIS would address
stipulates that when the TC & WM EIS waste would be stored onsite until it can management of the approximately 53
has been completed, it will supersede be disposed of in the proposed million gallons of waste stored in 149
the HSW EIS. Until that time, DOE will repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE underground SSTs (ranging in capacity
not rely on HSW EIS groundwater proposes to provide additional from approximately 55,000 to 1 million
analyses for decision-making, and DOE treatment capacity for the tank LAW gallons) and 28 underground DSTs
will not import offsite waste to Hanford, that can supplement the planned WTP (ranging in capacity from approximately
with certain limited exemptions as capacity in fulfillment of DOE’s 1 to 1.16 million gallons) grouped in 18
specified in the Agreement. obligations under the TPA in as timely tank farms, and approximately 60
DOE and Ecology have mutual a manner as possible. DOE would smaller miscellaneous underground
responsibilities for accomplishing dispose of Hanford’s immobilized LAW, storage tanks, along with ancillary
cleanup of Hanford, as well as LLW and MLLW, and LLW and MLLW equipment.
continuing ongoing waste management from other DOE sites, in lined trenches DOE proposes to retain all of the
activities consistent with applicable onsite. These trenches would be closed scope identified in its August 2004 NOI
Federal and state laws and regulations. in accordance with applicable to evaluate alternatives for the final
The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement regulatory requirements. disposition of the FFTF and proposes to
and Consent Order (also called the Tri- DOE also proposes to complete the integrate that scope into the TC & WM
Party Agreement [TPA]) among the final decontamination and EIS. The TC & WM EIS will thus
state, DOE, and the U.S. Environmental decommissioning of the FFTF. DOE provide an integrated presentation of
Protection Agency (EPA) contains decided, in January 2001, (ROD at 66 FR currently foreseeable activities related to
various enforceable milestones that 7877) that the permanent closure of waste management and cleanup at
apply to waste management activities. FFTF was to be resumed with no new Hanford.
DOE also is required to comply with missions, based on the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact V. Potential Decisions To Be Made
applicable requirements of RCRA and
the state’s Hazardous Waste Statement for Accomplishing Expanded DOE plans to make decisions on the
Management Act of 1976 as amended Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and following topics.
(Chapter 70.105 Revised Code of Development and Isotope Production • Retrieval of Tank Waste—A
Washington). To carry out proposals for Missions in the United States, Including reasonable waste retrieval range is
future actions and obtain necessary the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility comprised of three levels: 90 percent, 99
permits, each agency must comply with (DOE/EIS–0310, December 2000). percent, and 99.9 percent. The 99
the applicable provisions of NEPA and percent retrieval is the goal established
IV. Proposed Scope of the TC & WM EIS by the TPA (Milestone M–45–00); 90
the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) respectively. The In accordance with the Settlement percent retrieval evaluates a risk
agencies have revised their Agreement, DOE intends to prepare a analysis of the tank farms as defined in
Memorandum of Understanding for the single, comprehensive EIS addressing the M–45–00, Appendix H, process; and
TC EIS (effective March 25, 2003), tank waste retrieval, treatment, storage, 99.9 percent retrieval reflects uses of
which identified Ecology as a and disposal; tank closure; and multiple retrieval technologies to
Cooperating Agency in the preparation management of all waste types analyzed support clean closure of the tank farms.
of the TC EIS. The Memorandum of in the HSW EIS as an integrated • Treatment of Tank Waste—WTP
Understanding revision is consistent document for public and agency review waste treatment capability can be
with the Settlement Agreement and and reference. The TC & WM EIS will augmented by supplemental treatment
provides for Ecology’s continuing update, revise, or reanalyze resource technologies and constructing new
participation as a Cooperating Agency areas (such as groundwater and treatment facilities that are part of, or
in preparation of the TC & WM EIS to transportation) from the HSW EIS as separate from, the WTP. The two
assist both agencies in meeting their necessary to make them current and primary choices that could fulfill DOE’s
respective responsibilities under NEPA reflect the waste inventories and TPA commitments are to treat all waste
and SEPA. analytical assumptions being used for in an expanded WTP or provide
environmental impact assessment in the supplemental treatment to be used in
II. Purpose and Need for Action TC & WM EIS. All updated analyses conjunction with, but separate from, the
Recognizing the potential risks to would be included in the revised WTP. DOE has conducted preliminary
human health and the environment quantitative groundwater and other tests on three supplemental treatment
from Hanford tank wastes, DOE needs to cumulative impact analyses in the TC & technologies—cast stone (a form of
retrieve waste from the 149 SSTs and 28 WM EIS. grout), steam reforming, and bulk
double-shell tanks (DST), treat and The proposed scope of the TC & WM vitrification—to determine if one or
dispose of the waste, and close the SST EIS includes alternatives for onsite more could be used to provide the

farms in a manner that complies with disposal of LLW, MLLW, and LAW; additional, supplemental waste
Federal and Washington State transportation of offsite LLW and treatment capability needed to complete
requirements. Some waste from tanks MLLW to Hanford for disposal; and waste treatment.
and LLW and MLLW from Hanford and current or revised information for • Disposal of Treated Tank Waste—
other DOE sites that do not have ongoing operations, such as those Onsite disposal includes treated tank
appropriate facilities must be disposed involving Hanford’s Central Waste waste such as immobilized LAW and



waste generated from closure activities below. The initial scope of the TC EIS the volumes to be disposed of,
that meets onsite disposal criteria; the was provided in the January 2003 NOI approximating those volumes for offsite
decision to be made involves the onsite and at each public scoping meeting. waste in the 2004 HSW EIS ROD, and
location of disposal facilities. Decisions • No Action Alternative, which was to update the waste information. DOE
to be made related to offsite disposal to implement the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD; also intends to update the transportation
include the length of time and facilities • Implement the 1997 TWRS EIS analysis of shipping offsite waste to
required for storage of immobilized ROD with Modifications; Hanford for disposal. The onsite
high-level radioactive waste (IHLW) • Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/ disposal alternatives are:
prior to disposal at the proposed Yucca Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal; • Construction of a new disposal
Mountain repository. • Clean Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite facility in the 200-West Area burial
• Storage of Tank Waste—Depending and Offsite Waste Disposal; grounds; and
on the alternative being analyzed, • Accelerated Landfill Closure/Onsite • Construction of new LLW and
storing tank waste for different lengths and Offsite Waste Disposal; and MLLW capacity in the Integrated
of time may be necessary. This may • Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Disposal Facility in the 200-East Area.
require the construction, operation, and Waste Disposal. For the FFTF, the 2004 NOI identified
deactivation of waste transfer Onsite disposal would include three alternatives as listed below.
infrastructures, including waste receiver immobilized LAW, LLW, and MLLW • No Action—actions consistent with
facilities (below-grade lag storage and resulting from tank retrieval and previous DOE NEPA decisions would be
minimal waste treatment facilities), treatment. Offsite disposal of HLW completed; final decommissioning
waste transfer line upgrades, and new or would occur at Yucca Mountain. No would not occur.
replacement DSTs. Also depending on determination has been made as to • Entombment—above-ground
the alternative, construction and whether any of the tanks contain TRU structures would be decontaminated
operation of additional immobilized waste. If it is determined that any tank and dismantled, below-ground
HLW storage vaults, melter pads, and waste is TRU waste, offsite disposal at structures would be grouted and left in
TRU waste storage facilities needed to WIPP would be appropriate, provided place.
store treated tank waste. the required approvals from EPA and • Removal—above-ground structures
• Closure of SSTs—Decisions to be the New Mexico Environment would be decontaminated and
made include closing the SSTs by clean Department were obtained. dismantled, below-ground structures
closure, selective clean closure/landfill As a result of the 2003 scoping for the would be removed and disposed of at
closure, and landfill closure with or TC EIS, a number of changes are being Hanford.
without any soil contamination made to those identified in the NOI. The
removal. Decisions regarding barriers major changes are: VII. Potential Environmental Issues for
(engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C • The No Action Alternative was Analysis
barrier or Hanford barrier) to prevent modified to address a traditional ‘‘no The following issues have been
water intrusion will be made. A closure action’’ rather than the action from the tentatively identified for analysis in the
configuration for the original 28 DSTs TWRS EIS ROD; TC & WM EIS. This list is presented to
will be evaluated in the TC & WM EIS • The alternative addressing facilitate comment on the scope of the
for engineering reasons related to barrier implementation of the 1997 TWRS EIS TC & WM EIS, but is not intended to be
placement for the SSTs. This evaluation ROD was modified to address both the all-inclusive or to predetermine
also is provided to aid Ecology in currently planned vitrification capacity potential impacts of any alternative.
evaluating the impacts which might and the currently planned capacity • Effects on the public and onsite
result in closing DSTs to a debris rule supplemented with additional workers of radiological and
standard. However, DOE is deferring a vitrification capacity as the nonradiological material releases during
decision on closure of DSTs and supplemental treatment; normal operations and reasonably
decommissioning of the WTP until a • A partial tank removal option was foreseeable accidents;
later date when the mission for those added, which analyzes leaving some of • Long-term risks to human
facilities is nearing completion. the SSTs in place and exhuming the populations resulting from waste
• Disposal of Hanford’s and DOE SSTs completely in the SX and BX tank disposal and residual tank system
Offsite LLW and MLLW—The decision farms; wastes;
to be made concerns the onsite location • The Landfill Closure of Tank • Effects on air and water quality of
of disposal facilities for Hanford’s waste Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste normal operations and reasonably
and other DOE sites’ LLW and MLLW. Disposal Alternative has been modified foreseeable accidents, including long-
DOE committed in the HSW EIS ROD to more clearly evaluate the No term impacts on groundwater;
that henceforth LLW would be disposed Separations (of HLW and LAW waste) • Cumulative effects, including
of in lined trenches. Thus, the decision with Onsite Storage and Offsite Disposal impacts of other past, present, and
would concern whether to dispose of Alternative; and reasonably foreseeable actions at
the waste in the 200-West Area or at the • A suboption has been added to both Hanford, including past discharges to
Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200- the All Vitrification with Separations cribs and trenches, groundwater
East Area. and All Vitrification/No Separations (of remediation activities, activities subject
• Final Decontamination and HLW and LAW waste) Alternatives to to TPA requirements and cleanup
Decommissioning of the FFTF—The address closure of the cribs and trenches activities under the Comprehensive
decision would identify the final end proximal to tanks within identified Environmental Response,
state for the above-ground, below- waste management areas in place as Compensation, and Liability Act;

ground, and ancillary support opposed to removing them. • Effects on endangered species,
structures. For Hanford and offsite LLW and archaeological/cultural/historical sites,
MLLW analyzed in the HSW EIS, DOE floodplains and wetlands, and priority
VI. Potential Range of Alternatives proposes to simplify the alternatives. habitat;
Six alternatives were originally Both waste types would be disposed of • Effects of on- and offsite
proposed for TC EIS and are listed in lined trenches. DOE plans to update transportation and of reasonably



foreseeable transportation accidents; Management Program: Treatment and U.S. Department of Energy, Richland
and Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
• Socioeconomic impacts on Low-Level Waste; Amendment to the Record DOE/EIS–0212, 1995, Safe Interim Storage
surrounding communities. of Decision for the Nevada Test Site,’’ of Hanford Tank Wastes—Final
Federal Register. Environmental Impact Statement, U.S.
VIII. Public Scoping 69 FR 39449, 2004, ‘‘Record of Decision for Department of Energy, Richland Operations
the Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site, Office, Richland, Washington, and
DOE invites Federal agencies, Richland, Washington: Storage and Washington State Department of Ecology,
American Indian tribal nations, state Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Olympia, Washington.
and local governments, and the general Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level DOE/EIS–0189, 1996, Tank Waste
public to comment on the scope of the Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste, and Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland,
planned TC & WM EIS. Information on Storage, Processing, and Certification of Washington, Final Environmental Impact
the scoping comment period is provided Transuranic Waste for Shipment to the Waste Statement, U.S. Department of Energy,
Isolation Pilot Plant, Federal Register. Richland Operations Office, Richland,
in the DATES section above. Comments
DOE/EA–0479, 1990, Collecting Crust Washington, and Washington State
previously submitted in response to the Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Samples from Level Detectors in Tank SY–
2003 NOI for the TC EIS and the 2004 101 at the Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Washington.
NOI for the FFTF EIS are being Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS–0189–SA1, 1997, Supplement
considered and need not be DOE/EA–0495, 1991, Preparation of Crust Analysis for the Proposed Upgrades to the
resubmitted. Sampling of Tank 241–SY–101, U.S. Tank Farm Ventilation, Instrumentation, and
Department of Energy, Richland, Electrical Systems under Project W–314 in
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, Support of Tank Farm Restoration and Safe
2006. Washington.
DOE/EA–0511, 1991, Characterization of Operations, U.S. Department of Energy,
John Spitaleri Shaw, Tank 241–SY–101, U.S. Department of Richland Operations Office, Richland,
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety Energy, Richland, Washington. Washington.
and Health. DOE/EA–0581, 1991, Upgrading of the DOE/EIS–0189–SA2, 1998, Supplement
Ventilation System at the 241–SY Tank Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation
Appendix A—Related National System, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland
Farm, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland,
Environmental Policy Act Documents Washington. Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EA–0802, 1992, Tank 241–SY–101 DOE/EIS–0189–SA3, 2001, Supplement
45 FR 46155, 1980, ‘‘Double-Shell Tanks
Equipment Installation and Operation to Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation
for Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste
System, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland
Storage, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Enhance Tank Safety, U.S. Department of
Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
Record of Decision,’’ Federal Register. Energy, Richland, Washington.
DOE/EIS–0200, 1997, Final Waste
53 FR 12449, 1988, ‘‘Disposal of Hanford DOE/EA–0803, 1992, Proposed Pump
Management Programmatic Environmental
Defense High-Level, Transuranic, and Tank Mixing Operations to Mitigate Episodic Gas
Impact Statement for Managing Treatment,
Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Releases in Tank 241–SY–101, U.S. Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and
Record of Decision,’’ Federal Register. Department of Energy, Richland, Hazardous Waste, U.S. Department of
60 FR 28680, 1995, ‘‘Programmatic Spent Washington. Energy, Office of Environmental
Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho DOE/EA–0881, 1993, Tank 241–C–103 Management, Washington, DC.
National Engineering Laboratory Organic Vapor and Liquid Characterization DOE/EIS–0026–S–2, 1997, Waste Isolation
Environmental Restoration and Waste and Supporting Activities, U.S. Department Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final
Management Program, Part III; Record of of Energy, Richland, Washington. Supplemental Environmental Impact
Decision,’’ Federal Register. DOE/EA–0933, 1995, Tank 241–C–106 Past Statement II, U.S. Department of Energy,
60 FR 54221, 1995, ‘‘Final Environmental Practice Sluicing Waste Retrieval, U.S. Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Impact Statement for the Safe Interim Storage Department of Energy, Richland, DOE/EIS–0222, 1999, Final Hanford
of Hanford Tank Wastes at the Hanford Site, Washington. Comprehensive Land-Use Plan
Richland, Washington; Record of Decision,’’ DOE/EA–0993, 1995, Shutdown of the Fast Environmental Impact Statement, U.S.
Federal Register. Flux Test Facility, Hanford Site, Richland, Department of Energy, Richland Operations
60 FR 61687, 1995, ‘‘Record of Decision; Washington and Finding of No Significant Office, Richland, Washington.
Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes, Impact. DOE/EIS–0310, 2000, Final Programmatic
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,’’ DOE/EA–0981, 1995, Environmental Environmental Impact Statement for
Federal Register. Assessment—Solid Waste Retrieval Complex, Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear
61 FR 3922, 1996, ‘‘Availability of the Enhanced Radioactive and Mixed Waste Energy Research and Development and
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Storage Facility, Infrastructure Upgrades, Isotope Production Missions in the United
Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the and Central Waste Support Complex, States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux
K Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Test Facility.
Washington; Notice of Availability of Final Department of Energy, Richland Operations DOE/EIS–0250, 2002, Final Environmental
Environmental Impact Statement,’’ Federal Office, Richland, Washington. Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository
Register. DOE/EA–1203, 1997, Trench 33 Widening for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and
61 FR 10736, 1996, ‘‘Management of Spent in 218–W–5 Low-Level Burial Ground, U.S. High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca
Nuclear Fuel from the K Basins at the Department of Energy, Richland, Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, U.S.
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record Washington. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian
of Decision,’’ Federal Register. DOE/EA–1276, 1999, Widening Trench 36 Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca
62 FR 8693, 1997, ‘‘Record of Decision for of the 218–E–12B Low-Level Burial Ground, Mountain Site Characterization Office, North
the Tank Waste Remediation System, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,’’ Washington. DOE/EIS–0287, 2002, Idaho High-Level
Federal Register. DOE/EA–1405, 2002, Transuranic Waste Waste and Facilities Disposition Final
63 FR 3624, 1998, ‘‘Record of Decision for Retrieval from the 218–W–4B and 218–W–4C Environmental Impact Statement, U.S.
the Department of Energy’s Waste Isolation Low-Level Burial Grounds, Hanford Site, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations

Pilot Plant Disposal Phase,’’ Federal Register. Richland, Washington, Finding of No Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
63 FR 3629, 1998, ‘‘Record of Decision for Significant Impact, U.S. Department of DOE/EIS–0286, 2004, Final Hanford Site
the Department of Energy’s Waste Energy, Richland, Washington. Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste
Management Program: Treatment and Storage DOE/EIS–0113, 1987, Final Environmental Program Environmental Impact Statement,
of Transuranic Waste,’’ Federal Register. Impact Statement—Disposal of Hanford Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of
65 FR 10061, 2000, ‘‘Record of Decision for Defense High-Level, Transuranic, and Tank Energy, Richland Operations Office,
the Department of Energy’s Waste Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Richland, Washington.



DOH Publication 320–031, 2004, Final Electronic submission is therefore include the reliability costs associated
Environmental Impact Statement— encouraged. Copies of written comments with such bottlenecks.
Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste received and other relevant documents and
Disposal Site, Richland, Washington, information may be reviewed at http:// The National Energy Policy (May
Washington State Department of Health, www.electricity.doe.gov/1221. 2001),7 the Department’s National
Olympia, Washington, and Washington State Transmission Grid Study (May 2002),8
Department of Ecology, Olympia, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. and the Secretary of Energy’s Electricity
Washington. Poonum Agrawal, Office of Electricity Advisory Board’s Transmission Grid
U.S. Department of Energy, 2006, Report of Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE–20,
the Review of the Hanford Solid Waste
Solutions Report (September 2002),9
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 recommended that the Department
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Data Independence Avenue, SW.,
Quality, Control and Management Issues, address regulatory obstacles in the
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–1411,
Washington, DC. planning and construction of electric
poonum.agrawal@hq.doe.gov, or Lot
[FR Doc. E6–1404 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am] transmission and distribution lines. In
Cooke, Office of the General Counsel,
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P GC–76, 1000 Independence Avenue, response to these recommendations, the
SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586– Department held a ‘‘Workshop on
0503, lot.cooke@hq.doe.gov. Designation of National Interest Electric
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Transmission Bottlenecks’’ on July 14,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
2004, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The
Considerations for Transmission I. Background Department also issued a Federal
Congestion Study and Designation of Register notice of inquiry on July 22,
National Interest Electric Transmission A. Overview
2004.10 The purpose of the workshop
Corridors The Nation’s electric system includes
and the notice of inquiry was to learn
over 150,000 miles of interconnected
AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery stakeholders’ views concerning
high-voltage transmission lines that link
and Energy Reliability (‘‘OE’’), transmission bottlenecks, identify how
generators to load centers.1 The electric
Department of Energy. designation of such bottlenecks may
system has been built by electric
ACTION: Notice of inquiry requesting utilities over a period of 100 years, benefit the users of the grid and
comment and providing notice of a primarily to serve local customers and electricity consumers, and recognize key
technical conference. support reliability; the system generally bottlenecks. In its plans for
was not constructed with a primary implementation of subsection 1221(a),
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy the Department notes that it has
(the ‘‘Department’’) seeks comment and emphasis on moving large amounts of
power across multi-state regions.2 Due considered the comments received via
information from the public concerning the notice and the workshop.
its plans for an electricity transmission to a doubling of electricity demand and
congestion study and possible generation over the past three decades B. Summary of Relevant Provisions
designation of National Interest Electric and the advent of wholesale electricity From the Statute
Transmission Corridors (‘‘NIETCs’’) in a markets, transfers of large amounts of
report based on the study pursuant to electricity across the grid have increased On August 8, 2005, the President
section 1221(a) of the Energy Policy Act significantly in recent years. The signed into law the Energy Policy Act of
of 2005. Through this notice of inquiry, increase in regional electricity transfers 2005, Public Law 109–58, (the ‘‘Act’’).
the Department invites comment on saves electricity consumers billions of Title XII of the Act, entitled ‘‘The
draft criteria for gauging the suitability dollars,3 but significantly increases Electricity Modernization Act of 2005’’
of geographic areas as NIETCs and transmission facility loading. includes provisions relating to the siting
announces a public technical Investment in new transmission of interstate electric transmission
conference concerning the criteria for facilities has not kept pace with the facilities and promoting advanced
evaluation of candidate areas as NIETCs. increasing economic and operational power system technologies. Subsection
importance of transmission service.4 1221(a) of the Act amends the Federal
DATES: Written comments may be filed
Today, congestion in the transmission Power Act (‘‘FPA’’) by adding a new
electronically in MS Word and PDF
system impedes economically efficient
formats by e-mailing to: section 216 which requires the Secretary
electricity transactions and in some
EPACT1221@hq.doe.gov no later than 5 of Energy (the ‘‘Secretary’’) to conduct a
cases threatens the system’s safe and
p.m. EDT March 6, 2006. Also, nationwide study of electric
reliable operation.5 The Department has
comments can be filed by mail at the transmission congestion (‘‘congestion
estimated that this congestion costs
address listed below. The technical study’’), and issue a report based on the
consumers several billion dollars per
conference will be held in Chicago on study in which the Secretary may
year by forcing wholesale electricity
March 29, 2006. For further information, designate ‘‘any geographic area
purchasers to buy from higher-cost
please visit the Department’s Web site at experiencing electric energy
suppliers.6 That estimate did not
http://www.electricity.doe.gov/1221. transmission capacity constraints or
ADDRESSES: Written comments via mail 1 North American Electric Reliability Council, congestion that adversely affects
should be submitted to: Electricity Supply and Demand Database (2003)
Office of Electricity Delivery and available at http://www.nerc.com/esd. 7 The National Energy Policy Development Group

Energy Reliability, OE–20, Attention: 2 Edison Electric Institute, Survey of
Report, available at http://www.energy.gov/engine/
EPACT 1221 Comments, U.S. Transmission Investment at 1 (May 2005). content.do?BT_CODE=ADAP.
3 Department of Energy, National Transmission 8 National Transmission Grid Study, supra note 3.
Department of Energy, Forestall Grid Study, at 19 (May 2002) available at http:// 9 Department of Energy Electricity Advisory

Building, Room 6H–050, 1000 www.eh.doe.gov/ntgs/reports.html. Board, Transmission Grid Solutions, available at
Independence Avenue, SW., 4 Id. at 7; see also Hirst, U.S. Transmission
http://www.eab.energy.gov/
Washington, DC 20585. Capacity Present Status and Future Prospects, 7 index.cfm?fuseaction=home.publications.
(June 2004). 10 Designation of National Interest Electric
Note: U.S. Postal Service mail sent to the 5 National Transmission Grid Study, supra note 3,
Transmission Bottlenecks, 69 FR 43833 (July 22,
Department continues to be delayed by at 10–20. 2004) also available at http://
several weeks due to security screening. 6 Id. at 16–18. www.electricity.doe.gov/bottlenecks.


NOI - Tank Closure and Waste Management (Hanford)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a NOI - Tank Closure and Waste Management (Hanford)

Similar a NOI - Tank Closure and Waste Management (Hanford) (20)

Más de DOE Office of NEPA Policy & Compliance

Más de DOE Office of NEPA Policy & Compliance (20)

NOI - Tank Closure and Waste Management (Hanford)