[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43158-43159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18079]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Amended Record of Decision for the Decommissioning of Eight
Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford Site, Richland, WA
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Amended Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its initial Record
of Decision (ROD) issued September 16, 1993 (58 Federal Register (FR)
48509), pursuant to the Final Environmental Impact Statement on
Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford
Site, Richland, WA (Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS) (DOE/EIS-
0119F, December 1992). The Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS
evaluated the potential environmental impacts, benefits and costs, and
institutional and programmatic needs associated with the
decommissioning of eight surplus production reactors at the Hanford
Site.
These reactors (B, C, D, DR, F, H, KE and KW), operated between the
years 1944 and 1971 and retired from service, have been declared
surplus by DOE, and are available for decommissioning. The 1993 ROD
documented DOE's decision to select safe storage followed by deferred
one-piece removal for decommissioning of the eight surplus production
reactors. DOE has been implementing the safe storage component of this
1993 reactor decommissioning ROD consistent with the remedial action
cleanup schedules in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent
Order (Tri-Party Agreement, TPA). Through the Tri-Party Agreement, DOE
continues to evaluate this decommissioning action in light of
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA) remediation of the past practice units in the 100 Area.
As explained in this amended ROD, DOE has decided to broaden the
decommissioning approach for these eight reactors. DOE is retaining the
deferred one-piece removal option, as selected in the 1993 ROD, and,
based on a recently prepared Supplement Analysis, is adding an option
for immediate dismantlement.
ADDRESSES: The 1992 Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS, the 1993
ROD, the Supplement Analysis, and this Amended ROD are available
electronically on the DOE NEPA Web site at http://www.nepa.energy.gov/.
Copies of the documents referenced herein are available from the:
Center for Environmental Management Information, P.O. Box 23769,
Washington, DC 20026-3769. Telephone: 1-800-736-3282 (in Washington,
DC: 202-863-5084).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the
Supplement Analysis for the Surplus Production Reactors EIS, contact:
Woody Russell, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance
Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, 2440
Stevens Center, MSIN H6-60, Richland, WA 99354, Telephone: 509-373-
5227.
For general information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585. Telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In March 1989, DOE issued the Draft Surplus Production Reactors EIS
(DOE/EIS-0119) to analyze alternatives for decommissioning eight water-
cooled, graphite-moderated plutonium-production reactors, located along
the Columbia River in Washington State. The eight reactors (B, C, D,
DR, F, H, KE and KW), operated between the years 1944 and 1971, have
been retired from service. The alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS
included the no-action, immediate one-piece removal, safe storage
followed by deferred one-piece removal, safe storage followed by
deferred dismantlement, and in situ decommissioning alternatives.
Comments received during the public and agency review process of the
Draft Surplus Production Reactors EIS did not require the Department to
modify any alternatives, to develop and evaluate any new alternatives,
or to supplement, improve, or modify its analyses of the
decommissioning alternatives. Therefore, the Department prepared and
distributed an Addendum to the Draft Surplus Production Reactors EIS in
accordance with 40 CFR 1503(c). The Addendum (December 1992) stated
DOE's response to issues raised by commenters and minor changes to the
text. The Draft Surplus Production Reactors EIS and the Addendum
constitute the Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0119F) under the provisions of the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1503.4(c)). The
Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal
Register on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4690).
As stated in the 1993 ROD, DOE regards the safe storage followed by
deferred dismantlement, safe storage followed by one-piece removal, and
immediate one-piece removal alternatives as equally favorable based
solely on the evaluation of environmental impacts. [Note that a ninth
reactor, N Reactor, was in transition regarding its defense production
mission at the time of the Surplus Production Reactor EIS, and was not
within the scope of the Final Surplus Production Reactor EIS or ROD. N
Reactor has been retired and is undergoing deactivation under CERCLA.]
DOE uses the CERCLA process to decommission and dismantle reactors
based on the joint EPA/DOE policy on reactor decommissioning signed in
1995 and incorporated into the TPA. Since the NEPA ROD in 1993,
documentation has been prepared and implemented under CERCLA, resulting
in placement of five of the eight surplus reactors (C, D, DR, F, and H)
into interim safe storage (ISS). [ISS, or ``cocooning,'' is the process
of demolishing all but the shield walls surrounding the reactor core,
removing or stabilizing all loose contamination within the facility,
and placing a new roof on the remaining structure. A single doorway in
the structure is installed to provide access for surveillance and
maintenance work. This doorway is welded shut, and all other openings
in the shield walls are sealed to prevent intrusions and the release of
radioactive materials. The facility is inspected every five years and
remotely monitored at all times for changes in moisture and
temperature. The reactor cores could remain in ISS for up to 75 years.]
Of the remaining three reactors, B Reactor is under
[[Page 43159]]
consideration for preservation as a national historic site. Although KE
and KW Reactors have had CERCLA documentation issued that identified
ISS as the preferred alternative, the KE and KW reactors are not
currently in ISS. However, they are the next reactors in the queue for
completion of ISS.
II. Decision
DOE has decided to broaden the decommissioning approach for these
eight surplus reactors. DOE is retaining the deferred one-piece removal
option, as selected in the 1993 ROD, and, based on a recently prepared
Supplement Analysis, is modifying the deferred dismantlement option, as
expressed in the Final EIS, by selecting an option for immediate
dismantlement.
Activities to implement this decision will be conducted as CERCLA
non-time critical removal actions. Specific details on unit operations
of dismantlement will be addressed in the CERCLA documentation. All
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been
incorporated in this decision.
III. Basis for the Decision
In accordance with CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)) and DOE
NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314(c)), DOE prepared a Supplement
Analysis to determine whether a supplemental EIS or a new EIS is
required. The Supplement Analysis focused on the resource areas and
considerations most likely to be affected by this amended ROD;
specifically, worker radiological impacts (routine operations and
accident conditions), land use, historical/cultural resources,
ecological resources, and cumulative impacts.
Preliminary calculations (based on near-term dismantlement of the
KE reactor core and extrapolated to all eight surplus production
reactors) indicate that worker dose under a dismantlement scenario for
all eight reactors (approximately 80 person-rem) would be expected to
be substantially less than that projected in the Final EIS (532 person-
rem) for deferred dismantlement, and slightly higher than that for
deferred one-piece removal (51 person-rem in the safe storage/deferred
one-piece removal scenario). The actual dose rates to which workers
would be exposed would be controlled by such means as remote handling,
use of robotics, and the use of shielding. Worker radiation exposure
would be controlled to stay within administrative and regulatory
limits. Regardless, less than one latent cancer fatality (LCF) would be
expected under all of the alternatives. No new bounding accident
scenarios associated with reactor decommissioning have been identified;
less than one LCF would be expected as a result of any postulated
bounding accident.
No new land use, historical/cultural resource, or ecological
resources impacts were identified in the Supplement Analysis relevant
to decommissioning activities under deferred one-piece removal or
immediate dismantlement.
Also, as stated in the Supplement Analysis, no short-term or long-
term cumulative impacts (based on the analyses presented in DOE/EIS-
0391, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact
Statement) were identified relevant to decommissioning activities under
one-piece removal or dismantlement.
In evaluating the viability of supporting accelerated
decommissioning of surplus reactor facilities in a safe and
environmentally effective manner, DOE also considered technological
advances and additional information since the Final EIS and the 1993
ROD were issued. New engineering controls (such as development and
deployment of robotics in an array of field applications), data
collection and validation, worker safety practices, and real-time
lessons learned from reactor demolition activities at Brookhaven
National Laboratory all could be applied to accelerated surplus reactor
decommissioning at the Hanford Site. These controls and information
would enable accelerated decommissioning activities to be conducted
safely.
IV. Determination
DOE has decided to broaden the decommissioning approach for the
surplus reactors, retaining the deferred one-piece removal option and
adding an option for immediate dismantlement. Based on the Supplement
Analysis, this is not a substantial change in the proposed action
relevant to environmental concerns. Further, there are no significant
new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and
bearing on the proposed actions or their impacts described in the
Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS. Therefore, DOE has determined
that neither a new EIS, nor a supplement to the Surplus Production
Reactors EIS, is required.
Issued in Washington, DC on July 16, 2010.
In[eacute]s R. Triay,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-18079 Filed 7-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P