Notice of Intent To Prepare the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, WA

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
 [Federal Register: February 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 5655-5660]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02fe06-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 
Notice of Intent To Prepare the Tank Closure and Waste Management 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, WA

AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to 
prepare a new environmental impact statement (EIS) for its Hanford Site 
(Hanford) near Richland, Washington, pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021. The new 
EIS, to be titled the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM 
EIS), will implement a Settlement Agreement announced on January 9, 
2006, among DOE, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 
and the State of Washington Attorney General's office. The Agreement 
serves as settlement of NEPA claims in the case State of Washington v. 
Bodman (Civil No. 2:03-cv-05018-AAM), which addressed the Final Hanford 
Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program EIS, Richland, 
Washington (HSW EIS, DOE/EIS-0286, January 2004).
    Ecology will continue its role as a Cooperating Agency in the 
preparation of the TC & WM EIS. Ecology already was acting in that 
capacity during the ongoing preparation of the EIS for Retrieval, 
Treatment and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of the Single-Shell 
Tanks at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC EIS, DOE/EIS-0356, 
Notice of Intent [NOI] at 68 FR 1052, January 8, 2003). The TC & WM EIS 
will revise, update and reanalyze groundwater impacts previously 
addressed in the HSW EIS. That is, the TC & WM EIS will provide a 
single, integrated analysis of groundwater at Hanford for all waste 
types addressed in the HSW EIS and the TC EIS. As a result, the TC & WM 
EIS will include a reanalysis of onsite disposal alternatives for 
Hanford's low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low-level 
radioactive waste (MLLW) and LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites. The TC 
& WM EIS will revise and update other potential impact areas previously 
addressed in the HSW EIS as appropriate. Finally, the TC & WM EIS will 
incorporate existing analyses from the HSW EIS that do not affect and 
are not directly affected by the waste disposal alternatives after 
review or revision as appropriate. DOE will continue its ongoing 
analysis of alternatives for the retrieval, treatment, storage, and 
disposal of underground tank wastes and closure of underground single-
shell tanks (SST). In addition, DOE plans to include the ongoing Fast 
Flux Test Facility Decommissioning EIS (FFTF EIS, DOE/EIS-0364, NOI at 
69 FR 50178, August 13, 2004) in the scope of the new TC & WM EIS, in 
order to provide an integrated presentation of currently foreseeable 
activities related to waste management and cleanup at Hanford.
    In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, DOE will not ship 
offsite waste to Hanford for storage, processing, or disposal until a 
Record of Decision (ROD) is issued pursuant to the TC & WM EIS, except 
under certain limited exemptions as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
    DOE is soliciting comments on the proposed scope of the new TC & WM 
EIS. Comments previously submitted in response to the 2003 NOI for the 
TC EIS and the 2004 NOI for the FFTF EIS are being considered and need 
not be resubmitted.

[[Page 5656]]


DATES: DOE invites Federal agencies, American Indian tribal nations, 
state and local governments, and the public to comment on the scope of 
the planned TC & WM EIS. DOE will consider all comments received by 
March 6, 2006, as well as comments received after that date to the 
extent practicable. DOE plans to hold public meetings at the following 
locations:
    Hood River, Oregon; February 21, 2006.
    Portland, Oregon; February 22, 2006.
    Seattle, Washington; February 23, 2006.
    Richland, Washington, February 28, 2006.
    The public meetings will address the scope of the planned TC & WM 
EIS. DOE will provide additional notification of the meeting times and 
locations through newspaper advertisements and other appropriate media.

ADDRESSES: To submit comments on the scope of the TC & WM EIS or to 
request copies of the references listed herein, including references 
listed in Appendix A, contact: Mary Beth Burandt, Document Manager, 
Office of River Protection, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 
450, Mail Stop H6-60, Richland, WA 99352. Electronic mail: 
TC&WMEIS@saic.com. Fax: 509-376-3661. Telephone and voice mail: 509-
373-9160.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on DOE's NEPA process, 
contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 
Compliance (EH-42), 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.
    This NOI will be available on DOE's NEPA Web site at 
http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa  and the TC & WM EIS Web site at 
http://www.hanford.gov/orp/  (click on Public Involvement).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Hanford Site is located in southeastern Washington State along 
the Columbia River, and is approximately 586 square miles in size. 
Hanford's mission included defense-related nuclear research, 
development, and weapons production activities from the early 1940s to 
approximately 1989. During that period, Hanford operated a plutonium 
production complex with nine nuclear reactors and associated processing 
facilities. These activities created a wide variety of chemical and 
radioactive wastes. Hanford's mission now is focused on the cleanup of 
those wastes and ultimate closure of Hanford. To this end, DOE manages 
several types of radioactive wastes at Hanford: (1) High-level 
radioactive waste (HLW) as defined under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
[42 U.S.C. 10101]; (2) transuranic (TRU) waste, which is waste 
containing alpha-particle-emitting radionuclides with atomic numbers 
greater than uranium (i.e., 92) and half-lives greater than 20 years in 
concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste; (3) LLW, 
which is radioactive waste that is neither HLW nor TRU waste; and (4) 
MLLW, which is LLW containing hazardous constituents as defined under 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 
6901 et seq.).
    At present, DOE is constructing a Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) in 
the 200-East Area of the site. The WTP will separate waste stored in 
Hanford's underground tanks into HLW and low-activity waste (LAW) 
fractions. HLW will be treated in the WTP and stored at Hanford until 
it can be shipped to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Immobilized LAW waste would be treated in the WTP and disposed of at 
Hanford as decided in the ROD issued in 1997 (62 FR 8693), pursuant to 
the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, 
Final EIS (TWRS EIS, DOE/EIS-0189, August 1996). DOE is processing 
Hanford's contact-handled TRU waste (which does not require special 
protective shielding) for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
(WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, consistent with the 1998 RODs (63 FR 
3624 and 63 FR 3629) for treatment and disposal of TRU waste under the 
Final Waste Management Programmatic EIS for Managing Treatment, 
Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (WM PEIS, DOE/
EIS-0200) and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WIPP SEIS-II, DOE/EIS-
0026-S-2, September 1997). DOE is disposing of Hanford's LLW and MLLW 
onsite, consistent with the ROD for treatment and disposal of these 
wastes under the WM PEIS (65 FR 10061). This ROD also designates 
Hanford as a regional disposal site for LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites.
    In January 2003, DOE issued an NOI (68 FR 1052) to prepare the TC 
EIS (DOE/EIS-0356). The proposed scope of the TC EIS included closure 
of the 149 underground SSTs and newly available information on 
supplemental treatment for the LAW from all 177 tanks, which contain a 
total of approximately 53 million gallons of waste.
    In March 2003, Ecology initiated litigation on issues related to 
importation, treatment, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste 
generated offsite as a result of nuclear defense and research 
activities. The Court enjoined shipment of offsite TRU waste to Hanford 
for processing and storage pending shipment to WIPP.
    In January 2004, DOE issued the HSW EIS and a ROD (69 FR 39449), 
which addressed ongoing solid waste management operations, and 
announced DOE's decision to dispose of Hanford and a limited volume of 
offsite LLW and MLLW in a new Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200-
East Area of Hanford. DOE also decided to continue sending Hanford's 
MLLW offsite for treatment and to modify Hanford's T-Plant for processing 
remote-handled TRU waste and MLLW (which require protective shielding).
    Ecology amended its March 2003 complaint in 2004, challenging the 
adequacy of the HSW EIS analysis of offsite waste importation. In May 
2005, the Court granted a limited discovery period, continuing the 
injunction against shipping offsite wastes to Hanford, including LLW 
and MLLW (State of Washington v. Bodman [Civil No. 2:03-cv-05018-AAM]). 
In July 2005, while preparing responses to discovery requests from 
Ecology, Battelle Memorial Institute, DOE's contractor who assisted in 
preparing the HSW EIS, advised DOE of several differences in 
groundwater analyses between the HSW EIS and its underlying data.
    DOE promptly notified the Court and the State and, in September 
2005, convened a team of DOE experts in quality assurance and 
groundwater analysis, as well as transportation and human health and 
safety impacts analysis, to conduct a quality assurance review of the 
HSW EIS. The team completed its Report of the Review of the Hanford 
Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Data Quality, Control 
and Management Issues, January 2006 (hereafter referred to as the 
Quality Review).
    Because both Ecology and DOE have a shared interest in the 
effective cleanup of Hanford, DOE and Ecology announced a Settlement 
Agreement ending the NEPA litigation on January 9, 2006. The Agreement 
is intended to resolve Ecology's concerns about HSW EIS groundwater 
analyses and to address other concerns about the HSW EIS, including 
those identified in the Quality Review.
    The Agreement calls for an expansion of the TC EIS to provide a 
single, integrated set of analyses that will include all waste types 
analyzed in the HSW EIS (LLW, MLLW, and TRU

[[Page 5657]]

waste). The expanded EIS will be renamed the TC & WM EIS. Pending 
finalization of the TC & WM EIS, the HSW EIS will remain in effect to 
support ongoing waste management activities at Hanford (including 
transportation of TRU waste to WIPP) in accordance with applicable 
regulatory requirements. The Agreement also stipulates that when the TC 
& WM EIS has been completed, it will supersede the HSW EIS. Until that 
time, DOE will not rely on HSW EIS groundwater analyses for decision-
making, and DOE will not import offsite waste to Hanford, with certain 
limited exemptions as specified in the Agreement.
    DOE and Ecology have mutual responsibilities for accomplishing 
cleanup of Hanford, as well as continuing ongoing waste management 
activities consistent with applicable Federal and state laws and 
regulations. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order 
(also called the Tri-Party Agreement [TPA]) among the state, DOE, and 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contains various 
enforceable milestones that apply to waste management activities. DOE 
also is required to comply with applicable requirements of RCRA and the 
state's Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1976 as amended (Chapter 
70.105 Revised Code of Washington). To carry out proposals for future 
actions and obtain necessary permits, each agency must comply with the 
applicable provisions of NEPA and the Washington State Environmental 
Policy Act (SEPA) respectively. The agencies have revised their 
Memorandum of Understanding for the TC EIS (effective March 25, 2003), 
which identified Ecology as a Cooperating Agency in the preparation of 
the TC EIS. The Memorandum of Understanding revision is consistent with 
the Settlement Agreement and provides for Ecology's continuing 
participation as a Cooperating Agency in preparation of the TC & WM EIS 
to assist both agencies in meeting their respective responsibilities 
under NEPA and SEPA.

II. Purpose and Need for Action

    Recognizing the potential risks to human health and the environment 
from Hanford tank wastes, DOE needs to retrieve waste from the 149 SSTs 
and 28 double-shell tanks (DST), treat and dispose of the waste, and 
close the SST farms in a manner that complies with Federal and 
Washington State requirements. Some waste from tanks and LLW and MLLW 
from Hanford and other DOE sites that do not have appropriate 
facilities must be disposed of to facilitate cleanup of Hanford and 
these sites.

III. Proposed Action

    DOE proposes to retrieve and treat waste from 177 underground tanks 
and ancillary equipment and dispose of this waste in compliance with 
applicable regulatory requirements. Vitrified HLW waste would be stored 
onsite until it can be disposed of in the proposed repository at Yucca 
Mountain. DOE proposes to provide additional treatment capacity for the 
tank LAW that can supplement the planned WTP capacity in fulfillment of 
DOE's obligations under the TPA in as timely a manner as possible. DOE 
would dispose of Hanford's immobilized LAW, LLW and MLLW, and LLW and 
MLLW from other DOE sites, in lined trenches onsite. These trenches 
would be closed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
    DOE also proposes to complete the final decontamination and 
decommissioning of the FFTF. DOE decided, in January 2001, (ROD at 66 
FR 7877) that the permanent closure of FFTF was to be resumed with no 
new missions, based on the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research 
and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, 
Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (DOE/EIS-0310, 
December 2000).

IV. Proposed Scope of the TC & WM EIS

    In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, DOE intends to prepare 
a single, comprehensive EIS addressing tank waste retrieval, treatment, 
storage, and disposal; tank closure; and management of all waste types 
analyzed in the HSW EIS as an integrated document for public and agency 
review and reference. The TC & WM EIS will update, revise, or reanalyze 
resource areas (such as groundwater and transportation) from the HSW 
EIS as necessary to make them current and reflect the waste inventories 
and analytical assumptions being used for environmental impact 
assessment in the TC & WM EIS. All updated analyses would be included 
in the revised quantitative groundwater and other cumulative impact 
analyses in the TC & WM EIS.
    The proposed scope of the TC & WM EIS includes alternatives for 
onsite disposal of LLW, MLLW, and LAW; transportation of offsite LLW 
and MLLW to Hanford for disposal; and current or revised information 
for ongoing operations, such as those involving Hanford's Central Waste 
Complex, that were included in the HSW EIS.
    DOE proposes to retain all of the scope identified in the 2003 NOI 
for the TC EIS as modified by public scoping comments. Proposed 
modifications to the alternatives identified in the 2003 NOI are 
provided in Section VI. That is, the new TC & WM EIS would address 
management of the approximately 53 million gallons of waste stored in 
149 underground SSTs (ranging in capacity from approximately 55,000 to 
1 million gallons) and 28 underground DSTs (ranging in capacity from 
approximately 1 to 1.16 million gallons) grouped in 18 tank farms, and 
approximately 60 smaller miscellaneous underground storage tanks, along 
with ancillary equipment.
    DOE proposes to retain all of the scope identified in its August 
2004 NOI to evaluate alternatives for the final disposition of the FFTF 
and proposes to integrate that scope into the TC & WM EIS. The TC & WM 
EIS will thus provide an integrated presentation of currently foreseeable 
activities related to waste management and cleanup at Hanford.

V. Potential Decisions To Be Made

    DOE plans to make decisions on the following topics.
    ? Retrieval of Tank Waste--A reasonable waste retrieval 
range is comprised of three levels: 90 percent, 99 percent, and 99.9 
percent. The 99 percent retrieval is the goal established by the TPA 
(Milestone M-45-00); 90 percent retrieval evaluates a risk analysis of 
the tank farms as defined in the M-45-00, Appendix H, process; and 99.9 
percent retrieval reflects uses of multiple retrieval technologies to 
support clean closure of the tank farms.
    ? Treatment of Tank Waste--WTP waste treatment capability 
can be augmented by supplemental treatment technologies and 
constructing new treatment facilities that are part of, or separate 
from, the WTP. The two primary choices that could fulfill DOE's TPA 
commitments are to treat all waste in an expanded WTP or provide 
supplemental treatment to be used in conjunction with, but separate 
from, the WTP. DOE has conducted preliminary tests on three 
supplemental treatment technologies--cast stone (a form of grout), 
steam reforming, and bulk vitrification--to determine if one or more 
could be used to provide the additional, supplemental waste treatment 
capability needed to complete waste treatment.
    ? Disposal of Treated Tank Waste--Onsite disposal includes 
treated tank waste such as immobilized LAW and

[[Page 5658]]

waste generated from closure activities that meets onsite disposal 
criteria; the decision to be made involves the onsite location of 
disposal facilities. Decisions to be made related to offsite disposal 
include the length of time and facilities required for storage of 
immobilized high-level radioactive waste (IHLW) prior to disposal at 
the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
    ? Storage of Tank Waste--Depending on the alternative being 
analyzed, storing tank waste for different lengths of time may be 
necessary. This may require the construction, operation, and 
deactivation of waste transfer infrastructures, including waste 
receiver facilities (below-grade lag storage and minimal waste 
treatment facilities), waste transfer line upgrades, and new or 
replacement DSTs. Also depending on the alternative, construction and 
operation of additional immobilized HLW storage vaults, melter pads, 
and TRU waste storage facilities needed to store treated tank waste.
    ? Closure of SSTs--Decisions to be made include closing the 
SSTs by clean closure, selective clean closure/landfill closure, and 
landfill closure with or without any soil contamination removal. 
Decisions regarding barriers (engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C 
barrier or Hanford barrier) to prevent water intrusion will be made. A 
closure configuration for the original 28 DSTs will be evaluated in the 
TC & WM EIS for engineering reasons related to barrier placement for 
the SSTs. This evaluation also is provided to aid Ecology in evaluating 
the impacts which might result in closing DSTs to a debris rule 
standard. However, DOE is deferring a decision on closure of DSTs and 
decommissioning of the WTP until a later date when the mission for 
those facilities is nearing completion.
    ? Disposal of Hanford's and DOE Offsite LLW and MLLW--The 
decision to be made concerns the onsite location of disposal facilities 
for Hanford's waste and other DOE sites' LLW and MLLW. DOE committed in 
the HSW EIS ROD that henceforth LLW would be disposed of in lined 
trenches. Thus, the decision would concern whether to dispose of the 
waste in the 200-West Area or at the Integrated Disposal Facility in 
the 200-East Area.
    ? Final Decontamination and Decommissioning of the FFTF--The 
decision would identify the final end state for the above-ground, 
below-ground, and ancillary support structures.

VI. Potential Range of Alternatives

    Six alternatives were originally proposed for TC EIS and are listed 
below. The initial scope of the TC EIS was provided in the January 2003 
NOI and at each public scoping meeting.
    ? No Action Alternative, which was to implement the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD;
    ? Implement the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD with Modifications;
    ? Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal;
    ? Clean Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal;
    ? Accelerated Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal; and
    ? Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal.
    Onsite disposal would include immobilized LAW, LLW, and MLLW 
resulting from tank retrieval and treatment. Offsite disposal of HLW 
would occur at Yucca Mountain. No determination has been made as to 
whether any of the tanks contain TRU waste. If it is determined that 
any tank waste is TRU waste, offsite disposal at WIPP would be 
appropriate, provided the required approvals from EPA and the New 
Mexico Environment Department were obtained.
    As a result of the 2003 scoping for the TC EIS, a number of changes 
are being made to those identified in the NOI. The major changes are:
    ? The No Action Alternative was modified to address a 
traditional ``no action'' rather than the action from the TWRS EIS ROD;
    ? The alternative addressing implementation of the 1997 TWRS 
EIS ROD was modified to address both the currently planned 
vitrification capacity and the currently planned capacity supplemented 
with additional vitrification capacity as the supplemental treatment;
    ? A partial tank removal option was added, which analyzes 
leaving some of the SSTs in place and exhuming the SSTs completely in 
the SX and BX tank farms;
    ? The Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite 
Waste Disposal Alternative has been modified to more clearly evaluate 
the No Separations (of HLW and LAW waste) with Onsite Storage and 
Offsite Disposal Alternative; and
    ? A suboption has been added to both the All Vitrification 
with Separations and All Vitrification/No Separations (of HLW and LAW 
waste) Alternatives to address closure of the cribs and trenches 
proximal to tanks within identified waste management areas in place as 
opposed to removing them.
    For Hanford and offsite LLW and MLLW analyzed in the HSW EIS, DOE 
proposes to simplify the alternatives. Both waste types would be 
disposed of in lined trenches. DOE plans to update the volumes to be 
disposed of, approximating those volumes for offsite waste in the 2004 
HSW EIS ROD, and to update the waste information. DOE also intends to 
update the transportation analysis of shipping offsite waste to Hanford 
for disposal. The onsite disposal alternatives are:
    ? Construction of a new disposal facility in the 200-West 
Area burial grounds; and
    ? Construction of new LLW and MLLW capacity in the 
Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200-East Area.
    For the FFTF, the 2004 NOI identified three alternatives as listed 
below.
    ? No Action--actions consistent with previous DOE NEPA 
decisions would be completed; final decommissioning would not occur.
    ? Entombment--above-ground structures would be 
decontaminated and dismantled, below-ground structures would be grouted 
and left in place.
    ? Removal--above-ground structures would be decontaminated 
and dismantled, below-ground structures would be removed and disposed 
of at Hanford.

VII. Potential Environmental Issues for Analysis

    The following issues have been tentatively identified for analysis 
in the TC & WM EIS. This list is presented to facilitate comment on the 
scope of the TC & WM EIS, but is not intended to be all-inclusive or to 
predetermine potential impacts of any alternative.
    ? Effects on the public and onsite workers of radiological 
and nonradiological material releases during normal operations and 
reasonably foreseeable accidents;
    ? Long-term risks to human populations resulting from waste 
disposal and residual tank system wastes;
    ? Effects on air and water quality of normal operations and 
reasonably foreseeable accidents, including long-term impacts on 
groundwater;
    ? Cumulative effects, including impacts of other past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at Hanford, including past 
discharges to cribs and trenches, groundwater remediation activities, 
activities subject to TPA requirements and cleanup activities under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act;
    ? Effects on endangered species, archaeological/cultural/
historical sites, floodplains and wetlands, and priority habitat;
    ? Effects of on- and offsite transportation and of reasonably

[[Page 5659]]

foreseeable transportation accidents; and
    ? Socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities.

VIII. Public Scoping

    DOE invites Federal agencies, American Indian tribal nations, state 
and local governments, and the general public to comment on the scope 
of the planned TC & WM EIS. Information on the scoping comment period 
is provided in the DATES section above. Comments previously submitted 
in response to the 2003 NOI for the TC EIS and the 2004 NOI for the 
FFTF EIS are being considered and need not be resubmitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2006.
John Spitaleri Shaw,
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health.

Appendix A--Related National Environmental Policy Act Documents

    45 FR 46155, 1980, ``Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level 
Radioactive Waste Storage, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; 
Record of Decision,'' Federal Register.
    53 FR 12449, 1988, ``Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, 
Transuranic, and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; 
Record of Decision,'' Federal Register.
    60 FR 28680, 1995, ``Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management 
and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management Program, Part III; Record of Decision,'' 
Federal Register.
    60 FR 54221, 1995, ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes at the Hanford Site, 
Richland, Washington; Record of Decision,'' Federal Register.
    60 FR 61687, 1995, "Record of Decision; Safe Interim Storage of 
Hanford Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington," Federal Register.
    61 FR 3922, 1996, ``Availability of the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement for Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K 
Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Notice of 
Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement,'' Federal Register.
    61 FR 10736, 1996, ``Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K 
Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record of 
Decision,'' Federal Register.
    62 FR 8693, 1997, ``Record of Decision for the Tank Waste 
Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,'' Federal Register.
    63 FR 3624, 1998, ``Record of Decision for the Department of 
Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase,'' Federal Register.
    63 FR 3629, 1998, ``Record of Decision for the Department of 
Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of 
Transuranic Waste,'' Federal Register.
    65 FR 10061, 2000, ``Record of Decision for the Department of 
Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low-
Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Amendment to the Record of 
Decision for the Nevada Test Site,'' Federal Register.
    69 FR 39449, 2004, ``Record of Decision for the Solid Waste 
Program, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington: Storage and Treatment 
of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level 
Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste, and Storage, Processing, and 
Certification of Transuranic Waste for Shipment to the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant, Federal Register.
    DOE/EA-0479, 1990, Collecting Crust Samples from Level Detectors 
in Tank SY-101 at the Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-0495, 1991, Preparation of Crust Sampling of Tank 241-SY-
101, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-0511, 1991, Characterization of Tank 241-SY-101, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-0581, 1991, Upgrading of the Ventilation System at the 
241-SY Tank Farm, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-0802, 1992, Tank 241-SY-101 Equipment Installation and 
Operation to Enhance Tank Safety, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-0803, 1992, Proposed Pump Mixing Operations to Mitigate 
Episodic Gas Releases in Tank 241-SY-101, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-0881, 1993, Tank 241-C-103 Organic Vapor and Liquid 
Characterization and Supporting Activities, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-0933, 1995, Tank 241-C-106 Past Practice Sluicing Waste 
Retrieval, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-0993, 1995, Shutdown of the Fast Flux Test Facility, 
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington and Finding of No Significant Impact.
    DOE/EA-0981, 1995, Environmental Assessment--Solid Waste 
Retrieval Complex, Enhanced Radioactive and Mixed Waste Storage 
Facility, Infrastructure Upgrades, and Central Waste Support 
Complex, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-1203, 1997, Trench 33 Widening in 218-W-5 Low-Level 
Burial Ground, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-1276, 1999, Widening Trench 36 of the 218-E-12B Low-Level 
Burial Ground, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EA-1405, 2002, Transuranic Waste Retrieval from the 218-W-4B 
and 218-W-4C Low-Level Burial Grounds, Hanford Site, Richland, 
Washington, Finding of No Significant Impact, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EIS-0113, 1987, Final Environmental Impact Statement--
Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic, and Tank 
Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EIS-0212, 1995, Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank 
Wastes--Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, and 
Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
    DOE/EIS-0189, 1996, Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, 
Richland, Washington, Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, 
and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
    DOE/EIS-0189-SA1, 1997, Supplement Analysis for the Proposed 
Upgrades to the Tank Farm Ventilation, Instrumentation, and 
Electrical Systems under Project W-314 in Support of Tank Farm 
Restoration and Safe Operations, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 
Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EIS-0189-SA2, 1998, Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste 
Remediation System, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 
Office, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EIS-0189-SA3, 2001, Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste 
Remediation System, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations 
Office, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EIS-0200, 1997, Final Waste Management Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and 
Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC.
    DOE/EIS-0026-S-2, 1997, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal 
Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement II, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Carlsbad, New Mexico.
    DOE/EIS-0222, 1999, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 
Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 
Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
    DOE/EIS-0310, 2000, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy 
Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the 
United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility.
    DOE/EIS-0250, 2002, Final Environmental Impact Statement for a 
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-
Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, North Las 
Vegas, Nevada.
    DOE/EIS-0287, 2002, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities 
Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
    DOE/EIS-0286, 2004, Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and 
Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, 
Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, 
Richland, Washington.

[[Page 5660]]

    DOH Publication 320-031, 2004, Final Environmental Impact 
Statement--Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, Richland, 
Washington, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, Washington, 
and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
    U.S. Department of Energy, 2006, Report of the Review of the 
Hanford Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Data 
Quality, Control and Management Issues, Washington, DC.
[FR Doc. E6-1404 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
Notice of Intent To Prepare the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, WA

Local Navigation
