Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Interim Management of Nuclear Materials at the Savannah River Site

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the

Interim Management of Nuclear Materials at the Savannah River Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to prepare

an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq.). DOE proposes to evaluate nuclear materials currently stored at

the Savannah River Site (SRS) and determine what materials can safely

remain in their current form for an interim period (approximately 5

years) until disposition decisions can be made. DOE will also determine

what materials are at risk and therefore require near-term

stabilization to assure continued safe management. DOE will evaluate

the nuclear materials using a proposed set of criteria to determine

materials which require near-term stabilization to help maintain the

health and safety of workers and the public and to maintain

environmental quality. DOE would then stabilize the materials

determined to be of concern.

DOE also proposes that some nuclear materials at the SRS should be

converted, or should be considered for conversion, to a useable form.

Plutonium-242 is used for research and development programs and the SRS

inventory of this material is needed for this programmatic purpose. As

a result, DOE proposes to convert the SRS inventory of plutonium-242

solution to an oxide. Additionally, DOE is in the process of

determining whether a programmatic need exists for americium-243,

curium-244, and neptunium-237. If it is determined that a need for this

material exists, the EIS will also evaluate its conversion to a useable

form. Any conversion of this material would be for purposes other than

the production of nuclear weapons.

The nuclear materials to be evaluated will be those which have

historically been either the feed materials for, or the in-process

material of, SRS production and reprocessing programs.\1\ The need for

the EIS is driven by the evolving requirements associated with the

defense programs of the United States and the resultant requirement to

manage the materials in the interim pending disposition decisions.

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

\1\This material does not include that associated with the

plutonium-238 production mission in HB-Line. The purpose of that

mission is to support the National Aeronautics Space Administration

deep space probe program. This effort is the subject of separate

NEPA documentation.

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

DOE plans to address waste management activities at SRS in a

separate EIS. The waste management EIS for SRS will be announced

shortly, by a separate Notice of Intent.

INVITATION TO COMMENT: To ensure the EIS addresses the full range of

issues and alternatives related to this proposal, DOE invites comments

on the proposed scope of the EIS from all interested parties. Please

direct written comments to assist DOE in identifying significant

environmental issues and defining the appropriate scope of the EIS to

Mr. Stephen R. Wright at the address indicated below. DOE also invites

agencies, organizations, and the general public to present oral

comments pertinent to the preparation of this EIS at the public scoping

meetings on the dates indicated below. In addition, DOE will accept

comments electronically via voice mail or facsimile transmission by

calling 1-800-242-8269. DOE will give equal consideration to all

comments.

After the completion of the public scoping process, DOE will

prepare an EIS Implementation Plan and make it available to the public

upon request. The Implementation Plan will record the results of the

scoping process and define the alternatives and issues that DOE will

evaluate in the EIS. DOE intends to complete the Draft EIS in late

1994, and will announce its availability in the Federal Register. DOE

will solicit comments from the public, organizations, and other

agencies on the Draft EIS, and will consider all comments in its

preparation of the Final EIS.

DATES: The public scoping period will continue until May 31, 1994. DOE

will consider all written comments postmarked by May 31, 1994, and will

consider comments postmarked after that date to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Please direct written comments or suggestions on the scope

of the EIS and questions concerning the project to: Mr. Stephen R.

Wright, U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office,

P.O. Box A, Aiken, South Carolina 29802, (803) 725-3957.

Mark the envelopes: ``Nuclear Materials Interim Management EIS.''

For general information on the DOE NEPA review process, please

contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight

(EH-25), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756.

PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS: DOE will host a series of informal sessions to

provide the public with additional information on the materials to be

evaluated and the proposed action and alternatives discussed in this

NOI. These sessions are intended to be interactive and DOE

representatives will be available to answer questions. These informal

sessions are scheduled at the following times and locations: 1 p.m. to

4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., April 12, 1994, North Augusta Community

Center, 495 Brookside Avenue, North Augusta, South Carolina; 1 p.m. to

4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., April 19, 1994, DeSoto Hilton Hotel, 15

Liberty Street, Savannah, Georgia; 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 9

p.m., April 21, 1994, Holiday Inn Coliseum at USC, 630 Assembly Street,

Columbia, South Carolina.

DOE will then conduct public scoping meetings to assist in defining

the appropriate scope of the EIS and identifying significant

environmental issues to be addressed. DOE representatives will be

available at the meetings to discuss, in informal conversations, SRS

nuclear materials programs. These meetings are scheduled at the

following times and locations: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m and 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.,

May 12, 1994, Coastal Georgia Center for Continuing Education, 305

Martin Luther King Boulevard (Battlefield Park), Savannah, Georgia; 1

p.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., May 17, 1994, North Augusta

Community Center, 495 Brookside Avenue, North Augusta, South Carolina;

1 p.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., May 19, 1994, Holiday Inn

Coliseum at USC, 630 Assembly Street, Columbia, South Carolina.

DOE will publish additional notices on the dates and locations of

the information sessions and scoping meetings in local newspapers well

in advance of the scheduled dates. DOE is committed to providing

opportunities for the involvement of interested individuals and groups

in this and other DOE planning activities.

The public, organizations, and agencies are invited to present oral

and written comments concerning (1) the scope of the EIS, (2) the

issues the EIS should address, and (3) the alternatives the EIS should

analyze. Please address written comments to Mr. Wright at the address

indicated above. These comments should be postmarked by May 31, 1994,

to ensure full consideration.

Organizations and individuals wishing to participate in the public

meetings can call 1-800-242-8269 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern

Time, Monday through Friday, or submit their requests to Mr. Wright at

the address indicated above. DOE requests that anyone who wishes to

speak at one of the scoping meetings pre-register by contacting Mr.

Wright, either by phone or in writing. Pre-registration should occur at

least two days before the designated meeting. Persons who have not pre-

registered to speak may register at the meeting and will be called to

speak as time permits.

DOE will document comments received during the public scoping

process. Copies will be available for inspection at these locations

during regular business hours, Monday through Friday:

The DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, room 1E-190, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202)

586-6020; and

The DOE Public Document Room, University of South Carolina, Aiken

Campus, University Library, 2nd Floor, 171 University Parkway, Aiken,

South Carolina 29801, (803) 648-6851.

Additional locations may be selected through the scoping process.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Savannah River Site is an 800 square-

kilometer (300 square-mile), controlled area in southwestern South

Carolina. The Site is approximately 25 miles southeast of Augusta,

Georgia and 20 miles south of Aiken, South Carolina. Since its

establishment, the mission of the SRS has been to produce nuclear

materials that support the defense, research, and medical programs of

the United States.

Historically, reactor fuel or target assemblies were chemically

dissolved into aqueous solutions in the F- or H-Canyon chemical

separations facilities.

Various processes were performed to separate the useful isotopes

(uranium-235, uranium-238, neptunium-237, plutonium-238, americium-243,

curium-244, and plutonium-239) from the rest of the fuel and target

material. The uranium-235 solutions were shipped off the site for

conversion to a solid form and the uranium-238 in solution was

converted to an oxide using the FA-Line facility at SRS. The neptunium-

237 was recovered, and when required, converted to a solid and

fashioned into new targets. The plutonium was recovered and converted

to metal or oxide products using the FB- and HB-Line facilities. Most

converted materials were shipped to other DOE sites. Any product

materials stored onsite were placed in ``vaults'' designed for storage.

In March 1992, chemical processing operations were suspended in the

canyons to address a potential safety concern. The concern was

subsequently addressed, but prior to resumption of processing, the

Secretary of Energy directed that defense-related chemical separations

activities (i.e., reprocessing) be phased out at SRS. Since this

decision, the Department has determined that further action related to

the disposition of nuclear material is subject to the NEPA process.

Non-safety related facility operations have remained shut down, with

the exception of plutonium-238 processing associated with the support

of NASA missions.

As a result of these shutdowns, the canyons and the reactor fuel

and target storage basins\2\ have a large inventory of in-process

solutions, fuel assemblies, and targets. This inventory includes

materials containing a wide variety of special isotopes (plutonium-239,

uranium-235, plutonium-242, americium-243, curium-244, neptunium-237,

etc.). There are approximately 100,000 gallons of in-process solutions

in storage and approximately 200 metric tons of spent fuel and targets

in storage.

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

\2\There are several storage basins currently in use. These are

the K-, L-, and P-Reactor basins, the Receiving Basin for Off-site

Fuels (RBOF) located in H-Area, and the Canyon receiving basins.

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

In addition to the above solutions and targets, there are over

90,000 gallons of uranyl nitrate hexahydrate (UNH) stored in tanks

outside the facility. The UNH contains the uranium-235 recovered from

the processing of fuel from SRS production reactors, and DOE, domestic,

and foreign research reactors.

There are also approximately 35,000 55-gallon drums of uranium-238

(known as ``depleted uranium'') oxide stored on the site. This material

is the product of processing the targets from which plutonium-239 is

recovered.

For some solutions (e.g., enriched uranium and americium/curium) no

conversion capability exists. Conversion, stabilization, or disposition

options must be developed for such solutions.

DOE has established a Secretarial task force to evaluate

disposition of surplus nuclear materials stored at various locations

within the weapons complex. Until disposition decisions are made

(approximately 5 years), some of the materials at SRS, due to their

form or to the condition in which they are currently maintained, could

represent an unreasonable risk to public and worker health and safety

or an unreasonable risk to the environment. For example, the aluminum

cladding on some of the targets is deteriorating due to corrosion. As

the cladding corrodes, highly radioactive material is exposed to the

water in the storage basin. Some of this material is released into the

water, which can result in increased worker exposures and environmental

releases. Another example of material that could present an

unreasonable risk is stored solutions containing plutonium, other

transuranic elements, and uranium. These solutions require continuing

vigilance to assure their continued safe storage and to avoid

potentially severe radiological impacts should an accident occur.

Additionally, DOE wants to reduce the cost of maintaining and

storing these nuclear materials. The cost to maintain just the SRS

canyons, with their current inventory of material, is about $300

million a year. These costs could be reduced through consolidation,

conversion, and stabilization.

Proposed Action

The Department proposes to stabilize nuclear materials currently

stored at the SRS that are in a condition that may not be safe over the

time that is necessary to make decisions regarding their long-term

disposition (approximately 5 years). The EIS will evaluate and identify

which nuclear materials should be stabilized because of a health,

safety, or environmental concern related to the condition of the

material.\3\

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

\3\If at any time during the course of preparing the

environmental impact statement the Department were to determine that

an emergency condition such as unreasonable risk to public or worker

health and safety or the environment exists with respect to any of

the unstable materials, the Department would take action to respond

immediately to the situation and consult with the Council on

Environmental Quality regarding alternative arragements for

compliance with NEPA.

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

The Department also proposes to convert to a useable form those

materials for which a programmatic need exists. These materials are

used in research and development programs. Specifically, DOE has

identified a need for additional plutonium-242, and proposes to convert

the existing inventory of that material at SRS from a solution to an

oxide. In addition, if during the development of this EIS, a

programmatic need is identified for neptunium-237, americium-243, or

curium-244, this material will also be proposed for conversion to a

useable form. Any programmatic need for americium-243 and curium-244

could not be satisfied until conversion technology is developed.

Alternatives Proposed for Consideration

DOE will examine various methods to accomplish stabilization. Based

on current information, the preferred alternative for some of these

materials, (e.g., in-process liquids) would be to operate the canyon

facilities (including FB-Line and HB-Line, Phases I and II) only as may

be necessary for stabilization, and then to place the facilities in a

standby condition. For some materials, (e.g., americium and curium

solutions) the Department currently has no preferred alternative, and

the EIS will assist the Department in identifying a preferred

alternative. The Department solicits public participation in

identifying and evaluating alternatives. Alternatives could include dry

storage, new wet storage, and processing for vitrification without

chemical separation. Alternatives to the conversion of material

required for programmatic needs have not been identified. Consistent

with NEPA's requirement that the ``no action'' alternative be

considered, DOE will evaluate the environmental impacts of continuing

to manage all materials in their current form until decisions regarding

disposition are made.

Material Inventory Evaluation Criteria

DOE proposes to evaluate the inventory of nuclear materials at the

SRS and place the material into one of three categories. These

categories are: (1) Materials that may warrant near-term stabilization

in order to maintain the health and safety of workers and the public

and to maintain environmental quality; (2) material for which there is

still a programmatic need; and (3) materials for which there is

currently no designated programmatic need and which are already in a

stable form. DOE proposes to use the following criteria to categorize

material that warrants near-term stabilization and solicits public

comments on how these criteria may be further refined:

1. Materials which, without stabilization, would present a near-

term (i.e., approximately 5 years) risk of increasing worker radiation

exposure or exposure to hazardous materials by an amount that is not

insignificant.

2. Materials which, without stabilization, would present a near-

term risk of a release of radioactive or hazardous material to the

public or the environment that is not insignificant.

3. Materials for which stabilization or use of an alternative

storage method will, in the near-term, reduce the degree of hazard

presented by the material in its current form by an amount that is not

insignificant.

4. Material for which stabilization in the near-term would reduce

the generation of radioactive waste by an amount that is not

insignificant.

DOE intends that decisions regarding which materials merit near-

term stabilization will be based exclusively on the risk they pose to

the safety and health of workers or the public, or to the environment.

Although DOE expects to realize some maintenance related cost savings

by stabilizing at-risk materials, DOE does not intend to consider

economics as a criterion in the categorization process. That is, DOE

does not propose to process materials that DOE determines, after public

input, will remain stable until decisions regarding disposition can be

made, even if it were judged to be cost effective to process them in

conjunction with materials to be stabilized.

DOE solicits public comments on the criteria and approach described

above.

Identification of Environmental and Other Issues

DOE has identified the following issues for analysis for proposed

and alternative actions in the EIS.

Environmental Issues

1. Public and Worker Safety, Health Risk Assessment--Radiological

and nonradiological impacts, including projected effects on workers and

the public from normal operations and potential accidents.

2. Waste Management--The impact on the generation, treatment,

storage, and disposal of high-level radioactive waste, low-level

radioactive waste, transuranic (TRU) waste, hazardous waste, and mixed

waste on new and existing onsite waste management and storage

facilities. The EIS will describe the types and quantities of waste

that would be generated by implementation. It will not consider

specific waste disposal alternatives (e.g., a comparison of the impacts

caused by the treatment and interim storage of vitrified reprocessing

waste with those caused by the treatment and interim storage of

unprocessed forms). These will be evaluated in the SRS waste management

EIS.

3. Regulatory Compliance--A determination of the status of

compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local statutes and

regulations; required Federal and state environmental consultations and

notifications; and

DOE Orders on waste management, including waste minimization

initiatives, and environmental protection.

4. Air Quality--Potential effects on air quality from radiological

and nonradiological emissions.

5. Water Resources--Effects on the quality and the quantity of

ground- and surface-water resources, including wetlands, and on

downstream water users.

6. Onsite Transportation--Impacts on the onsite workers and

transportation systems resulting from transportation of raw materials,

supplies, equipment, products, and wastes for both routine

transportation and accident scenarios.

7. Socioeconomic--Socioeconomic impacts in the SRS area.

Related NEPA Reviews

The following is a list of existing or forthcoming NEPA

documentation related to materials or activities at SRS.

Savannah River Site Waste Management EIS

DOE will shortly announce its intent to prepare an EIS on waste

management activities at the SRS. The purpose of the EIS is to provide

a basis for DOE to select a sitewide strategic approach to managing

present and future SRS waste generated as a result of ongoing

operations, environmental restoration activities, transition, and

decontamination and decommissioning activities. The EIS will address,

at a minimum, the generation, minimization, treatment, storage, and

disposal of low-level waste, liquid high-level waste, nonradioactive

hazardous waste, mixed waste, and transuranic waste.

PEIS for Waste Management

DOE has published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a

Programmatic EIS on Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM

PEIS) (55 FR 42633, October 22, 1990). An Implementation Plan for this

PEIS was published in February 1994. A draft PEIS is currently expected

to be issued by September 1994.

EIS for Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory (INEL) Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management

This EIS is currently in preparation and will include, among other

issues, a programmatic analysis for the transportation, receipt,

processing and storage of spent nuclear fuel, including consideration

of sites other than INEL. SRS is one of the alternative sites being

evaluated.

Environmental Assessment (EA) for HB-Line Operation

HB-Line is currently operating to provide plutonium-238 for future

space missions. In July 1991, DOE issued an Environmental Assessment

for Radioisotope Heat Source Fuel Processing and Fabrication, DOE/EA-

0534. Based on the analysis in the EA, DOE determined that the proposed

action, which included operation of HB-Line Phases I and III, does not

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. DOE issued a

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on July 21, 1991; the FONSI

was published in the Federal Register on July 25, 1991 (56 FR 34057).

As part of a negotiated court settlement, DOE is preparing an

additional EA that will examine impacts of operating HB-Line Phases I

and III beyond those activities currently underway. The cumulative

impacts of operation of HB-Line Phases I and III in conjunction with

the proposed action and alternatives will be addressed in this nuclear

materials interim management EIS.

EA and EIS for Foreign Research Reactor Spent Fuel

DOE is preparing an EIS on the proposed adoption and implementation

of a policy for the acceptance of up to 15,000 spent nuclear fuel

elements from foreign research reactors. This EIS is scheduled to be

completed by the end of June 1995. In the interim, to meet the needs of

certain foreign research reactor operators and to avoid failure of a

key United States nuclear nonproliferation objective, DOE proposes to

accept a small number of foreign research reactor spent fuel elements

for storage at an existing SRS wet storage facility. DOE has prepared

and has issued for public comment, a draft EA (February 1994) to

evaluate the environmental impact of this proposed interim action.

Canyon Ventilation Upgrade EIS

On March 20, 1992, DOE published an NOI to prepare an EIS for the

upgrade of canyon exhaust systems at SRS (57 FR 9693). An

Implementation Plan was issued in January 1993. The scope of the

upgrade is being substantially reduced and DOE is presently evaluating

what level of analysis is required under NEPA, as a result of the

change in scope.

EA for Plutonium Storage in Building 247-F Vault

DOE is preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate the

impacts of consolidating certain stable plutonium materials for interim

storage into an existing vault located in Building 247-F at the SRS.

The EA will evaluate the consolidated storage of plutonium materials

currently stored at several locations on the SRS.

EISs for Reactor Operation

DOE has published two Final EISs on nuclear reactor operation at

SRS: L-Reactor Operation, DOE/EIS-0108, 1984, and Continued Operation

of K-,

L-, and P-Reactors (ROEIS), DOE/EIS-0147, 1990. DOE stated in the Final

ROEIS that it will prepare an EIS ``that includes more detail on the

environmental impacts of support facilities.'' The EIS addressed by

this NOI partially fulfills that commitment.

Reconfiguration PEIS

On July 23, 1993, DOE published a revised Notice of Intent to

prepare a PEIS for reconfiguration of its nuclear weapons complex (56

FR 39528) due to nuclear weapons stockpile reductions. The Department

is reviewing the reconfiguration alternatives based on scoping comments

resulting from public review of the revised Notice of Intent and budget

projections. The results of this review will be presented in a revised

Implementation Plan that will replace the earlier (February 1992)

Implementation Plan. The SRS will be analyzed as a candidate site.

Related Publications

The following recent publications are available in the public

reading rooms listed at the end of the Public Scoping Meetings section

of this NOI. These publications deal with nuclear material management

issues and provide current information on the environmental impact of

SRS operations:

Office of Technology Assessment, 1993. Dismantling the Bomb and

Managing the Nuclear Materials. OTA-0-572. Washington, DC U.S.

Government Printing Office.

National Academy of Sciences, 1994. Management and Disposition of

Excess Weapons Plutonium. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Spent Fuel Working Group, 1993. Inventory and Storage of the

Department's Spent Nuclear Fuel and Other Reactor Irradiated Nuclear

Materials and Their Environmental, Safety, and Health Vulnerabilities.

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 1993. Savannah River Site

Environmental Report for 1992, WSRC-TR-93-075, Savannah River Site,

Aiken, South Carolina.

Issued in Washington, DC, this 11th day of March 1994.

Tara O'Toole, M.D., M.P.H.,

Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 94-6258 Filed 3-16-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P