Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy has issued a Record of Decision on

Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Programs. The Record of Decision includes a Department-wide decision to

regionalize spent nuclear fuel management by fuel type for Department-

owned spent nuclear fuel. The Record of Decision also contains

decisions dealing with site-wide environmental restoration and waste

management programs at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. These

decisions include the: (1) Continuation of environmental restoration

activities; (2) development of cost-effective treatment technologies

for spent nuclear fuel and waste management; and (3) implementation of

projects and facilities to prepare waste and treat spent nuclear fuel

for interim storage and final disposition.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Department of Energy Programmatic Spent

Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Environmental

Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0203-F) and other information related to this

Record of Decision are available in the public reading rooms and

libraries identified in the Federal Register Notice that announced the

availability of the final Environmental Impact Statement (60 FR 20979,

April 28, 1995).

For further information on the Department's spent nuclear fuel

management program and environmental restoration and waste management

programs at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory or to receive a

copy of the Environmental Impact Statement, contact:

U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Bradley P. Bugger,

Office of Communications, 850 Energy Drive, MS 1214, Idaho Falls, ID

83403-3189, 208-526-0833.

For information on the Department's National Environmental Policy

Act process, please contact:

Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance,

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, D.C.

20585, 202-586-4600, 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Synopsis

The Record of Decision documents decisions made by the U.S.

Department of Energy after the evaluation of the potential

environmental impacts of a reasonable range of alternatives and

appropriate nonenvironmental factors. The decisions fall into two

categories, the first relating to the Department-wide management of

Department of Energy-owned spent nuclear fuel for a period of up to

forty years, pending the fuel's ultimate disposition, and the second

relating to environmental restoration and waste management programs at

the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory over a period of ten years.

These decisions are based on information and analyses contained in the

final Environmental Impact Statement (Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management Programs Environmental Impact

Statement, DOE/EIS-0203-F) and other relevant considerations. The Navy

was a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Environmental Impact

Statement, because spent nuclear fuel from Navy nuclear powered ships

and prototypes is managed by the Department of Energy.

Spent Nuclear Fuel Management. The Department of Energy has decided

to regionalize spent nuclear fuel management by fuel type at three

sites: the Hanford Site, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and

the Savannah River Site. Under this decision, the fuel type

distribution would be as follows:

Hanford production reactor fuel will remain at the Hanford

Site;

Aluminum clad fuel will be consolidated at the Savannah

River Site; and

Non-aluminum clad fuels (including spent nuclear fuel from

the Fort St. Vrain Reactor and Naval spent fuel) will be transferred to

the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

The Navy will resume shipments of its spent nuclear fuel to the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory immediately, upon the staying or

dissolution of an injunction ordered by the United States District

Court for the District of Idaho on May 19, 1995. The Department will

prioritize and time-phase shipments of spent nuclear fuel from current

storage locations to the selected sites and will implement the regional

management strategy consistent with its other programmatic objectives

(considerations will include fuel condition, facility availability,

safety factors, budget and cost, transportation logistics and

repository acceptance criteria). This regionalization strategy will

result in the following inventories of spent nuclear fuel (in metric

tons of heavy metal, i.e., uranium, plutonium and thorium, and

percentage of total anticipated inventory) at each of the three sites:

Hanford Site--2103 (76%)

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory--426 (16%)

Savannah River Site--213 (8%)

This management strategy was selected using a formal decision

management process that considered the analysis and evaluation of five

management alternatives set forth in the Environmental Impact Statement

(DOE/EIS-0203-F).

For each of the alternatives, the impacts of spent nuclear fuel

management activities were analyzed for each of five sites: (1) the

Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; (2) the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory, in southeastern Idaho; (3) the Savannah River

Site, near Aiken, South Carolina; (4) the Oak Ridge Reservation, in Oak

Ridge, Tennessee; and (5) Nevada Test Site, near Mercury, Nevada. In

addition, four naval shipyards and one naval prototype site, the

Kesselring Site (near West Milton, New York), were considered for

management of naval spent fuel only. The four naval shipyards are: (1)

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia; (2) Portsmouth Naval

Shipyard, Kittery, Maine; (3) Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Honolulu,

Hawaii; and (4) Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington.

A short description of each of the alternatives evaluated, several

of which included sub-alternatives or specific site options, is

provided below:

No Action--perform minimum activities required for safe

and secure management at or close to the generation site or current

storage location;

Decentralization--store and stabilize most spent nuclear

fuel at or near the generation site with limited shipments from

university and non-Department of Energy facilities to Department of

Energy facilities;

1992/1993 Planning Basis--transport to and store newly

generated spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory or the Savannah River Site and consolidate some existing

spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory;

[[Page 28681]]

Regionalization--distribute existing and projected spent

nuclear fuel among alternative Department of Energy sites based on fuel

type or geographic location (an eastern regional site and a western

regional site);

Centralization--manage existing and projected spent

nuclear fuel at one of the five Departmental sites.

The Department's decision, which furthers its mission to ensure

safe, efficient and responsible management of spent nuclear fuel

pending ultimate disposition, has certain benefits, including:

Small potential environmental impacts (it is one of the

environmentally preferable alternatives);

Enabling the Navy to continue to defuel and refuel its

ships in order to meet national defense commitments;

Providing for the development of safe storage and ultimate

disposition technologies and the continuation of research and

development for naval reactor fuel;

Positioning the Department to pursue a path forward for

ultimate disposition of Department of Energy-owned spent nuclear fuel;

Furthering the consolidation of fuel at Department of

Energy sites where the best capability exists to manage that type of

fuel, thus enhancing the flexibility to address future requirements for

ultimate disposition of the fuel as they evolve; and

Permitting the Department to balance potential

environmental risks, safety consequences, public concerns, mission

needs and costs.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and

Waste Management Programs. The decisions regarding the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory site-wide spent fuel program and environmental

restoration and waste management programs include: (1) Acceptance of

non-aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel for management, (2) continuation

of the restoration of priority sites and the stabilization of other

sites based on health and environmental risks and budget, (3)

development of cost-effective waste treatment technologies, and (4)

implementation of projects and facilities to prepare waste and spent

nuclear fuel for final disposition and allow more efficient examination

of naval spent nuclear fuel.

These decisions (which implement the preferred alternative--the

Modified Ten-Year Plan as described in Volume 2 of the final

Environmental Impact Statement) were made using a formal decision

management process that considered the analysis and evaluation of four

alternatives set forth in the Environmental Impact Statement. The

following is a brief description of the alternatives evaluated and

considered:

No Action--complete all identified near-term actions and

continue to operate most existing facilities;

The Ten-Year Plan--complete all identified actions and

initiate new projects to enhance cleanup, manage laboratory wastes and

spent nuclear fuel;

Minimum Treatment, Storage and Disposal--minimize

treatment, storage and disposal activities to the extent possible,

conduct minimum cleanup and decontamination and decommissioning

activities prescribed by regulation, and transfer spent nuclear fuel

and waste;

Maximum Treatment, Storage and Disposal--maximize

treatment, storage and disposal functions at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory to accommodate waste and spent nuclear fuel from

the Department of Energy complex, and conduct maximum cleanup and

decontamination and decommissioning.

The Department's decisions enhance the ability of the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory to accomplish its mission and provide

the following benefits, including:

Small environmental impacts (it is one of the

environmentally preferable alternatives);

The continuation of progress with the cleanup and

treatment of waste stored or buried at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory;

Consistency with the proposed site treatment plan

requirements (under the Federal Facility Compliance Act) and

flexibility to accommodate negotiations currently underway with the

State of Idaho;

Permitting the construction of a regional multi-purpose

waste treatment facility in Idaho should the Department later decide to

implement a regional waste treatment strategy (consistent with

decisions which could result from the Department of Energy Waste

Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement currently in

preparation) and which would provide residues from treating off-site

wastes to be returned to originating sites;

Addressing concerns and legal requirements regarding

cleanup of buried waste, treatment of stored wastes and protection of

the Snake River Plain aquifer; and

Reflecting a balanced approach that takes into

consideration potential environmental risks, safety consequences,

public concerns, Department and site mission mandates and costs.

The Department has examined the need for mitigation of impacts and

found that no specific mitigative actions are required to implement the

above decisions.

2. Introduction

During the last 40 years, the Department of Energy and its

predecessor agencies have generated, transported, received, stored, and

reprocessed spent nuclear fuel at facilities in the Department's

nationwide complex. This spent nuclear fuel was generated from various

sources, including: the Department's production reactors; Naval Nuclear

Propulsion Program reactors; government, university, and other research

and test reactors; special-case commercial power reactors; and foreign

research reactors. The Department constructed and operated production

reactors at the Hanford and Savannah River Sites to provide special

nuclear materials and other isotopes for defense programs. These

production reactors are no longer operating. Naval Nuclear Propulsion

Program reactors and some test and research reactors are still

operating. The Department of Energy has reprocessed spent nuclear

fuel--more than 100,000 metric tons of heavy metal--at the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory, Hanford Site, and Savannah River Site

to recover fissile materials (uranium-235 and plutonium-239) and other

valuable nuclides for national defense or research and development

programs.

The end of the Cold War has sharply reduced the need for special

nuclear materials. In April 1992, the Department began to phase out

reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for recovery and recycling of highly

enriched uranium and plutonium. Approximately 2,700 metric tons of

Department of Energy spent nuclear fuel remain that have not been

reprocessed. This spent nuclear fuel is in a wide range of enrichments

and physical conditions, and is stored at various locations in the

United States. The Environmental Impact Statement also analyzed the

potential environmental impacts associated with foreign research

reactor fuel containing U.S. enriched uranium, assuming a future

decision is made to establish a policy to accept this fuel. This

material requires safe and efficient management until a decision

regarding its ultimate disposition is made and implemented.

Additionally, Department of Energy-owned spent fuel containing

approximately 100 metric tons of heavy metal is expected to be

generated in the next 40 years.

[[Page 28682]]

The Department of Energy currently stores most of the fuel in 10-

to 40-year-old water pools (designed for temporary storage of spent

nuclear fuel until it could be reprocessed) at the Hanford Site, the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site.

Smaller quantities are stored at approximately 55 university and

government-owned research reactor facilities in the United States.

In November 1993, the Department of Energy identified potential

environmental, safety, and health vulnerabilities at certain spent

nuclear fuel storage facilities (Spent Fuel Working Group Report on

Inventory and Storage of the Department's Spent Nuclear Fuel and Other

Reactor Irradiated Materials and Their Environmental Safety and Health

Vulnerabilities). The Department also identified the storage locations

of fuel with degraded cladding 1 and other problems that would

require action to ensure continued safe storage. In May 1994, the

independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board also addressed

these vulnerabilities in Recommendation 94-1, which concluded that

imminent hazards could arise unless certain problems were corrected,

including those related to spent nuclear fuel storage. In addition, a

court order embodying a stipulation between the State of Idaho and the

Department of Energy (as discussed in section 7), in part, dictated the

scope of the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Environmental Impact Statement and the schedule for

its preparation. Volume 1 of the Environmental Impact Statement

evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed action to safely,

efficiently, and responsibly manage existing and projected quantities

of the Department's spent nuclear fuel through the year 2035, pending

ultimate disposition.

\1\ Fuel cladding is the metallic outer covering that encloses

the uranium fuel matrix and products of the fission process.

Claddings are composed of various alloys of aluminum, steel, or

zirconium. Graphite-based nuclear fuels generally do not have a

metallic covering, instead using silicon carbide coatings around

each fuel particle.

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

The Department's activities at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory have, over the past 50 years, resulted in the accumulation

of spent nuclear fuel; waste requiring treatment, storage, and

disposal; and sites requiring remediation. Volume 2 of the

Environmental Impact Statement evaluates the potential impacts of the

proposed action: (1) To develop appropriate facilities and technologies

to manage waste and spent nuclear fuel currently and reasonably

expected to be located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

during the next ten years; (2) to integrate more fully all

environmental restoration and waste management activities to achieve

cost and operations efficiencies, including pollution prevention and

waste minimization; and (3) to responsibly manage environmental impacts

from environmental restoration and waste management activities. Volume

2 assesses the environmental impacts from these environmental

restoration and waste management actions that may be taken during a 10-

year period, 1995-2005.

3. Decisions

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2011 et seq.) and the

Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7101 et seq.)

establish the Department's responsibility for the management of its

spent nuclear fuel. The decision process reflected in this document

complies with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42

U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR

Parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021. These decisions affect activities

under the authority of the U.S. Department of the Navy, and the Navy

was a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Environmental Impact

Statement. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.315, the Department of Energy may

revise this Record of Decision at any time, so long as the revised

decision is adequately supported by existing reviews prepared in

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

3.1 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Decision

The Department has decided to implement the preferred alternative

identified in Volume 1 of the Environmental Impact Statement,

Regionalization by Fuel Type (Alternative 4a). This decision will

consolidate existing and newly generated spent nuclear fuel at three

existing Departmental sites (i.e., the Hanford Site, the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site) based on the fuel

type, pending future decisions on ultimate disposition. Existing

Hanford production reactor spent nuclear fuel will remain at the

Hanford Site. Aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel will be consolidated at

the Savannah River Site, and non-aluminum clad spent nuclear fuel

(including Fort St. Vrain reactor spent fuel) will be consolidated at

the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Consolidation of spent

nuclear fuel at these sites will be accomplished on a time-phased basis

dependent upon fuel condition, facility availability, safety, transport

logistics, budget and cost considerations and repository acceptance

criteria. Naval spent nuclear fuel will be transported to the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory for examination and storage. Spent

nuclear fuel facility upgrades, replacements, and additions will be

undertaken, as will research and development activities to resolve

safety vulnerabilities and assure safe spent nuclear fuel interim

storage in preparation for ultimate disposition. Section 5 of this

Record of Decision details the attributes of the selected alternative.

The potential impacts associated with the management of foreign

research reactor spent nuclear fuel are analyzed in the Environmental

Impact Statement; however, the policy decision on whether to accept

this spent nuclear fuel is the subject of a separate environmental

impact statement, Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy

Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Environmental

Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0218D), published in draft form for public

review and comment in March 1995.

Table 3.1 shows the origin and interim management destination of

specific fuels and the potential number of shipments. Each shipment,

whether by truck or rail, was assumed to consist of one shipping

container. Table 3.2 shows the cumulative inventory at the Department's

three spent nuclear fuel management locations.

Except for some special-case commercial fuel, these decisions do

not apply to management of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear

power plants. This Record of Decision also does not address the

ultimate disposition of the Department's spent nuclear fuel. Decisions

regarding ultimate disposition of this fuel will be consistent with the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 10101 et. seq. and

will follow appropriate review under the National Environmental Policy

Act. Decisions on stabilization technologies, including processing,

will be made after completion of site-specific and fuel-type-specific

reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and tiered from the

Environmental Impact Statement on spent nuclear fuel management.

[[Page 28683]]

3.2 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Decision

The Department has decided to implement the preferred alternative,

identified in Volume 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement, the

Modified Ten-Year Plan (Modified Alternative B), for the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory environmental restoration and waste management

programs. See section 4.2.1 below for a discussion of the Volume 2

preferred alternative.

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

Destination \2\

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

Idaho

Generator or current storage National Savannah

Engineering River

Laboratory Site

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

Aerotest (California)........................... 3 .........

General Atomics (California).................... 8 .........

General Electric (California)................... ........... 4

McClellan Air Force Base (California)........... 3 .........

U.S. Geological Survey (Colorado)............... 6 .........

Fort St Vrain (Colorado)........................ 244 .........

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (Idaho)... ........... 114

Argonne National Laboratory--East (Illinois).... 11 .........

Armed Forces Research Institute (Maryland)...... 3 .........

National Institute of Science and Technology

(Maryland)..................................... ........... 185

DOW Corp. (Michigan)............................ 3 .........

Veterans Medical Center (Nebraska).............. 2 .........

Los Alamos National Laboratory (New Mexico)..... ........... 17

Sandia National Laboratory (New Mexico) \3\..... 12 15

Brookhaven National Laboratory (New York)....... ........... 71

West Valley Demonstration Project (New York).... 83 .........

Savannah River Site (South Carolina)............ 121 .........

Oak Ridge Reservation (Tennessee) \3\........... 54 68

Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg (Virginia).......... 2 .........

Hanford Site (Washington)....................... 524 .........

Foreign Research Reactors (various) 3, 4........ 170 838

Navy............................................ 575 .........

Universities (various) \3\...................... 116 403

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

Total..................................... 1,940 1,715

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

\1\ Number of shipments analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact

Statement, including either truck or rail shipments.

\2\ The Hanford Site would not receive any additional fuel.

\3\ The specific distribution would be based upon the fuel type (i.e.,

cladding material).

\4\ A policy decision on acceptance of foreign research reactor spent

nuclear fuel will be made after completion of a separate environmental

impact statement.

Table 3.2--Approximate Spent Nuclear Fuel Inventory in Metric Tons of Heavy Metal.\1\

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

Existing spent fuel Existing redistributed and newly

inventory generated inventory

Sites ------------------------------------------------------------

(As of (Percent (By year

1995) of total) 2035) \2\ (Percent of total)

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

Hanford Site....................................... 2133 (81%) \3\ 2103 (76%)

(Production reactor

spent nuclear fuel)

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.............. 261 (10%) 426 (16%)

(Non-aluminum-clad

spent nuclear fuel)

Savannah River Site................................ 206 (8%) 213 (8%)

(Aluminum-clad

spent nuclear fuel)

Other (Oak Ridge, other Department of Energy 46 (1%) \3\ 0

facilities, universities, special case commercial).

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

Total........................................ 2646 (100%) 2742 (100%)

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

\1\ A ``metric ton of heavy metal'' is a common unit of measure for spent nuclear fuel, which is 1000 kilograms

(2,200 pounds) of heavy metal (uranium, plutonium, thorium) contained in the spent fuel.

\2\ Inventory shown assumes no final disposition (repository disposal or processing).

\3\ The Hanford and Oak Ridge sites would ship some or all of their existing inventory to the Savannah River

site and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, depending on fuel type.

3.2.1 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Spent Nuclear Fuel Program

The following Idaho National Engineering Laboratory projects or

activities will be implemented as a result of the decision (see

Appendix for description):

Increased Rack Capacity for Building 666 at the Idaho

Chemical Processing Plant;

Dry Fuel Storage Facility; Fuel Receiving, Canning/

Characterization, and Shipping;

Fort St. Vrain Spent Nuclear Fuel Receipt and Storage; and

Expended Core Facility Dry Cell Project.

Other projects that are ongoing or planned are listed below.

Decisions regarding these projects will be made in the future pending

further project definition, funding priorities, and any additional

appropriate review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Descriptions of these projects can be found in Volume 2, Appendix C, of

the Environmental Impact Statement.

Electrometallurgical Process Demonstration;

[[Page 28684]]

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II Blanket Treatment Project;

and

Additional Increased Rack Capacity for Building 666.

3.2.2 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Waste Management Program

The waste management program at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory is accomplished through planning, coordination, and

direction of functions related to generation, minimization, handling,

treatment, storage, transportation, and disposal of waste and spent

nuclear fuel, as well as associated surveillance and maintenance

activities. The waste management program ensures that current and

future waste management practices minimize any potentially adverse

environmental impacts. The following discussion describes by waste type

the selected alternative, the Modified Ten-Year Plan, alternative.

3.2.2.1 High-Level Radioactive Waste. The Department's decision

for liquid high-level waste is to convert the high-level liquid waste

to calcine (a stable, solid waste form). The Department has decided to

resume operation of the New Waste Calcining Facility to convert the

high-level liquid and sodium-bearing liquid waste to calcine prior to

further treatment. The conversion to calcine will allow the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory to meet current requirements of a

December 9, 1991 consent order with the State of Idaho and the

Environmental Protection Agency to cease use of the existing liquid

waste storage tanks without building new tanks. The Department proposes

to construct a facility to treat the calcined high level waste (and any

remaining liquid waste), in accordance with the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act, on a schedule to be negotiated with the State of

Idaho under the Federal Facility Compliance Act.

The Department has selected a technology to be tested for potential

use in a treatment facility. The technology selected is radionuclide

partitioning for radioactive liquid and calcine waste treatment, grout

for immobilizing the resulting low activity waste stream, and glass

(vitrification) for immobilizing the resulting high-activity waste

stream. For more information on this technology, see the Waste

Immobilization Facility project description in Volume 2, Appendix C, of

the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are two Idaho National Engineering Laboratory projects that

will be implemented as a result of the decision (see Appendix for

descriptions):

Tank Farm Heel Removal Project; and

Calcine Transfer Project.

Other projects which are planned are listed below. Decisions

regarding these projects will be made in the future pending further

project definition, funding priorities, or appropriate review under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Descriptions of these projects can

be found in Volume 2, Appendix C, of the Environmental Impact

Statement.

Waste Immobilization Facility;

Radioactive Scrap/Waste Facility (Argonne National

Laboratory-West); and

Test Area North Pool Stabilization Project.

3.2.2.2 Transuranic Waste. The Department's decision will result in

possible acceptance of some off-site transuranic waste from other

Department facilities for treatment (depending upon future decisions

made as a result of the Department of Energy Waste Management

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement). The Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory will construct treatment facilities necessary to

comply with the Federal Facility Compliance Act. Treatment of

transuranic waste at a minimum will be for the purpose of meeting waste

acceptance criteria for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

(near Carlsbad, New Mexico) and will occur on a schedule to be

negotiated with the State of Idaho.

Nominal additional quantities of transuranic waste will continue to

be generated from on-site operations. The Site Treatment Plans

developed under the Federal Facility Compliance Act may require that

some types of waste be shipped from one Department of Energy site to

another to take advantage of existing or future regionalized treatment

capability. Off-site waste would be received depending on decisions

based on: (1) Site Treatment Plan consent orders negotiated under the

Federal Facility Compliance Act; and (2) the Waste Management

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Generally, after

treatment, the waste residuals would be returned to the generator or

transported to an approved off-site disposal facility (assumed to be

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant).

Projects for retrieving, characterizing, and treating transuranic

waste will prepare the waste for transportation and disposal in a

repository or for on-site disposal (for waste that can meet the on-site

disposal performance criteria).

Projects that will be continued at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory as a result of the decision (see Appendix for descriptions)

are noted below:

Transuranic Storage Area Enclosure and Storage Project;

and

Waste Characterization Facility.

Other projects which are planned are listed below. Decisions

regarding these projects will be made in the future pending further

project definition, funding priorities, or appropriate review under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Descriptions of these projects can

be found in Volume 2, Appendix C, of the Environmental Impact

Statement.

Private Sector Alpha-Contaminated Mixed Low-Level Waste

Treatment;

Radioactive Waste Management Complex Modifications to

Support Private Sector; Treatment of Alpha-Contaminated Mixed Low-Level

Waste;

Idaho Waste Processing Facility;

Mixed/Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility; and

Plasma Hearth Process Project.

3.2.2.3 Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste. Pursuant to the

selected alternative, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory could

accept off-site mixed low-level waste for treatment. This decision is

subject to agreements being negotiated pursuant to the Federal Facility

Compliance Act and the decisions resulting from the Department of

Energy Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. If

mixed low-level waste from other sites is accepted for treatment at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, the waste residuals would be

returned to the generator or transported to an approved off-site

disposal facility.

For the near term, stored and newly generated mixed low-level waste

at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory will be treated at the

Waste Experimental Reduction Facility Incinerator (restart), the

Nonincinerable Mixed Waste Treatment project, and the Sodium Processing

Facility through generator treatment plans developed under 40 CFR

262.34, Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste--

Accumulation Time. Lead contaminated with radioactivity will be

recycled at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and off-site.

The following projects will be implemented at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory as a result of the decision (see Appendix for

descriptions):

Waste Experimental Reduction Facility Incineration;

Nonincinerable Mixed Waste Treatment Project; and

Sodium Processing Project. [[Page 28685]]

Other projects which are planned are listed below. Decisions

regarding these projects will be made in the future pending further

project definition, funding priorities, or appropriate review under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Descriptions of these projects can

be found in Volume 2, Appendix C of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Idaho Waste Processing Facility;

Private Sector Alpha-Contaminated Mixed Low-Level Waste

Treatment;

Mixed/Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility; and

Remote Mixed Waste Treatment Facility.

3.2.2.4 Low-Level Radioactive Waste. Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory-generated low-level waste will be treated on-site and off-

site and disposed of on-site. In addition, small amounts of off-site

low-level waste may be received for treatment and disposal. Low-level

waste that is suitable for incineration will be treated at the Waste

Experimental Reduction Facility or at an off-site commercial facility.

Current stabilization, compaction, and sizing operations at the Waste

Experimental Reduction Facility will continue as will liquid low-level

waste treatment at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant and the Test

Reactor Area. The Waste Experimental Reduction Facility will be

restarted as a result of the decision (see Appendix for description).

Other projects which are planned are listed below. Decisions

regarding these projects will be made in the future pending further

project definition, funding priorities, and any further appropriate

review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Descriptions of

these projects can be found in Volume 2, Appendix C of the

Environmental Impact Statement.

Waste Handling Facility (Argonne National Laboratory--

West);

Mixed/Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility;

Idaho Waste Processing Facility; and

Private Sector Alpha-Contaminated Mixed Low-Level Waste

Treatment.

3.2.2.5 Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Waste. The Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory will continue to plan and develop a program for

the receipt and storage of greater-than-class C radioactive sealed-

sources. Limited quantities of greater-than-class C waste may be stored

in a new storage and recycle facility or an existing Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory facility. It is possible that commercial

facilities may be used, if available, for storage and recycling of all

or part of the sources. (See Volume 2, Appendix C of the Environmental

Impact Statement for more information on greater-than-class C dedicated

storage at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.)

3.2.2.6 Hazardous Waste. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

nonradioactive hazardous waste will be treated, stored and disposed of

at off-site commercial facilities. The Waste Handling Facility project

at Argonne National Laboratory--West will be implemented as a result of

the decision (see Appendix for description).

3.2.2.7 Industrial/Sanitary Waste. The Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory will continue the existing industrial waste management

program, with continued emphasis on reducing the amount of industrial

waste generated through an intensive program of waste avoidance and

recycling.

An Industrial/Commercial Landfill Expansion project is also

planned. However, a decision regarding the start of this project will

be made in the future pending further project definition, funding

priorities, and any further appropriate review under the National

Environmental Policy Act. A description of this project can be found in

Volume 2, Appendix C of the Environmental Impact Statement.

3.2.3 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Infrastructure Program

Existing Idaho National Engineering Laboratory facilities will be

upgraded to comply with applicable state and Department of Energy

requirements. In addition, new infrastructure projects may be needed to

support ongoing operations.

The Gravel Pit Expansions project will be implemented as a result

of the decision (see Appendix for a description).

Other projects which are planned are listed below. Decisions

regarding these projects will be made in the future pending further

project definition, funding priorities and any further appropriate

review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Descriptions of

these projects can be found in Volume 2, Appendix C of the

Environmental Impact Statement.

Industrial/Commercial Landfill Expansion;

Central Facilities Area Clean Laundry and Respirator

Facility;

Health Physics Instrument Laboratory; and

Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory

Replacement.

3.2.4 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration

Program

With respect to environmental restoration, the Environmental Impact

Statement recognizes that, with the exception of decontamination and

decommissioning, the December 9, 1991 Federal Facility Agreement and

Consent Order among the Department, the State of Idaho and the

Environmental Protection Agency is the mechanism by which cleanup

decisions are made for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Environmental Restoration Program. The Department of Energy's preferred

alternative (Modified Ten-Year Plan) was selected because of its

ability to provide for the remediation of critical sites while allowing

the stabilization of the remaining sites. The selected alternative

acknowledges the current industrial land use of the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory, but recognizes the need for flexibility to

apply the criteria prescribed under the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act in making cleanup decisions.

The following Idaho National Engineering Laboratory projects will

continue as a result of the decision (see Appendix for descriptions):

Auxiliary Reactor Area Decontamination and

Decommissioning;

Boiling Water Reactor Experiment Decontamination and

Decommissioning;

Pit 9 Retrieval;

Organic Contamination in Vadose Zone at Radioactive Waste

Management Complex; and

Remediation of Organic Ground Water Plume at Test Area

North.

Other projects which are planned are listed below. Implementation

decisions will be made in the future pending further project

definition, funding priorities, and any further review under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or

the National Environmental Policy Act. Descriptions of these projects

can be found in the Volume 2, Appendix C of the Environmental Impact

Statement.

Engineering Test Reactor Decontamination and

Decommissioning;

Materials Test Reactor Decontamination and

Decommissioning;

Fuel Processing Complex (CPP-601) Decontamination and

Decommissioning;

Fuel Receipt and Storage Facility (CPP-603)

Decontamination and Decommissioning;

Headend Processing Plant (CPP-640) Decontamination and

Decommissioning; [[Page 28686]]

Waste Calcine Facility (CPP-633) Decontamination and

Decommissioning; and

Central Liquid Waste Processing Facility Decontamination

and Decommissioning.

4. Alternatives Considered

4.1 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Alternatives Considered

The five programmatic management alternatives considered for spent

nuclear fuel include: Alternative 1, No Action--perform minimum

activities required for safe and secure management at or close to the

generation site or current storage location; Alternative 2,

Decentralization--storage and stabilization of most spent nuclear fuel

at or near the generation site with limited shipments from university

and non-Departmental facilities; Alternative 3, the 1992/1993 Planning

Basis--transport to and store newly generated spent nuclear fuel at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory or the Savannah River Site and

consolidate some existing spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory; Alternative 4, Regionalization--distribute

existing and projected spent nuclear fuel among alternative Department

of Energy sites based on fuel type or geographic location (an eastern

regional site and a western regional site); and Alternative 5,

Centralization--manage existing and projected spent nuclear fuel at one

site.

For all of the alternatives, the impacts of spent nuclear fuel

management activities were analyzed for each of five sites: (1) The

Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; (2) the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory, in southeastern Idaho; (3) the Savannah River

Site, near Aiken, South Carolina; (4) the Oak Ridge Reservation, in Oak

Ridge, Tennessee; and (5) the Nevada Test Site, near Mercury, Nevada.

In addition, four naval shipyards and one naval prototype site, the

Kesselring Site (near West Milton, New York), were considered for

management of naval spent fuel only. The four naval shipyards are: (1)

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia; (2) Portsmouth Naval

Shipyard, Kittery, Maine; (3) Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Honolulu,

Hawaii; and (4) Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington.

4.1.1 Agency Preferred Alternative for Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management

The preferred alternative, Regionalization by Fuel Type, would

distribute existing and projected inventories of spent nuclear fuel

among Departmental sites based primarily on fuel type. Regionalization

by Fuel Type would involve the use of the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory and Savannah River Site for storage of most newly generated

spent fuel. Aluminum-clad fuel would be transported to the Savannah

River Site; and non-aluminum clad fuel (including Fort St. Vrain and

naval spent fuel) would be transported to the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory; Hanford production reactor spent fuel would

remain at the Hanford Site. The timing of transportation of fuel

between sites would be prioritized and time-phased depending on fuel

condition, facility availability, safety, budget and cost, transport

logistics, and activities necessary to meet repository acceptance

criteria. Navy nuclear ships and prototypes would continue to be

refueled and defueled as needed. Naval spent fuel would be transported

to the Expended Core Facility at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory for examination. Following examination, naval spent fuel

would be stored at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Spent

nuclear fuel facility upgrades, replacements, and additions will be

undertaken, as will research and development activities to resolve

safety vulnerabilities and assure safe spent nuclear fuel interim

storage in preparation for ultimate disposition.

The Department of Energy arrived at its preferred alternative

through a formal screening process, which included developing screening

and performance criteria. Since environmental impacts are substantially

the same, they did not offer a strong basis for selection among the

alternatives, as the environmental impacts of implementing any of the

alternatives were evaluated in detail and determined to be small. The

No Action, Decentralization A and B (no examination and limited

examination of naval fuel respectively) and Centralization alternatives

did not satisfy all of the screening criteria (regulatory compliance;

accomplishment of Department and Navy missions; provision of technology

development for stabilization and ultimate disposition) identified as

necessary for alternatives to qualify for further consideration as

candidates for the preferred alternative. Specifically, these

alternatives would not have allowed the Department of Energy or the

Navy to meet their mission needs, comply with applicable state and

Federal laws and regulations, or provide for the necessary research and

development of appropriate storage, treatment and disposal

technologies. The No-Action alternative would not provide the

capability for full examination of naval fuel. Similarly,

Decentralization A and B (no examination and limited examination of

naval fuel, respectively) would not provide capability for full

examination of naval spent fuel. The Department did not prefer the

Centralization alternative because it did not maintain backup

capabilities for spent fuel management in order to accomplish vital

spent fuel program activities. The remaining alternatives,

Decentralization C (with full examination of naval fuel), the 1992/1993

Planning Basis, and Regionalization met all of the screening criteria.

The Department applied performance criteria (i.e., environmental

impact; public concerns; cost; support of the spent fuel management

mission; the need to honor contractual commitments and compliance

agreements) to the four candidates that survived the screening process.

Two of the four candidates, the 1992/1993 Planning Basis, and

Regionalization by Fuel Type, rated the highest. These two candidate

alternatives were then evaluated against a number of technical and

nontechnical considerations, including environmental impact perception,

indicated stakeholder preferences, implementation factors, regulatory

risk, spent fuel processing potential, environmental justice, and

fairness. As a result of this final evaluation, Regionalization by Fuel

Type was identified as the preferred alterative.

4.1.2 Environmentally Preferable Alternatives for Programmatic Spent

Nuclear Fuel Management

As indicated in the Environmental Impact Statement, the

environmental consequences of the Decentralization, the 1992/1993

Planning Basis, Regionalization, and Centralization alternatives are

small, including risks from normal operations, transportation, and

potential accidents. While factors such as water quality, air quality,

and land use for each alternative showed variations, these aggregated

differences by themselves are not sufficient to identify one clearly

environmentally preferable alternative. Accordingly, the Department

regards all of these alternatives as environmentally preferable, based

solely on the evaluation of environmental impacts. The selected

alternative, Regionalization by Fuel Type, is among the environmentally

preferred alternatives.

However, the No Action alternative would adversely affect the

Department's [[Page 28687]] mission to ensure safe and secure

management of spent nuclear fuel. Future deterioration of fuels and

facilities may increase accident risks over current risk estimates. The

Department would initially suffer from a loss of margin in storage

capacity. In time, there would be little or no flexibility for repairs

to existing facilities under the No Action alternative. Additionally,

by limiting research and development to activities already approved,

the Department's ability to safely store spent nuclear fuel would be

adversely affected by the inability to conduct new research and

development. For all of these reasons, compared to each of the action

alternatives, the No Action alternative is environmentally

nonpreferred.

4.2 Alternatives Considered for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs

The alternatives related to environmental restoration and waste

management for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory include:

Alternative A, No Action; Alternative B, Ten-Year Plan; Alternative C,

Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal; and Alternative D, Maximum

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal. Each alternative included components

for environmental restoration, decontamination and decommissioning,

waste management, and spent nuclear fuel management, including the

infrastructure, technology development, and transportation for spent

nuclear fuel management.

4.2.1 Agency Preferred Alternative for Site-Specific Actions at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

The agency preferred alternative is a modification of the Ten-Year

Plan (described in the Environmental Impact Statement), which includes

additional features drawn from the Minimum and Maximum Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal alternatives. Ongoing spent fuel management,

environmental restoration, and waste management activities and projects

would continue and be enhanced to meet current and expanded spent fuel

and waste handling needs. These enhanced activities would be needed to

comply with regulations and agreements and would result from acceptance

of specific additional off site-generated materials and waste.

Non-aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel (including Fort St. Vrain

spent fuel and naval spent fuel) would be consolidated at the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory, except for the Hanford production

reactor spent fuel. Transuranic and mixed low-level waste might be

received from other sites, depending on consent orders negotiated under

the Federal Facility Compliance Act and decisions resulting from the

Department of Energy Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement. The transuranic waste and mixed low-level waste received

from other Departmental sites would be treated, and the residue

returned to the original site (generator) or transported or shipped to

an approved off site disposal facility, depending on arrangements

reached under the Federal Facility Compliance Act with the State of

Idaho, the Environmental Protection Agency and other affected states.

Ongoing remediation and decommissioning and decontamination projects

would be continued, and additional projects would be conducted.

In addition to existing facilities and projects, projects proposed

under the preferred alternative for 1995 through 2005 would be

implemented to meet the current mission of the Laboratory and to comply

with negotiated agreements and commitments.

4.2.2 Environmentally Preferable Alternative for Site-Specific Actions

at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

The Environmental Impact Statement analysis shows that potential

environmental impacts on and near the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory from each of the action alternatives considered would be

small. The Environmental Impact Statement focuses on the potential

environmental impacts on or near the Laboratory. The longer-term

programmatic waste management impacts across the Department's sites

(complex-wide) will be the subject of another environmental impact

statement presently under development (Department of Energy Waste

Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement).

The following is a brief comparison of the impacts of the

alternatives as analyzed, augmented by a qualitative discussion, albeit

somewhat speculative, of considerations related to potential longer-

term and complex-wide tradeoffs that may factor into later decision-

making. The decision provides for extensive waste treatment that

exchanges near-term impacts for longer-term impact reduction.

Similarly, transferring wastes to Idaho exchanges near-term impacts

there for impact reductions elsewhere within the Department of Energy

complex.

The analyses indicate that, among the action alternatives,

Alternative C (Minimum Treatment, Storage and Disposal) appears to have

the lowest overall potential for environmental impacts at the

Laboratory. The lower local impacts are accounted for by the fact that

waste management activities, materials, and wastes would be transferred

to other Department sites for treatment and storage, therefore

transferring associated environmental impacts to the receiving sites.

For example, all spent nuclear fuel and transportable wastes other than

high-level wastes would be shipped to other Department sites for

treatment and storage. Alternative C would not allow the Department to

meet all of the requirements of the Proposed Site Treatment Plan

submitted to the State of Idaho on March 30, 1995, in accordance with

the Federal Facility Compliance Act.

Compared to Alternative C, the analyses show that Alternative B

(Ten-Year Plan) would result in somewhat greater, but still small

environmental impacts at the Laboratory. The difference in impacts

results from the treatment of waste and management of spent nuclear

fuel at the Laboratory as opposed to another Department site. While the

near-term impacts resulting from proceeding with environmental

restoration activities would be greater than those under Alternative C,

these would be offset by decreases in the long-term presence of

radioactive and hazardous wastes in the environment. This alternative

would not provide the Department any significant ability to send wastes

to the Laboratory from other sites, and thus would inhibit later

programmatic decisions that might otherwise lessen the impacts across

the complex.

The selected alternative, the Modified Ten-Year Plan, affords the

Department better flexibility to implement actions proposed in the

Federal Facility Compliance Act Site Treatment Plan and programmatic

decisions that may result from the Waste Management Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement, presently being prepared. The local,

near-term impacts of this Modified Ten-Year Plan, as analyzed, would be

similar to those under Alternative B and less than those under

Alternative D (Maximum Treatment, Storage and Disposal). The potential

environmental impacts associated with waste management at other sites

would be reduced in proportion to the amounts of waste shipped to the

Laboratory for treatment.

The analyses show that, among the four alternatives, Alternative D

(Maximum Treatment, Storage and Disposal) would probably have the

greatest overall potential for short-term, [[Page 28688]] local

environmental consequences. This alternative would also result in the

largest commitment of Laboratory resources to address waste-related

issues throughout the complex. Although the potential for offsetting

complex-wide, long-term reductions in impacts exists, the Department

judges that the overall impact of this alternative would still be

higher than Alternative B (Ten-Year Plan) or the Modified Ten-Year Plan

because of the greater waste treatment, storage and environmental

restoration activities at the Laboratory.

The No Action alternative, Alternative A, is not environmentally

preferable because it would not permit the flexibility for the

Department to fully meet all negotiated and anticipated agreements and

commitments (e.g., the Federal Facility Agreement and other consent

orders or obligations to receive university, Fort St. Vrain and West

Valley Demonstration Project spent nuclear fuel). The No Action

alternative would also result in longer-term impacts from the

environmental burden and risks associated with untreated, stored, and

buried wastes at the Laboratory left undisturbed. No offsetting long-

term or complex-wide impact reductions would accrue from this

alternative, since it would limit future programmatic decisions that

may lessen impacts across the complex.

The Department anticipates that the Modified Ten-Year Plan, when

viewed in terms of broader complex-wide impacts over an extended time

period, would result in impacts that are comparable to or less than

those under Alternative C. Because the Modified Ten-Year Plan would

provide for full treatment of waste currently at the Laboratory in

addition to treating wastes currently located at other sites, it is

reasonable to expect that long-term reductions in environmental impact

will be achieved proportionately to reductions in waste volumes from

conversion of toxic and hazardous waste forms to stable and more benign

forms.

Consequently, in view of the fact that the environmental impacts

are small and the balance among the near-term local, long-term and

complex-wide impacts may show that there is no clear distinction among

Alternatives B, C, and the selected alternative (Modified 10-Year

Plan), the Department considers these three alternatives to be equally

environmentally preferable alternatives.

5. Selected Alternatives

This section compares important characteristics of the selected

alternatives with other evaluated alternatives and presents the basis

for the selection.

5.1 Basis for Decisions

These decisions result from a systematic evaluation process used to

identify the preferred alternatives (see Chapter 3 of the Environmental

Impact Statement). The Department used the following general

considerations when making these decisions:

Environmental and safety considerations;

Mission accomplishment considerations; and

Public preference considerations.

These considerations aided the Department in striking a reasoned

balance between potential environmental risks and public and mission

(including budgetary) concerns.

5.1.1 Environmental and Safety Considerations

Environmental and safety considerations used in making the

decisions included the following:

The potential environmental and safety consequences

resulting from actions to be implemented under the decisions would be

small and in compliance with applicable environmental laws,

regulations, executive orders, Departmental orders, permits and

compliance agreements with regulatory agencies.

The potential environmental impacts resulting from actions

to be implemented under the decisions would not constitute a

disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority or low income

communities.

5.1.2 Mission Accomplishment Considerations

Mission considerations used in making the decisions included the

following:

The decisions provide for the safe and efficient

management of the Department's spent nuclear fuel during the next 40

years.

The decisions position the Department to implement a path

forward for ultimate disposition of its spent nuclear fuel.

The decisions enable the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program

to refuel and defuel nuclear-powered ships and examine naval spent

fuel.

The decisions balance cost considerations with budgetary

goals of the Department and congressional mandates.

The decisions are implementable and reasonable,

considering the availability of resources, current technology, and

expected technology development.

The decisions continue environmental restoration and waste

management activities at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and

provide a framework for new activities that may be necessary to comply

with negotiated agreements. This includes conducting mixed waste

treatment at the Laboratory in accordance with the Federal Facility

Compliance Act.

5.1.3 Public Preference Considerations

Significant public preferences and comments considered in the

decisions included the following:

Minimize unnecessary movement of spent nuclear fuel.

Provide an equitable sharing among states and localities

of the perceived burdens for management of spent nuclear fuel.

Focus the actions of the Department on identification and

implementation of a path forward for ultimate disposition of

Department-owned spent nuclear fuel.

Continue the cleanup activities already underway at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

Protect aquifers from being degraded by the Department's

activities.

Public involvement is further discussed in section 9.

5.2 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Decision Basis

5.2.1 Environmental and Safety Considerations

Application of the environmental and safety considerations

(presented in section 5.1.1) is described below with respect to the

decision on programmatic spent fuel management. The selected

alternative--Regionalization by Fuel Type--is one of several spent

nuclear fuel management alternatives considered to be environmentally

preferable, as discussed in section 4.1.2 above. As indicated in the

Environmental Impact Statement, the environmental and safety

consequences of any of the five spent nuclear fuel management

alternatives would be small. For example, analyses of air quality,

water quality, and land use for each alternative showed little or no

impact.

The cumulative impact analysis in the Environmental Impact

Statement evaluated the incremental impacts associated with

implementing each alternative plus the impacts of other past, present

and reasonably foreseeable future actions on a nationwide and site-

specific basis. These analyses indicate that the contribution to

cumulative impacts from activities required for spent nuclear fuel

management would [[Page 28689]] be very small, both nationwide and at

sites where fuel is managed. Similarly, on a site-specific basis, the

implementation of any of the alternatives would not significantly

contribute to cumulative impacts. For example, radiological emissions

from normal operations and from transportation of spent nuclear fuel

would be well within regulatory requirements, and the volumes of waste

produced would be a small addition to other waste volumes generated at

the sites.

As discussed in Appendix L to the Environmental Impact Statement,

the evaluated potential impacts resulting from all alternatives were

found to present no significant risk to potentially affected

populations. Similarly, no disproportionately high and adverse effects

are expected for any particular segment of the population, including

minority populations and low-income populations.

5.2.2 Mission Accomplishment Considerations

The selection of the Regionalization by Fuel Type alternative

included the consideration of several nonenvironmental factors,

including the Department's ability to meet mission requirements, and

cost.

5.2.2.1 Mission Accomplishment. The selected alternative meets the

Department's mission requirements to manage its spent nuclear fuel

safely and efficiently by consolidating the spent fuel by fuel type,

thereby allowing efficiencies in management and technology development

for stabilization and ultimate disposal. It also facilitates the

construction of new or upgraded facilities for the safe and efficient

management of spent nuclear fuel. The selected alternative allows the

Navy to fulfill its mission to efficiently refuel and defuel nuclear

powered ships and provide full examination of naval fuel. In contrast,

the No Action and Decentralization alternatives would not meet the

Department's objectives because leaving the spent fuel where it is

generated or currently stored would not allow the Department to

efficiently stabilize spent fuel for safe interim storage if necessary,

or initiate new research and development for stabilization and ultimate

disposition. In addition, the No Action and two of the three

Decentralization alternatives would not allow full examination of naval

fuel.

5.2.2.2 Cost Considerations. The Department is committed to

operating cost-effective programs that meet all applicable safety,

environmental, and regulatory requirements. The relative costs for

implementation of the analyzed alternatives over 40 years have been

examined in a report entitled Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Cost

Evaluation Report (DOE/SNF/REP-PS-001, March 1995). The selected

alternative is slightly less expensive than the Decentralization and

Planning Basis alternatives. The selected alternative is somewhat more

expensive than Regionalization by Geography, or any of the

Centralization scenarios; however, these alternatives would be more

capital-intensive (especially in the early years) than the selected

alternative, and thus not as desirable. These relative rankings would

remain the same for possible future spent nuclear fuel disposal

scenarios including direct geologic repository disposal (in suitable

containers) or processing followed by disposal.

5.2.3 Public Preference Considerations

A discussion of the public involvement process is presented in

section 9; however, two important public concerns/preferences are

discussed here.

Many commentors stated that spent nuclear fuel should not be stored

in their locality. Until spent nuclear fuel is either finally disposed

of or otherwise processed, it must be safely managed somewhere. Foreign

storage, examination, and/or processing of spent fuel already in the

Department's possession have been considered; however, at this time,

concerns about security and nuclear material nonproliferation have

caused the Department not to pursue this option programmatically.

However, future analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act

that are specific to sites or to spent nuclear fuel types may consider

these options, and subsequent decisions could result in selected

foreign storage or processing. For example, the Proposed Nuclear

Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor

Spent Nuclear Fuel Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0218D)

evaluates foreign and domestic options for storage, as well as chemical

separation.

Many commentors also expressed a preference for minimizing the

amount of spent nuclear fuel transportation. Although the potential

environmental impacts due to transportation are very small, the

Department acknowledges this public concern. The estimated number of

shipments over the next 40 years analyzed ranges from about 200

shipments under No Action up to 7,400 shipments for Centralization. The

selected alternative may involve up to 3,700 shipments over 40 years.

The Regionalization by Geography and Centralization alternatives would

require up to twice as many shipments, and the increased transportation

was a consideration in not selecting those alternatives. Several other

alternatives have lower shipment estimates but, as previously

discussed, would impair the ability to meet mission requirements. The

selected alternative allows a reasonable balance between the public

preference for minimizing the extent of shipments and Department of

Energy and Navy mission needs. It should be noted that the estimated

number of shipments is conservative, and the number of actual shipments

under the selected alternative is likely to be lower.

5.3 Site-wide Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Decision

Basis

5.3.1 Environmental and Safety Considerations

Volume 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement evaluated many site-

wide environmental parameters. The potential impacts were small for

each alternative except that: (1) Fugitive dust would be generated

during construction operations; and (2) the potential exists that

acceptable visual color shift criteria could be exceeded at some

sensitive areas if certain of the proposed projects were implemented

without application of an air emission control technology. In

actuality, fugitive construction dust would be controlled by standard

practices (such as wetting). Additionally, through the State of Idaho

Permit to Construct process, proposed projects are required to

demonstrate that there will be no adverse impacts on the ambient air

quality, including visibility.

The Environmental Impact Statement shows that the selected

alternative generally causes potential impacts that fall between the

Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal alternative--Alternative C--

and the Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal alternative--

Alternative D. The results reflect the fact that positive action--i.e.,

treatment of waste to render it more environmentally benign and stable

over the long term--will result in short-term increases in releases of

radionuclide and criteria pollutant emissions. However, all projected

impacts are within applicable regulatory and Department of Energy

requirements to ensure protection of public health and safety. Also,

all alternatives involve continuation of existing projects or new

projects to remediate or prevent contamination of the Snake River Plain

aquifer. [[Page 28690]]

5.3.2 Mission Accomplishment Considerations

The selection of the Modified Ten-Year Plan considered several

nonenvironmental factors, including the flexibility to implement waste

treatment options to be negotiated under the Federal Facility

Compliance Act, cost-effective waste treatment and remedial actions.

5.3.2.1 Federal Facility Compliance Act Flexibility. Negotiations

with the State of Idaho are underway on a consent order for treating

mixed-waste streams that contain Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

hazardous constituents. The No Action and Minimum Treatment, Storage,

and Disposal alternatives would not enable the Department to implement

treatment activities that would satisfy anticipated consent order

requirements. The selected alternative, as well the Maximum Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal alternatives, would provide the necessary

flexibility.

5.3.2.2 Cost Effective Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Activities. Some alternatives provide a greater opportunity for cost

effective Idaho National Engineering Laboratory waste operations than

other alternatives. For example, the Ten-Year Plan Alternative would

include new high-level liquid waste tanks estimated to cost $160

million. However, the selected alternative, Modified Ten-Year Plan,

eliminates this cost by using the existing calcination process to

eliminate the liquid high-level waste. In addition, the selected

alternative allows flexibility in future decisions on, and operation of

new waste treatment facilities with the possibility of treating

multiple waste streams in one facility. The 1992/1993 Planning Basis

and Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal alternatives would also

allow the desired flexibility, but the No Action and Minimum Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal alternatives would not.

5.3.3 Public Preference Considerations

Public involvement activities are described in section 9. Several

of the more important public concerns and preferences with respect to

the selected alternative are discussed below.

Many comments stated that the Department must protect the

environment, particularly the Snake River Plain aquifer. The Department

discontinued direct liquid discharges to the aquifer in 1989 and is now

actively cleaning up previous contamination. It should be noted that

all safe drinking water standards are being met at the Laboratory site

boundary. All of the action alternatives proposed in the Environmental

Impact Statement would avoid any further degradation of the aquifer,

and several alternatives, including the selected alternative, would

continue current or propose additional aquifer cleanup actions. The No

Action alternative would not protect the aquifer over a long period of

time because treatment of existing waste to convert it to a more

environmentally benign form would not be implemented.

Public comments also expressed a strong preference that the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory should not become the only waste

treatment, storage, and disposal center for the Department. This is one

reason why the Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal alternative was

not selected. Although the selected alternative would allow regional

treatment of some selected waste streams, the residues from the

treatment would be returned to the generator or transported to approved

off-site storage or disposal facilities. By not selecting the Maximum

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal alternative, the Department has also

limited the number of waste shipments, an important consideration in

many of the comments received.

6. Mitigation

6.1 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management

The strictly controlled conduct of operations associated with

Department of Energy and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program spent fuel

management activities are mitigation measures integral with the

selected alternative. The Department of Energy and the Naval Nuclear

Propulsion Program have orders and regulations for conduct of spent

nuclear fuel management operations. All government spent fuel shipments

must comply with Department of Energy and Department of Transportation

regulations. The Department of Energy and the Navy have adopted

stringent controls for minimizing occupational and public radiation

exposure. The policy of these programs is to reduce radiation exposures

to as low as reasonably achievable. Singly and collectively, these

measures avoid, reduce, or eliminate any potentially adverse

environmental impacts from spent nuclear fuel management activities.

The Department has not identified a need for additional mitigation

measures.

6.2 Site-wide Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management

Volume 2, section 5.19 of the Environmental Impact Statement

presents an overview of routine measures that minimize the risk

associated with Department of Energy activities. Because the

Department's compliance program requires self-assessments, external

oversight, and audits, mitigation measures are an integral part of the

Department's operations. Singly and collectively they avoid, reduce, or

eliminate potentially adverse environmental impacts from environmental

restoration and waste management activities. The Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory has issued an Environmental Compliance Planning

Manual that identifies the various requirements of Federal and state

agencies that are applicable to its activities. Additional routine

measures taken to reduce or avoid potential risks from Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory environmental restoration and waste management

activities encompassed by the decision are summarized below:

Establishment and maintenance of cultural resources

management plans, including consultations with the Shoshone-Bannock

tribes and appropriate state and local agencies;

Continued development of future land use plans in

consultation with the Environmental Management Site Specific Advisory

Board;

Coordination with local communities and county planning

agencies regarding labor and capital impacts;

Evaluation of potential non-radiological air emissions for

new facilities in specific Permit to Construct applications to

demonstrate there will be no adverse air quality impacts;

Evaluation of controls to reduce radiological emissions

based on the nature of the activity and types and amounts of

radionuclides; and

Continued reduction in the generation of all types of

waste.

Because of these activities and the Laboratory's commitment to

operating in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations,

executive orders, Departmental orders, permits, and compliance

agreements with regulatory agencies, no additional mitigative actions

are needed to implement this decision.

7. Legal and Regulatory Considerations

7.1 Litigation

7.1.1 History of Case [[Page 28691]]

In 1965, the Public Service Company of Colorado and the then

General Atomic Division of the General Dynamics Corporation signed a

contract with the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Department of

Energy) to pursue commercial power demonstration at the Fort St. Vrain

Reactor in Colorado. The terms of that contract stipulated that a

specified amount of spent fuel be shipped to the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory for interim storage. To meet this commitment,

the Atomic Energy Commission constructed the Irradiated Fuels Storage

Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

Pursuant to this contract, three segments of spent fuel were

shipped from Colorado to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for

storage in the early 1980s. In the late 1980s, Idaho Governor Cecil

Andrus alerted the Department to the State of Idaho's concern about

becoming a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel. Governor Andrus

declared that until the Department of Energy made a decision about a

permanent repository, he would oppose further spent fuel shipments to

Idaho. At that time, the Department was not in a position to make a

decision about a permanent repository, and thus, disputes between the

Department and the State of Idaho continued. In 1992, Idaho alleged

that the Department had violated the National Environmental Policy Act

by failing to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the

continued receipt of spent fuel at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory. Although the Department had prepared an Environmental

Assessment on the impacts of receiving Fort St. Vrain fuel, and

determined that the impacts of managing spent fuel were small, the

State of Idaho pressed for an Environmental Impact Statement. In June

1993, the Federal District Court for the District of Idaho ruled that

the Department was required to prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement. See Public Service Company v. Andrus, 825 F. Supp. 1483 (D.

Idaho 1993). In addition, the court enjoined the Department from

further shipment of spent nuclear fuel to the Laboratory until the

Environmental Impact Statement was completed. Following negotiations

with the State of Idaho, an amended court order was entered on December

22, 1993, which contained a schedule for completion of the

Environmental Impact Statement and provided for a limited number of

naval shipments while the Environmental Impact Statement was prepared.

On May 19, 1995, the District Court ordered an extension of the

injunction.

During this same period, the Department was already in the process

of preparing a site-wide environmental impact statement for proposed

environmental restoration and waste management activities at the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory. Following the negotiated settlement

with the State of Idaho and entry of the December 22, 1993 court order

regarding spent fuel shipments to the Laboratory, the Department

consolidated the site-specific environmental impact statement with the

spent fuel environmental impact statement in a single document, now

known as the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Environmental Impact Statement.

7.1.2 Compliance with the Court Order

Issuance of this decision is a part of ongoing compliance with the

court's order of December 22, 1993. By fulfilling all of the

Environmental Impact Statement preparation requirements, and other

spent nuclear fuel requirements and milestones, a significant portion

of the court's order has been satisfied.

7.2 Legal Requirements

The Department of Energy is mandated by Congress to comply with

applicable Federal and state laws and regulations, among which are the:

National Environmental Policy Act;

Clean Air Act;

Clean Water Act;

Safe Drinking Water Act;

Floodplains Protection Act;

Federal Facility Compliance Act;

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; and

American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

The selected alternatives provide for compliance with these and

other applicable laws and regulations governing actions within the

Department's responsibility.

8. Implementation

8.1 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Decision Implementation

Implementation of the Department of Energy spent nuclear fuel

decision will be managed by the Department's Office of Spent Fuel

Management in conjunction with the affected operations offices. Naval

spent fuel shipments will be conducted by the Naval Nuclear Propulsion

Program. For planning purposes, the Department of Energy assumes that

its spent nuclear fuel that is not otherwise dispositioned would be

emplaced in the first geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and

high-level radioactive waste, subject to physical and statutory limits,

payment of fees, and meeting repository acceptance requirements.

Since this is a programmatic decision, only intersite spent fuel

movement is addressed. Naval spent fuel shipments will resume

immediately upon the lifting of the injunction imposed by the court's

order dated May 19, 1995, barring such shipments. The consolidation of

Department of Energy-owned spent fuel types from current storage

locations to the selected locations will be prioritized and time-phased

depending on fuel condition, facility availability, safety, budget and

cost, transport logistics, and repository acceptance criteria.

As indicated in the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Cost Evaluation

Report (SNF-REP-PS-001), spent fuel storage under the Regionalization

by Fuel Type alternative may cost from $9.1 to $17.6 billion (in

constant 1995 dollars) over forty years, depending on whether existing

or new facilities are used. This range is associated with an assumption

of no funding limitations; however, implementation of Regionalization

by Fuel Type is subject to congressional and Department funding

priorities, which will affect the timing of spent fuel management

activities.

8.2 Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Decision

Implementation at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

The Department's Idaho Operations Office will manage implementation

of Laboratory-specific activities described in this Record of Decision.

The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program will manage projects and

activities located at the Naval Reactor Facility, while the

Department's Chicago Operations Office will manage those projects and

activities located at Argonne National Laboratory-West. Implementation

of the site-wide decisions is subject to a number of constraints,

several of which are described below.

8.2.1 Funding

All of the site's activities are dependent on Congressional and

Departmental funding priorities. Implementation of activities and

projects will be prioritized by Departmental management, taking into

account negotiations with the State of [[Page 28692]] Idaho and

recommendations from the Laboratory's Site-Specific Advisory Board.

8.2.2 Federal Facility Compliance Act Negotiations

All of the waste types, except nonradioactive hazardous and

sanitary wastes, can also be subdivided into a mixed waste category,

i.e., waste that contains both hazardous waste regulated under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and source, special nuclear, or

byproduct material defined by the Atomic Energy Act. Under the Federal

Facility Compliance Act, the Laboratory was required to develop a Site

Treatment Plan that addresses how the mixed waste in storage and to be

generated will be treated to meet the Land Disposal Restrictions under

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Laboratory's Proposed

Site Treatment Plan was submitted to the State of Idaho on March 30,

1995, and includes detailed plans on how mixed waste will be treated.

The Proposed Site Treatment Plan also included the treatment of waste

to be received from off-site. The Federal Facility Compliance Act

requires that the regulatory authority (i.e., the State of Idaho)

approve, approve with modification, or disapprove the submitted Plan

within six months. A consent order implementing the Proposed Site

Treatment Plan is expected to be negotiated between the Department and

the State of Idaho prior to October 6, 1995. The projects and

activities identified in the Proposed Site Treatment Plan are included

in the preferred alternative for the Final Environmental Impact

Statement and in the alternative selected in this Record of Decision.

Upon receipt the consent order implementing the Proposed Site Treatment

Plan, this Record of Decision will be reviewed to assure consistency.

The consent order will provide schedules and milestones for most of the

waste management projects identified for implementation in this Record

of Decision.

The December 9, 1991 Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

is the mechanism by which cleanup decisions are made at the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory. Schedules for activities and projects

identified for the Environmental Restoration Program will be

implemented under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

Action Plan.

8.2.3 Department of Energy Waste Management Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement

The Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,

currently in preparation, is analyzing alternative strategies and

policies to maximize efficiency for the Department's national Waste

Management Program. The analyses will support the Department's complex-

wide decisions. Volume 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement on Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory environmental restoration and waste

management programs has been coordinated with the preparation of the

Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Upon

issuance of a record of decision for the Waste Management Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement, this Record of Decision will be

reviewed for program consistency and possible changes.

9. Public Involvement

On October 22, 1990, the Department of Energy published a Notice of

Intent in the Federal Register (55 FR 42633) announcing its intent to

prepare a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement addressing

Department-wide environmental restoration and waste management

(including spent nuclear fuel management) activities. The Department

invited the public to submit written comments on the scope of the

document. Twenty-three scoping meetings were held across the country,

and a draft Environmental Impact Statement Implementation Plan

reflecting public comments was prepared. The Department held additional

public meetings on the draft Implementation Plan and recorded public

comments at these meetings.

On October 5, 1992, the Department published a Notice of Intent in

the Federal Register (57 FR 45773) announcing its intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement addressing environmental restoration and

waste management and spent nuclear fuel management at Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory. In the Notice of Intent, public comment was

solicited on the proposed scope of the study. Five scoping meetings

were held in Idaho, and public comments at those meetings were

recorded.

As a result of a court order, the Department issued a Notice of

Opportunity in the Federal Register (58 FR 46951) on September 3, 1993,

announcing its intent to expand the scope of the ongoing Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Environmental Impact Statement to include a Department-wide review of

the alternatives for managing spent fuel, including naval spent fuel.

The notice also invited the public to comment on the expanded scope.

Public comments received in response to the Notice of Opportunity, as

well as public comments provided in the original scoping processes for

both the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Impact

Statement and Department-wide Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, were considered

and summarized in the Environmental Impact Statement Implementation

Plan issued on October 29, 1993.

These and other public outreach efforts, in conjunction with the

public comment period discussed below, provided opportunities for the

public to identify issues of concern relating to the Department's spent

nuclear fuel management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

environmental restoration and waste management activities.

9.1 Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement began on July 1, 1994 and closed on September 30, 1994. More

than 1,400 individuals, agencies, and organizations provided

approximately 5,000 comments. Comments were received from all affected

Department of Energy and shipyard communities.

Many of the issues surrounding the management of the Department's

spent nuclear fuel, raised during the public comment period, were not

new. For example, the report entitled Spent Fuel Working Group Report

on Inventory and Storage of the Department's Spent Nuclear Fuel and

Other Reactor Irradiated Materials and Their Environmental Safety and

Health Vulnerabilities documented current and potential vulnerabilities

regarding existing storage facilities. Stakeholders raised many of the

issues identified in this report in 33 public meetings held on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement in 1994.

The comments came from many states, from Maine to Hawaii. The

origins of the comments indicated that Volume 1 (Spent Fuel Management)

addressed issues of national interest, while Volume 2 (Idaho

Engineering National Laboratory activities) was the subject of concern

primarily to the citizens of Idaho. Recurring and controversial issues

raised during the [[Page 28693]] public comment period included

comments on the Department of Energy and Navy credibility; the apparent

lack of a clear path forward with respect to ultimate disposition of

spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste; continued generation of spent

nuclear fuel; cost of implementation; safety of, and risk to, the

public; transportation of spent nuclear fuel and waste; impacts of

accidents and perceived risk on local economies and the quality of

life; and United States nuclear, defense, energy, and foreign policies.

In response to these comments the Department of Energy and the Navy

consulted with other Federal agencies, states, and Tribal Nations to

achieve a better understanding of the bases for their comments.

Discussions during these consultations resulted in resolution of many

comments and further improvements in the final Environmental Impact

Statement. These comments and concerns resulted in approximately 500

changes to the final document. For example, a brief summary of the

costs associated with the various alternatives was added. Also, the

Department of Energy determined that for planning purposes, Department

of Energy spent nuclear fuel that is not otherwise dispositioned will

be emplaced in the first geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and

high-level radioactive waste, subject to physical and statutory limits,

payment of fees, and meeting acceptance requirements. Volume 1 was

enhanced to include a description that clarifies the relationship

between the Environmental Impact Statement and other National

Environmental Policy Act reviews related to spent fuel management.

Further, the Department clarified the relationship between the

Environmental Impact Statement and the Department's spent fuel

vulnerability assessment action plans. As a direct result of public

comment, the Department expanded discussion in Volume 2 of the

potential impacts to Native American cultural resources, and the

potential impacts on air quality at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory. With regard to naval spent fuel, enhancements to Appendix D

(Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Management) provide additional information in

the following areas: importance of naval spent fuel examination,

impacts of not refueling or defueling nuclear-powered vessels, the

transition period required to implement naval spent fuel alternatives,

potential accident scenarios at naval shipyards, and uncertainties in

calculating potential environmental impacts. Editorial changes were

made to the Environmental Impact Statement to correct errors, none of

which were considered substantive, and to clarify discussions.

The Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement provides an

overview of public comments received on the draft document and

Departmental actions to address these comments in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement. The Department also added Volume 3 to

the Environmental Impact Statement in order to consider, individually

and collectively, all comments.

9.2 Response to Public Comments on the Final Environmental Impact

Statement

The Department of Energy received comments and inquiries following

issuance of the final Environmental Impact Statement. Commentors did

not recommend any new alternatives or raise any issues that had not

already been considered during preparation of the Final Environmental

Impact Statement. The comments are summarized as follows.

Commentors did not want any additional waste or spent fuel

moved into the State of Idaho because of concerns for the aquifer and

perception of potential for earthquakes to occur in Idaho.

The State of Idaho filed a motion in Federal District

Court maintaining that the Environmental Impact Statement does not

comply legally or technically with the Court's order of December 22,

1993.

The State of Maryland generally concured with the

Department's selection of the preferred alternatives. For Programmatic

spent fuel management, regionalization by fuel type is endorsed

provided that adequate transportation safeguards are applied and that

groundwater is fully protected at all three sites.

10. Decision and Approval

This decision constitutes the Department's final programmatic

action regarding spent nuclear fuel management. This decision does not

constitute the final agency action for site-specific projects at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory that are subject to further

negotiations among the Environmental Protection Agency, the State of

Idaho, and the Department of Energy under the Federal Facility

Compliance Act, or those projects subject to further National

Environmental Policy Act review.

Issued in Washington, D. C., this 30th day of May, 1995.

Hazel R. O'Leary,

Secretary of Energy.

Appendix

The following describes actions which will occur as a result of the

programmatic spent nuclear fuel management decision and decisions on

the waste management and environmental restoration programs at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Volume 2, Appendix C, of the

Environmental Impact Statement contains further detail on the projects

described below.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Spent Nuclear Fuel Management

Implementation of the selected programmatic alternative,

Regionalization by Fuel Type, results in consolidation of non aluminum-

clad spent nuclear fuel (including Fort St. Vrain spent fuel) at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel

currently stored at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory will be

shipped to the Savannah River Site. Navy fuel will be transported to

the Laboratory and continue to be examined at the Expended Core

Facility and then stored at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. The

Expended Core Facility Dry Cell Project will be implemented at the

Naval Reactors Facility. Additional storage space at the Idaho Chemical

Processing Plant will be gained by installing additional racks in the

storage pools at Building CPP-666. Wet storage at Building CPP-603 will

be phased out by transferring fuel to both Building CPP-666 and the

Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility at the Idaho Chemical Processing

Plant. New dry storage capacity will be constructed and phased in.

Spent fuels currently stored at various locations at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory will be consolidated at the Idaho Chemical

Processing Plant facilities as funding allows. Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory management efforts will be concentrated on

placing spent fuel from aging facilities and future spent fuel receipts

into new dry fuel storage systems with parallel emphasis on qualifying

the spent fuel forms to emerging repository acceptance criteria. A new

dry storage system for the storage of Three Mile Island fuel currently

stored in an aging facility at Test Area North will be constructed upon

receipt of any required approvals by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(This project is also the subject of an Environment Assessment.) The

facility [[Page 28694]] construction and operation were included in the

cumulative impacts analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement.

The following spent nuclear fuel management projects and activities

will be implemented at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory as a

result of the decision:

Increased Rack Capacity for Building 666 at the Idaho Chemical

Processing Plant--Ensures the near-term capability of the Idaho

Chemical Processing Plant to receive and store spent nuclear fuel by

increasing the storage capability of three pools in the Fluorinel

Dissolution Process and Fuel Storage Facility Building (CPP-666). This

project involves replacing existing storage racks and rearranging fuel

within the racks. This project will start in calendar year 1995.

Dry Fuel Storage Facility; Fuel Receiving, Canning/

Characterization, and Shipping--A multi-functional project that will

accommodate receipt and storage of the various fuel types currently in

inventory at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and the fuels

projected to be received at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

The project will assist in the safe, environmentally sound management

of spent nuclear fuel until final disposition can be achieved. The

project consists of two major facilities that will be integrated but

that can be constructed in phases. One facility is the Fuel Receiving,

Canning/Characterization, and shipping facility. The second facility is

the Dry Fuel Storage Facility consisting of a Modular Aboveground Dry

Storage system. Procurement is expected to start in 2002 with the

facility becoming operational in 2004.

Fort St. Vrain Spent Nuclear Fuel Receipt and Storage--

Implementation of this activity will involve the transportation,

receipt, and storage (at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant) of

approximately 16 metric tons of Fort St. Vrain spent nuclear fuel from

the Public Service Company of Colorado.

Expended Core Facility Dry Cell Project--This facility will be used

to prepare naval spent nuclear fuel modules for examination and storage

by removing the nonfuel structural section from the fuel. This activity

is currently performed in water pools at the Expended Core Facility.

The facility will be a shielded concrete structure with remotely

operated equipment. The facility will be integral with the existing

Expended Core Facility building. The contracting process for the

Expended Core Facility Dry Cell Project is expected to resume in 1995.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Waste Management Program

As previously stated, the projects and actions needed to manage the

waste and spent nuclear fuel associated with each alternative were

identified in the Environmental Impact Statement. The following

projects and activities associated with waste management for each of

the waste types will be implemented as a result of the programmatic and

site-specific decisions.

High-Level Radioactive Waste

Tank Farm Heel Removal Project--This project involves the design,

procurement, and installation of equipment, and performance of

necessary tank systems modifications in order to remove the liquid and

solid heels from the 11 storage tanks in the Idaho Chemical Processing

Plant tank farm. The schedule for heel removal will be included in a

closure plan yet to be negotiated with the State of Idaho, but is

anticipated to start about 2009.

Calcine Transfer Project--This project involves the design,

procurement, and installation of equipment to retrieve calcined high-

level waste from Bin Set #1 as the first step in developing and

demonstrating equipment to retrieve and transfer calcined waste to the

Waste Immobilization Facility. The schedule for this project depends on

the schedule for the Waste Immobilization Facility to be negotiated

under the Federal Facility Compliance Act.

Transuranic Waste

For purposes of this Record of Decision, ``transuranic waste'' also

includes alpha low-level radioactive waste. Transuranic waste contains

transuranic contamination over 100 nanoCuries/gram. Alpha low-level

waste contains transuranic contamination of more than 10 nanoCuries/

gram but less than 100 nc/g and has traditionally been managed at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory as transuranic waste. These waste

types are generally expected to be managed in the same manner;

therefore, the projects and activities for the selected alternative are

described together.

Transuranic Storage Area Enclosure and Storage Project--The

potential environmental impacts of this project were evaluated by the

Department in an Environmental Assessment and was the subject of a

Finding of No Significant Impact. The project was included in the

Environmental Impact Statement because it is an ongoing project that

will begin operation during the period analyzed in the Environmental

Impact Statement. This project involves the construction of a facility

to retrieve and re-store transuranic waste to achieve compliance with

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements. The project

includes both the Transuranic Storage Area Enclosure Facility project

and the Storage Facility Project.

Waste Characterization Facility--This project involves the design,

construction, and operation of a Waste Characterization Facility at the

Radioactive Waste Management Complex. The Waste Characterization

Facility will provide facilities to open containers of contact-handled

alpha low-level waste, alpha mixed low-level waste, transuranic, mixed

transuranic waste, and mixed low-level waste; obtain and examine

samples; and repackage the characterized waste in an environment

designed to contain alpha-type contamination.

Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Mixed low-level waste is currently managed on-site, and limited

amounts have been treated/recycled or disposed of at commercial off-

site facilities. Existing and newly generated Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory mixed low-level waste would continue to be

stored in existing facilities, pending on-site incineration and non-

incineration treatment and off-site treatment, as needed. Prior to

disposal, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory treated and untreated

waste would be stored in existing facilities on-site. Other treated

waste meeting the waste acceptance criteria for the Radioactive Waste

Management Complex would be disposed of on-site. Treated waste will be

stored until disposed of off-site in a Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act Subtitle C disposal facility or until an on-site mixed

waste disposal facility becomes operational.

Mixed waste management projects that will be implemented at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory as a result of the decision are:

Waste Experimental Reduction Facility Incineration (restart)--The

objective of the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility Incineration

project for mixed low-level waste is to treat the waste to render it

nonhazardous, or to meet the Land Disposal Restriction regulations. The

project will modify the existing organic liquid waste injection system

to provide the capability to incinerate either organic or aqueous waste

through direct injection into the incinerator and to provide a location

for liquid waste sampling, blending, and repackaging operations. The

proposed [[Page 28695]] date of operations for the incineration of

mixed low-level waste is June 1996.

Nonincinerable Mixed Waste Treatment Project--The general objective

of this project is to provide treatment capabilities for some of the

mixed low-level waste that is not suitable for incineration. This

project will use several technologies including ion exchange (Portable

Water Treatment Unit), stabilization, macroencapsulation,

neutralization and mercury amalgamation/retort. This facility will be

located at the Power Burst Facility/Auxiliary Reactor Area. The mixed

low-level waste treatment units under this project are scheduled to

begin operation at different dates from June 1998, through June 2000.

Sodium Processing Project--This project involves construction and

operation of a process system to convert sodium hydroxide to a

disposable waste form, sodium carbonate. The project will provide for a

modification to the existing Sodium Process Facility. A thin film

evaporator, operating with a carbon dioxide atmosphere, would be used

for hydroxide to the carbonate conversion process. The sodium

conversion system will be sized to be compatible with the existing

elemental sodium-to-sodium-hydroxide processing rate. Auxiliary

equipment for packaging the sodium and for recycling process water is

included. The planned operational date for this facility is March 1997.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Low-level waste at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory is

being generated, treated on-site, treated off-site at commercial

facilities, and disposed of on-site at the Radioactive Waste Management

Complex. The Waste Experimental Reduction Facility Incineration project

described below will be implemented at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory as a result of the decision.

Waste Experimental Reduction Facility Incineration--This project

will provide volume reduction of low-level waste by incineration. The

incinerator is a dual-chambered, controlled-air combustion unit with a

maximum rated combustion capacity of 5.5 million British Thermal Units

per hour. This facility has operated for six years previously and will

resume incinerating low-level waste in 1995.

Industrial/Sanitary Waste

The industrial waste program (which includes sanitary waste)

manages nonhazardous and nonradioactive solid wastes generated during

manufacturing or industrial processes. The waste generated at the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory is currently disposed of at the Central

Facilities Area Landfill and the Bonneville County Landfill. The

current Idaho National Engineering Laboratory disposal area is located

in a 4.8-hectare (12-acre) gravel pit.

An active recycling program is helping to reduce the amount of

industrial waste. This recycling program includes such activities as

recycling office waste and scrap metal and converting scrap wood into

mulch. Other ongoing efforts to reduce industrial waste include waste

avoidance and waste segregation programs.

The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory will continue the

existing industrial waste program, with continued emphasis on reducing

the amount of industrial waste generated, through an intensive program

of waste avoidance, recycling, and segregation. Continuation of the

existing program will require an expansion of the industrial/commercial

landfill. This project will extend the boundaries of the Central

Facilities Area Landfill Complex to provide 91 additional hectares (225

acres) of land to provide capacity for industrial waste disposal and

operations for at least the next 30 years. The Landfill Complex

extension provides a centralized area for various functions, including

waste minimization operations, treatment and disposal of petroleum-

contaminated media, and recyclable collection and transportation.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Infrastructure Program

Infrastructure support is part of ensuring the continued safe

operation of Idaho National Engineering Laboratory facilities.

Infrastructure support at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

includes general plant projects to maintain and upgrade the current

facilities, buildings, roads, and utilities that support operations.

Recent projects include a new transportation complex, upgrades to the

sewer system, and a new electrical system.

The decision is to continue the existing infrastructure support

program. Existing facilities will be upgraded to comply with applicable

state and Department requirements. In addition, new infrastructure

projects may be needed to support ongoing Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory operations. The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

industrial landfill facilities may be expanded as discussed above in

the Industrial/Sanitary Waste subsection. Gravel pits located at

several locations around the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory will

be expanded as described below.

Gravel Pit Expansions--This project will expand existing gravel

borrow pit operations to provide gravel and fill material for existing

and future road and other construction activities at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory during the 10-year period from June 1995 to June

2005. Some examples are gravel and fill material in support of new

construction for spent nuclear fuel consolidation at the Idaho Chemical

Processing Plant, and gravel and fill to support capping areas at the

existing landfill and at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. A

total of eight gravel pits and borrow areas are located at the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory. The future needs of the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory will result in most if not all of the areas

being utilized to some extent.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration

Program

In selecting the Modified Ten-Year Plan alternative, the Department

acknowledges the current industrial land use of the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory, but recognizes the need for flexibility to

apply the criteria prescribed under the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act in making cleanup decisions.

All of the following projects have been previously reviewed in

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and are at

various stages of implementation.

Auxiliary Reactor Area Decontamination and Decommissioning--The

Auxiliary Reactor Area-II consists of radiologically contaminated

buildings, structures, utilities, and other miscellaneous items. This

project will ensure the facilities are in a safe configuration to

determine and execute appropriate decontamination activities and to

decommission the facilities. This action will reduce the risk of

radioactive exposure and eliminate the need for and cost of continued

surveillance and maintenance.

Boiling Water Reactor Experiment Decontamination and

Decommissioning--This project will remove the Boiling Water Reactor

Experiment facility from the list of surplus facilities, remove or

stabilize potential sources of contamination and reduce the risk of

radioactive exposure, and eliminate the need for and cost of continued

surveillance and maintenance.

Pit 9 Retrieval--Pit 9 is an Interim Action initiated under the

Idaho [[Page 28696]] National Engineering Laboratory Federal Facility

Agreement and Consent Order. The project will reduce the potential for

exposure of workers, the public, and the environment to contaminants

disposed in Pit 9; expedite the overall cleanup of the Radioactive

Waste Management Complex at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory;

and reduce the potential for migration of Pit 9 wastes to the Snake

River Plain Aquifer.

Organic Contamination in Vadose Zone Remediation--This project will

prevent organic contaminant migration to the Snake River Plain Aquifer

in groundwater contaminant concentrations exceeding acceptable risk

levels and/or Federal and State maximum contaminant levels. Through the

use of vapor-vacuum extraction, volatile organic contaminants found in

the unsaturated hydrogeological zone (vadose zone) will be removed and

treated.

Remediation of Organic Ground/Water Plume--This project will reduce

the contamination in the vicinity of an injection well located in the

Test Area North Technical Support Facility. Ground water will be

extracted by pumping, contaminants will be removed from the ground

water in a treatment facility, and the cleaned water will be discharged

to a surface impoundment.

[FR Doc. 95-13482 Filed 5-31-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P