Electrometallurgical Treatment Research and Demonstration Project in the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne National LaboratoryWest; Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Electrometallurgical Treatment Research and Demonstration Project

in the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne National Laboratory--West;

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Energy has prepared an

environmental assessment, DOE/EA-1148 (finalized on May 15, 1996), on

the proposed Electrometallurgical Treatment Research and Demonstration

Project in the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne National

Laboratory--West. The Proposed Action is to conduct a research and

demonstration project involving electrometallurgical processing of up

to 100 Experimental Breeder Reactor-II driver assemblies and 25

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II blanket assemblies in the Fuel

Conditioning Facility at Argonne National Laboratory--West.

Electrometallurgical processing involves the dissolution of spent

nuclear fuel by use of an electric current in a molten salt mixture.

The uranium in the fuel is collected at the cathode and subsequently

melted to form a metal ingot; the structural metals and some fission

products are retrieved undissolved from the anode and are cast into a

metal ingot; and eventually most fission products and all transuranic

elements are isolated in a ceramic waste form. The number of driver

fuel assemblies covered by the Proposed Action would provide the

minimum fission product loading (3 percent) necessary to evaluate the

effectiveness of the removal of fission products from the

electrorefiner salt and their concentration in the ceramic waste form.

In addition, the 25 blanket assemblies proposed would provide a

sufficient quantity of material to evaluate the higher efficiency

electrorefining necessary to process the much larger blanket

assemblies. The Proposed Action would require approximately three

years, and is designed to address demonstration goals for

electrometallurgical treatment technology outlined by the National

Research Council in a 1995 report to the Department. In accordance with

the Council on Environmental Quality requirements contained in 40 CFR

Parts 1500-1508, the environmental assessment examined the

environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and potential

alternatives.

The Department distributed a draft environmental assessment for

public review and comment from February 5, 1996 to March 22, 1996 (61

FR 3922, January 29, 1996), and conducted public meetings on the draft

assessment in Idaho Falls, Idaho on February 21, 1996, and Washington,

D.C. on February 27, 1996. In response to several requests, the

Department reopened the public review period until May 3, 1996 (61 FR

16471, April 15, 1996).

The Department has considered all comments on the draft

environmental assessment, including comments submitted by 5 members of

Congress, 17 organizations, and 53 individuals. Those comments and the

Department's responses are presented in an appendix to the final

environmental assessment entitled, ``Comment Response Document.'' A

summary of the major public comments and the Department's responses is

provided under Supplementary Information below.

The Department has decided to proceed with the proposed

demonstration. Even if successful, however, the demonstration will not

automatically lead to the treatment of more Experimental Breeder

Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or to other broader applications of

electrometallurgical technology. The Department will not make any

significant additional use of the electrometallurgical refining

technology without first preparing an environmental impact statement.

Specifically, the Department will not use this technology to treat the

remaining Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel or make another

production-scale use of the technology without preparing an

environmental impact statement.

The Department would exercise its authority to prevent

proliferation sensitive information and technology advances resulting

from the proposed demonstration from becoming available to potential

proliferant-risk countries, including exercising its authority under

the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 and the

Department's implementing regulations.

Based on the analysis in the environmental assessment, which is

incorporated herein by reference, and after consideration of all the

comments received as a result of the public review process, the

Department of Energy has determined that the Proposed Action does not

constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality

of the human environment within the meaning of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Therefore, an environmental impact

statement is not required.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Persons requesting additional information regarding the

Electrometallurgical Treatment Project or a copy of the environmental

assessment should contact: Mr. Robert G. Lange, Associate Director for

Facilities (NE-40), Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology,

U.S. Department of Energy (GTN), 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown,

Maryland 20874.

Mr. Lange may also be reached by calling (301) 903-2915.

Persons requesting general information on the Department of

Energy's National Environmental Policy Act process should contact: Ms.

Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-

42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20585.

Ms. Borgstrom may also be reached by calling (202) 586-4600, or by

leaving a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department of Energy is responsible for managing spent nuclear

fuel in its inventory, including spent nuclear fuel from the

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. The Department manages 25.5 metric

tons (heavy metal) of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II fuel at Argonne

National Laboratory-West and the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, both

located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls.

The Department has a legally binding commitment to remove spent nuclear

fuel from the State of Idaho by the year 2035, including fuel from the

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. The Experimental Breeder Reactor-II

fuel is unlikely to be suitable for direct disposal in a geologic

repository because it is saturated with sodium, which is a reactive

material. Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel may also be

unsuitable for direct disposal in a geologic repository because of

criticality concerns associated with fuels containing highly-enriched

uranium.

The Department has identified electrometallurgical treatment as a

promising technology to treat

[[Page 25648]]

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel to make it suitable

for repository disposal, but an appropriate demonstration is needed to

provide sufficient information for the Department to evaluate the

feasibility of the technology. At the Department's request, the

National Research Council conducted an independent assessment of the

potential application of electrometallurgical technology to treat spent

nuclear fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. In its 1995

report, the Council recommended that the Department proceed to

demonstrate the feasibility of electrometallurgical technology using

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel. A successful

demonstration of the electrometallurgical technology on a sufficient

sample of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel,

combined with research and testing of the resulting waste forms, is

expected to provide information the Department needs to determine

whether to propose applying this technology to the remainder of the

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or other spent

nuclear fuel.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is to conduct a research and demonstration

project involving electrometallurgical processing of up to 100

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II driver assemblies and 25 Experimental

Breeder Reactor-II blanket assemblies in the Fuel Conditioning Facility

at Argonne National Laboratory-West. Electrometallurgical processing

involves the dissolution of spent nuclear fuel by use of an electric

current in a molten salt mixture. The uranium in the fuel is collected

at the cathode and subsequently melted to form a metal ingot; the

structural metals and some fission products are retrieved undissolved

from the anode and are cast into a metal ingot; and eventually most

fission products and all transuranic elements are isolated in a ceramic

waste form. The number of driver fuel assemblies covered by the

Proposed Action would provide the minimum fission product loading (3

percent) necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the removal of

fission products from the electrorefiner salt and their concentration

in the ceramic waste form. In addition, the 25 blanket assemblies would

provide a sufficient quantity of material to evaluate the higher

efficiency electrorefining necessary to process the much larger blanket

assemblies. The Proposed Action would require approximately three

years, and is designed to address demonstration goals for

electrometallurgical treatment technology outlined by the National

Research Council in its 1995 report.

The one hundred driver assemblies involved in the Proposed Action

would require multiple batch operations of the processing equipment in

a remote, radioactive hot cell with an inert argon atmosphere. These

operations would be sufficient to demonstrate the overall dependability

and predictability of the process, considering equipment reliability,

repair and maintenance, and operability of linked process steps. In

addition, processing 100 driver fuel assemblies is expected to produce

waste-form samples with representative radioactive waste loadings in

quantities sufficient for testing. It is expected that the testing of

these samples will assist in the development and characterization for

future repository acceptance of the two process waste forms (ceramic

and metal) produced by the electrometallurgical processing technique.

In order to evaluate higher efficiency electrorefining, 25 blanket

assemblies would be processed in a second electrorefiner to be

installed in the Fuel Conditioning Facility hot cell. Testing of the

electrorefining concept with nonradioactive surrogate materials and

construction of the second electrorefiner are currently underway at the

Argonne National Laboratory-East site near Chicago, Illinois. Under the

Proposed Action, this electrorefiner would be transported to Argonne

National Laboratory-West, installed in the Fuel Conditioning Facility

hot cell, and used to process the 25 blanket assemblies. This

processing would require about seven batch operations in the high

efficiency electrorefiner. These operations would demonstrate a one-day

throughput of approximately 160 kilograms (353 pounds) per batch.

The Fuel Conditioning Facility is a small research facility, and

its material handling equipment could not sustain the continued

preparation of spent nuclear fuel for operation of the high- efficiency

electrorefiner at a throughput equivalent to a production operation.

Even though a production-scale operation in the Fuel Conditioning

Facility is not possible with existing equipment, however, this

demonstration would show the feasibility of batch operation

electrorefining at a capacity approaching 200 kilograms per day (441

pounds per day) of radioactive Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent

nuclear fuel in a suitably designed and equipped facility, as

recommended by the National Research Council. Seven batch operations

should be sufficient to evaluate the reliability of the equipment and

to meet the intent of the National Research Council's recommendation

regarding high-efficiency electrorefining.

Alternatives Analyzed

The environmental assessment analyzed in detail the following

alternatives to the Proposed Action:

1. Conducting the research and demonstration project in a facility

at an alternative location, i.e., the Test Area North Hot Shop at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory;

2. Conducting an equipment performance verification project by

treating 50 driver assemblies and 10 blanket assemblies in the Fuel

Conditioning Facility; and

3. Taking no action, i.e., placing all the Experimental Breeder

Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel in interim storage, and not demonstrating

the electrometallurgical treatment technology.

Alternative 1, Demonstration at an Alternative Facility and

Location, would result in higher program cost and extensive additional

waste generated from required facility modifications and relocation of

the nuclear materials presently stored in the Test Area North Hot Shop

to allow for the appropriate reconfiguration of that facility to

accommodate electrorefining equipment. This alternative would also

require the transportation on public highways of spent nuclear fuel and

the electrometallurgical equipment from the Argonne National

Laboratory-West to the Test Area North Hot Shop, which would not be

necessary for the Proposed Action.

Alternative 2, Equipment Performance Verification, is very similar

to the Proposed Action in terms of its environmental impacts. However,

this alternative would not fully satisfy the purpose and need for

Department of Energy action because this alternative would not provide

sufficient quantities of fission products, transuranics, and sodium

impurities to test the electrorefiner under conditions comparable to

production-scale operation and to address the recommendations of the

National Research Council.

Alternative 3, No Action, is also similar to the Proposed Action in

that the environmental impacts that would result from packaging and

storing all the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel

would be small. However, the No-Action Alternative would not provide

the information and data needed to determine whether to

[[Page 25649]]

continue the development of this technology as a potential management

option for the disposal of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II sodium-

bonded spent nuclear fuel.

Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail in the Environmental

Assessment

Demonstration of a technology other than electrometallurgical

processing was not analyzed in detail because there are no other

``innovative'' spent nuclear fuel treatment technologies that have

reached a stage of development to warrant testing by the Department of

Energy with irradiated fuel. The environmental assessment discussed,

but did not analyze in detail, the following alternative treatment

technologies:

Chloride Volatility: This very high temperature process

would convert spent nuclear fuel to chloride compounds in a gaseous

state, from which the constituents could be separated into appropriate

streams for further treatment. Demonstration of chloride volatility

technology would require development of very high temperature,

corrosion-resistant equipment. This technology has not reached a stage

of development suitable for demonstration with spent nuclear fuel.

Glass Material Oxidation and Dissolution: This treatment

concept would dissolve spent nuclear fuel using a system of lead and

lead oxide with the intent of incorporating most spent nuclear fuel

constituents in a glass waste form. It too has not reached a stage of

development suitable for demonstration with spent nuclear fuel.

Plasma Arc Process: This extremely high temperature

process would use an electric arc to melt spent nuclear fuel, allowing

the constituents to separate into glass and metal phases. However, this

technology is still in the early stages of research and development and

is not currently suitable for demonstration with spent nuclear fuel.

Hot, Water-Saturated Carbon Dioxide and Alcohol/Water

Rinsing Processes: These processes, which would react the sodium to

form sodium carbonate, would require extensive development to safely

control the reactions and to stabilize the products of the reactions

before they could be considered ready for a demonstration with sodium-

bonded fuel.

Low-Temperature Vacuum Distillation: This process would

evaporate the sodium from around the uranium fuel. It would not work

for the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II driver fuel, however, because

from 20 to 40 percent of the sodium in the driver fuel has been

absorbed into the porous metal fuel alloy.

In addition, the environmental assessment considered, but did not

analyze in detail, existing technologies that would require some

development and modification. These technologies include:

Mechanical Processing: This process has been used on some

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II blanket fuel assemblies to strip away

the layer of metallic sodium under the fuel's cladding. Considerable

development of optical and control systems would be required for safe

and reliable remote operation of a high-power laser to remove the fuel

cladding in a radioactive hot cell environment. The sodium adhering to

the cladding material, as well as the uranium, would be contaminated by

cesium-137 during the cutting process and would require additional

treatment and perhaps creation of a new waste form for disposal

purposes. Mechanical processing would not work for the driver fuel

assemblies, however, because from 20 to 40 percent of the sodium in the

driver assemblies has been absorbed within the fuel, and therefore

could not be removed except by dissolving or melting the fuel.

Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Processing at the

Idaho Chemical Processing Plant: Modifying this reprocessing plant to

dissolve the modern Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel

would require changes in the dissolution process. These changes would

be necessary because the zirconium in the modern Experimental Breeder

Reactor-II fuel alloy inside a stainless steel cladding would require

chemical additives to control the dissolution reaction safely. In

addition, the plant would have to be restarted to carry out the

demonstration. Because of excessive cost and the development required,

processing of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel at the

Idaho Chemical Processing Plant is not a reasonable alternative to the

proposed limited demonstration of electrometallurgical treatment

technology.

Dissolution and Vitrification: This process, which would

dissolve spent nuclear fuel in acid (initial stage of PUREX process)

and then vitrify it in borosilicate glass, would require a major

modification to the existing dissolution process at the Savannah River

site in order to be used in a demonstration with Experimental Breeder

Reactor-II fuel. This modification would be similar to the modification

that would be required for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

discussed above. Further, the fuel would have to be packaged and

shipped to Savannah River, which would be inconsistent with the Records

of Decision (60 Fed. Reg. 28680, June 1, 1995 and 61 Fed. Reg. 9441,

March 8, 1996) for the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and

Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement. These decisions

require the regionalization of the type of spent fuel that would be

involved in the demonstration to the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory.

Treatment at a Location Outside of the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory

The Department also considered electrometallurgical treatment at a

location outside of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. This

alternative would require the removal, decontamination and relocation

of existing equipment to a newly constructed hot cell facility where

the demonstration project would be conducted. This is not considered a

reasonable alternative for a limited demonstration, because of the

excessive cost and time involved for these preparative activities. This

alternative would also be contrary to the Records of Decision for the

Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Environmental Impact Statement.

Spent Fuel, Byproduct, and Waste Material Management

The Proposed Action would generate process wastes from the

treatment operations and incidental wastes from the normal support

operations of a hot cell facility. The process wastes include the fuel

assembly hardware, metal waste form and ceramic waste form. The

incidental wastes include operational wastes such as broken equipment,

rags, packaging materials and other miscellaneous items. After use of

the demonstration equipment has been completed, decommissioning wastes

would include the disposal of the process equipment and process fluids

such as the electrorefiner salt and cadmium. These materials would be

categorized and disposed of according to existing Department of Energy

orders and the Argonne National Laboratory radioactive waste management

procedures. Two uranium byproducts would be recovered from the

demonstration: low-enriched uranium blended down from the highly-

enriched uranium in the driver fuel assemblies,

[[Page 25650]]

and depleted uranium from the blanket fuel assemblies. The uranium

byproducts would be characterized according to the level of residual

contamination. Adequate storage locations exist at Argonne National

Laboratory-West to accommodate the small volume of spent nuclear fuel,

waste materials, and byproduct uranium.

These materials, except the metal waste form and ceramic waste

form, are currently produced at the Argonne National Laboratory-West

site and would continue to be produced under all alternatives. The

metal waste form and ceramic waste form, which would be classified as

high level waste, would contain the fission products from the spent

nuclear fuel and would be stored in the Radioactive Scrap and Waste

Facility at Argonne National Laboratory-West. Both the high-level waste

forms and the spent nuclear fuel elements are highly radioactive,

requiring identical double containment and shielding, as well as

special handling procedures.

Because processing assemblies would result in waste forms that are

more compact, less storage volume would be required for the waste forms

and uranium byproducts of the treated assemblies than for the untreated

spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Under the Proposed Action, the

Radioactive Scrap and Waste Facility storage requirement would be 38

liners (vertical underground storage cylinders). Byproduct uranium

ingots would total 0.15 cubic meters (5.3 cubic feet) in volume

[equivalent to two Radioactive Waste and Scrap Facility canisters

(engineered storage containers with welded tops that fit into the

storage liners)]. The Equipment Performance Verification Alternative

(see Alternatives Analyzed, above) would require 59 Radioactive Waste

and Scrap Facility storage liners and storage space for 0.07 cubic

meters (2.5 cubic feet) of uranium byproduct ingots (equivalent to one

Radioactive Waste and Scrap Facility canister). A larger number of

storage liners would be required in this alternative because more spent

fuel would have to be stored. The No-Action Alternative would require

81 Radioactive Waste and Scrap Facility storage liners. The number of

storage liners required under the Demonstration in the Alternative

Facility at the Test Area North Hot Shops at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory is the same as the Proposed Action because only

the location of the treatment process is different.

Low level radioactive wastes would be generated by routine facility

operations under all alternatives, ranging in volume from 20 cubic

meters (700 cubic feet) in the Proposed Action to 70 cubic meters (2475

cubic feet) in the No-Action Alternative. Fifty cubic meters (1750

cubic feet) of transuranic waste would be generated in the action

alternatives.

Comparisons of waste that would be generated under the Proposed

Action and the current Idaho National Engineering Laboratory inventory

of similar waste are shown in Table 1. Adequate waste storage capacity

exists for all alternatives.

Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action

Surface Water Impacts: As described in Section 4.3.5 of the

environmental assessment, the Proposed Action would not produce liquid

effluents, so there would not be any impacts to surface waters or

groundwater from effluents. To prevent potential releases to surface or

subsurface waters resulting from spills of hazardous materials used in

buildings, the Fuel Conditioning Facility and other buildings are

designed, constructed and maintained to contain these materials.

Table 1. Comparisons of Waste Generated Under the Proposed Action

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

Current Percent of

Proposed INEL INEL

Waste streams Action inventory* inventory

(m\3\) (m\3\) (%)

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

High level waste............... 0.52 10,000 0.0052

TRU waste...................... 50 65,000 0.092

Low level waste................ 20 9,500 0.21

Mixed waste.................... 1 1,100 0.10

Greater than class C waste..... 1.4 9,100 0.015

Environmental restoration

waste**....................... 192 320,000 0.06

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

*Source: ``Intergration of EM activities at the INEL,'' Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory, March 31, 1995.

**Waste that would be generated from decommissioning activities

following the demonstration.

Land Impacts: Land use at Argonne National Laboratory-West has been

dedicated to nuclear reactor and spent fuel research since 1955. All

activities associated with the Proposed Action would take place on

previously disturbed land and within existing structures.

Cultural Resources: All activities associated with the Proposed

Action would be conducted within existing facilities. No archeological

or historic sites and structures would be affected.

Threatened or Endangered Species: There are no known threatened or

endangered species or sensitive habitats that would be affected by the

Proposed Action.

Nonradioactive Air Emissions: As summarized in Section 4.1.1.1 of

the environmental assessment, potential impacts from nonradioactive

releases associated with the Proposed Action are very small. A small

amount of refrigerant gas (freon R-22) may escape from the argon cell

cooling system at the Fuel Conditioning Facility and electrical

equipment cleaning will also contribute a small amount. No adverse

consequences would be expected to result from the estimated total

refrigerant gas release of about 90 kilograms (200 pounds) per year,

which is small (400 times less) compared with the 36,000 kilograms per

year (40 tons per year) Idaho regulatory threshold for ``significant''

release of volatile organic compounds.

Radioactive Air Emissions: As summarized in Section 4.1.1.2 of the

environmental assessment, potential offsite doses from routine

operations during this Proposed Action are quite small, less than

1.1 x 10-6 rem per year to the maximally exposed individual. This

is more than a factor of 9,000 less than the 0.01 rem per year annual

dose limit imposed by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutents program. No increased radiation levels, above background,

would be detectable at the Argonne National Laboratory-West site or at

the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory site boundary.

[[Page 25651]]

Worker Health Effects (Normal Operating Conditions): As described

in Section 4.1.2 of the environmental assessment, under the Proposed

Action, the average exposure of workers to radiation is small, and is

not expected to increase to levels above those of the No-Action

Alternative. The average annual exposure for a worker in the Fuel

Conditioning Facility directly involved in the project is estimated to

be 0.06 rem per year, and 0.03 rem per year for those not directly

involved. These numbers are less than the 0.35 rem per year annual

natural background radiation in the surrounding Eastern Snake River

Plain. The probability of a single additional latent cancer fatality

among workers involved in the project from the increased exposure is

estimated to be one chance in 1,000.

Transportation Impacts: Transportation risks at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory are small and would not be increased as a result

of this Proposed Action. The Argonne National Laboratory-West workers

travel over public highways to reach work. Since the Proposed Action

would not require an increase in the total number of employees, there

is no increase in transportation risk for employees. Likewise, there

would be no increase in waste shipments over public highways from

Argonne National Laboratory-West facilities to the Radioactive Waste

Management Complex (such shipments are associated with routine facility

operations and would also be required for the No-Action Alternative).

High-level waste, spent nuclear fuel and low-enriched uranium transfers

between Argonne National Laboratory-West facilities do not use public

highways. The net number of transfers within the Argonne National

Laboratory-West site would not increase as a result of the Proposed

Action.

Socioeconomic Impacts: As described in Section 4.3.2 of the

environmental assessment, it is not anticipated that the Proposed

Action would have any measurable socioeconomic impacts on the area

surrounding the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Any additional

research personnel hired to help plan, conduct and interpret the

experiments would be more than offset by a reduction in force that has

been occurring due to shutdown of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. No

net additional personnel would be hired as a result of the Proposed

Action.

Procurements of materials or services required for the Proposed

Action would be minimal, and would be very small compared to the

overall Idaho National Engineering Laboratory budget.

Potential Environmental Impacts of Facility Accidents: As described

in Section 4.2 of the environmental assessment, the Final Safety

Analysis Report (Revision 0, May 1, 1995) for the Fuel Conditioning

Facility evaluated the consequences of a broad range of potential

facility accidents which could possibly release radioactivity to the

environment.

The largest radiological risk to an individual worker from any of

the reasonably foreseeable accidents would be an increase of 3 chances

in 10,000 of death by cancer due to radiation exposure following an

accidental spent fuel transfer cask drop outside the facility. (The

estimated probability of this accident is in a range from 1 chance in

100 to 1 chance in 10,000.) Since this accident would involve spent

nuclear fuel, it would apply to each of the alternatives, including the

No-Action Alternative. If such an accident occurred, up to 600 workers

might be exposed to radiation, resulting in approximately 0.2 latent

cancer fatalities; an estimated 0.003 latent cancer fatalities among

the off-site population (within 50 miles of the site) could occur. This

accident also represents the largest risk to the maximally exposed

(public) individual, with an increase of 1 chance in 20 million of

developing a fatal cancer if the accident did occur. The probability of

developing a nonfatal cancer would be 1 chance in 2 million for the

maximally exposed individual worker and 1 chance in 100 million for the

maximally exposed individual member of the public.

An air cell exhaust system flow reversal accident represents the

largest risk from an accident that distinguishes the action

alternatives, including the Proposed Action, from the No-Action

Alternative. (The probability of this accident is estimated to be

between 1 chance in 10,000 and 1 chance in 1 million.) If this accident

occurred, an individual worker would have 1 chance in 400,000 of

developing a fatal cancer. A member of the public at the site boundary

receiving the maximum dose would have 1 chance in 20 million of

contracting a fatal cancer as a result of such an accident.

Consequences of Beyond-Design-Basis Accidents: Beyond-design-basis

accidents are those accidents with probabilities of occurrence

estimated to be between 1 in a million and 1 in 10 million. As

described in Section 4.2.1.2 of the environmental assessment, two

beyond-design-basis accidents have been evaluated for the modified Fuel

Conditioning Facility. The first accident is a metal fire occurring

simultaneously with small breaches in the argon cell confinement and

with concurrent failure of abatement by the two separate stages of

high-efficiency particulate air filtration provided by the safety

exhaust system. The second accident, an aircraft crash into the

facility, is described in detail in DOE/ID-10471, ``Accident

Assessments for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Facilities.''

The airplane crash accident assumes that a large commercial jet

crashes into the Fuel Conditioning Facility, resulting in penetration

of the argon cell and a fire in the facility involving aviation fuel.

This accident would result in a radiation dose of 250 person-rem among

the potentially exposed population within an 80 kilometer (50 mile)

radius. The estimated increase in latent cancer fatalities is 0.13, or

approximately 1 chance in 8, of an additional cancer fatality. The

corresponding increase in nonfatal cancers is estimated to be 0.025, or

1 chance in 40, of an additional nonfatal cancer. Based on conservative

estimates (i.e., estimates that tend to overstate the impacts), 2

radiation-induced cancer fatalities among 600 potentially-exposed

workers would result.

In the metal fire accident, a fire in the hot process metal is

assumed to start after sufficient oxygen enters through argon cell

breaches resulting from a beyond-design-basis earthquake. This accident

would result in a radiation dose of 74 person-rem among the population

within an 80 kilometer (50 mile) radius. The estimated increase in

latent cancer fatalities is 0.037, or approximately 1 chance in 24, of

an additional cancer fatality among potentially exposed members of the

public. Based on conservative estimates, three radiation-induced cancer

fatalities among workers would result.

Taking account of the potential consequences and probabilities of

occurrence, the accident risks associated with the Proposed Action are

small.

Natural Hazards: As described in Section 4.2.2 of the environmental

assessment, the Fuel Conditioning Facility Final Safety Analysis Report

provides a discussion of natural phenomena hazards. The principal

potential natural hazard is earthquakes. The air cell, argon cell,

general building and safety equipment building were analyzed and were

confirmed to maintain structural integrity during and after the design-

basis earthquake (0.21 g acceleration). All structures can easily

accommodate the straight wind loading of 95 mph and the snow loading of

40 pounds per square foot.

Spent Nuclear Fuel, Uranium By-Products and Waste Management

[[Page 25652]]

Impacts: As discussed in Section 4.5 of the environmental assessment,

using a common comparison basis for estimating waste volumes for each

alternative, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a

net decrease in the combined volume of high-level waste and spent

nuclear fuel at Argonne National Laboratory-West. For the volume of

high level wastes generated by the process, adequate storage capacity

currently exists on-site. The Proposed Action would increase the volume

of low-enriched uranium and high-level radioactive waste stored at the

Argonne National Laboratory-West site. The increased volumes, however,

would occupy a small percentage of the available storage space.

Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would

also result in a net decrease in the amount of low-level waste

generated and shipped to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Radioactive Waste Management Complex, because some of the waste

generated from normal facility operations would be characterized as

transuranic waste. Therefore, the reduction in low-level waste volumes

would be offset by a net increase in the amount of transuranic waste.

Argonne National Laboratory-West and the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory Radioactive Waste Management Complex have adequate interim

storage capacity to accommodate the transuranic waste, which would be

less than one-tenth of one percent of the current inventory at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

The amounts of mixed waste and nonradioactive waste generated under

the Proposed Action are the same as would be expected under the No-

Action Alternative. Existing, adequate storage capacity exists for any

of the wastes that would be generated.

Cumulative Impacts: A cumulative impact is the result of the

incremental impact of the Proposed Action added to all other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts

associated with Idaho National Engineering Laboratory spent nuclear

fuel, environmental restoration, and waste management activities have

been described and analyzed in Volume 2, Section 5.15 of the Spent

Nuclear Fuel and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental

Impact Statement. As discussed in Section 4.3 of the environmental

assessment, the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action would be

small and would add only a small increment to past, present or

reasonably foreseeable impacts at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in

significant cumulative impacts.

Environmental Justice: As discussed above and described in Section

4.6 of the environmental assessment, the potential environmental

impacts calculated for activities associated with the Proposed Action

are small, and present little or no risk to any segment of the

surrounding population. Therefore, the impacts also do not constitute

disproportionately high or adverse impacts on any minority or low-

income population.

Consistency with United States Nonproliferation Policy: It is the

policy of the United States not to encourage the civil use of

plutonium. The proposed demonstration project would not separate

plutonium from the processed Experimental Breeder Reactor-II fuel.

Moreover, the technology employed is not capable of separating

plutonium. Even with extensive modification, the technology would not

be capable of separating plutonium that would be suitable for a

proliferant nuclear weapons program. Further, by removing and then

blending down the highly enriched uranium in the Experimental Breeder

Reactor-II driver fuel, the project supports the United States goal of

seeking to eliminate, where possible, the accumulation of stockpiles of

highly enriched uranium. As a result, the proposed demonstration

project is consistent with United States nonproliferation policy.

Principal Concerns Raised During Public Comment Period: As noted

above, a draft environmental assessment was available for public

comment from February 5, 1996 through May 3, 1996. The Department

carefully considered all comments received and prepared a detailed

``Comment Response Document,'' which is an appendix to the final

environmental assessment. The following discussion summarizes the

principal concerns raised by commentors and the Department's responses.

Reprocessing: Some commentors suggested that the proposed

demonstration of electrometallurgical treatment technology is

``reprocessing'' because it involves the separation of spent nuclear

fuel constituents, could involve the future reuse of the separated

materials, and/or has evolved from a technology that was originally

intended to support the now-terminated Integral Fast Reactor project.

As a result, some commentors suggested that the Department's National

Environmental Policy Act regulation (10 CFR Part 1021, Appendix D to

Subpart D) requires the preparation of an environmental impact

statement for the proposed demonstration program.

It is important to note that preparation of an environmental impact

statement is not automatically required by Appendix D, which is

entitled ``Classes of Actions That Normally Require Environmental

Impact Statements'' (emphasis added). At most, the inclusion of a class

of actions in Appendix D establishes a presumption that activities

falling within that class are generally ``major'' activities requiring

the preparation of an environmental impact statement. That presumption

is overcome when an evaluation of a specific proposal indicates that it

is not a ``major'' activity and would not produce any significant

environmental impacts.

The particular provision of Appendix D at issue originated in 1990,

when the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (55 Federal

Register 46444, November 2, 1990) that eventually was promulgated in

1992 as 10 CFR Part 1021. Among the new classes of actions proposed as

``normally requiring Environmental Impact Statements'' was the

``siting, construction, operation, and decommissioning of reprocessing

facilities.'' The preamble to the proposed rule described this

provision's intended scope as one of several new classes of activity

``related to the siting, construction and operation of major nuclear

facilities'' (emphasis added). It is apparent from this preamble

language that the Department regarded the scale of the proposed

activity and its potential for significant impacts, not the designation

of an activity as ``reprocessing,'' as the important factor in

establishing the need for an environmental impact statement.

Unlike the large reprocessing facilities existing at the time the

regulations were promulgated, the proposed demonstration project does

not generate large volumes of liquid high-level waste or have other

significant impacts. The Proposed Action is simply a demonstration of

electrometallurgical treatment technology involving equipment whose

size and configuration cannot accommodate full-scale treatment

activities. As demonstrated in the environmental assessment, the

demonstration project would generate 640 kilograms (0.52 cubic meters,

or approximately the size of a three-drawer file cabinet) of solid

high-level waste in metal or ceramic form, but no liquid high-level

waste. In light of these minimal impacts, it was appropriate for the

Department to prepare an environmental assessment to assist in

determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement.

[[Page 25653]]

Indeed, the Department does not regard the proposed treatment

process as ``reprocessing'' as that term has been used historically and

is used in the Department's National Environmental Policy Act

regulations. The purpose of the Department's historical reprocessing

activities was to recover plutonium and highly-enriched uranium from

spent nuclear fuel for reuse in defense-related activities, including

weapons production. These activities required large production-scale

buildings and ancillary facilities. The Department of Energy

regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act were

drafted with these reprocessing activities in mind. In contrast, the

much smaller-scale proposed demonstration of electrometallurgical

technology would not involve the separation of plutonium from fission

products or the reuse or recycling of any separated materials for

defense-related purposes.

As noted in Section 2.3 of the environmental assessment, this

technology does separate spent nuclear fuel constituents into certain

groups. For driver spent nuclear fuel, these groups are (1) highly-

enriched uranium (which would promptly be blended with depleted uranium

to form low-enriched uranium), (2) a mixture of fission products and

plutonium, and (3) cladding metal. For the blanket fuel, these groups

are (1) low-enriched uranium, (2) a mixture of fission products and

plutonium, and (3) cladding metal.

With regard to the potential reuse of separated materials, the

treatment of the 100 driver assemblies would result, after blending, in

approximately 1400 kilograms (3080 pounds) of low-enriched uranium. As

described in Section 2.3 of the environmental assessment, this low-

enriched uranium would be stored at Argonne National Laboratory-West

until a decision is made regarding its ultimate disposition. The

disposition of this material would be consistent with future

departmental decisions regarding other similar materials, but it would

not involve reuse for defense-related purposes. Potential disposition

options for this material include its sale to the commercial nuclear

industry for use as power reactor fuel.

For all of these reasons, the Department of Energy does not believe

that the proposed demonstration of electrometallurgical technology

constitutes ``reprocessing'' within the meaning of 10 CFR Part 1021,

Appendix D to Subpart D, even if it does fall within some broader

definitions of ``reprocessing'' that are used in other contexts.

Nonproliferation: Some commentors suggested that the proposed

demonstration project is contrary to the nonproliferation policy of the

United States regarding materials that could be used by other countries

or groups to construct nuclear weapons. The United States policy on

nonproliferation is contained in Presidential Decision Directive 13, a

classified document. On September 27, 1993, at the time Presidential

Decision Directive-13 was signed, an unclassified press release

summarizing its contents was issued. Among other things, the summary

states that the United States does not encourage the civil use of

plutonium, and accordingly the United States does not itself engage in

plutonium reprocessing for either nuclear weapons or nuclear power

purposes. As described in Section 4.7 of the environmental assessment,

the electrorefining equipment that would be a part of the proposed

demonstration project is not capable of separating plutonium from spent

nuclear fuel. The plutonium contained in the spent nuclear fuel, along

with other actinides and most constituent fission products, would be

immobilized in the zeolite ceramic waste form. Thus, because it does

not separate plutonium, the proposed demonstration is consistent with

the nonproliferation policy of the United States.

Some of the commentors suggested, however, that with adjustment to

or refinements of either of the electrorefiners that would be a part of

the Proposed Action, this technology could be made to separate

plutonium for weapons use. During the Integral Fast Reactor Program,

which was canceled in 1994, the Department attempted to develop an

electrorefiner that included a liquid cadmium cathode to collect and

concentrate plutonium and all other transuranic elements present in the

spent nuclear fuel. Successful application of this process would have

resulted in a plutonium product contaminated or mixed with uranium,

other transuranic elements, and rare earth fission products.

Development of the cathode progressed only to the point where the

technical feasibility of the concept was established. No prototype or

working model was ever commissioned for the Fuel Conditioning Facility.

As conceived, however, the liquid cadmium cathode would have

produced a metal-alloy product containing up to 70 percent plutonium;

this plutonium alloy could have been obtained only after subsequent

processing in a high-temperature vacuum furnace. The balance of

materials remaining in the plutonium product after electrorefining, but

prior to subsequent processing, would be those most difficult to

separate from plutonium by any chemical means: uranium, americium,

neptunium, curium, and the rare earth fission products. This plutonium

metal-alloy product would have high transuranic content, a high heat

source, a high neutron radiation source, and a high gamma radiation

source, any one of which would make design of a weapon extremely

difficult. Neutron and gamma radiation sources would be three to four

orders of magnitude higher than weapons-grade or reactor-grade

material. These levels of radiation are lethal and would require

handling of the material by remote means. As a result of the high heat,

neutron, and gamma radiation sources, and the transuranic

contamination, any attempt to use plutonium in this form for weapons

purposes would add significant difficulties to any potential

proliferant's efforts.

The Department requested a study by the Defense Technologies

Engineering Division of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to

determine the feasibility of misusing electrometallurgical technology

in order to produce plutonium that could be used in a proliferant

nuclear weapons program. While the report from that study is

classified, an unclassified presentation on the conclusions from the

report was given to the Department by Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory in March 1994 and is summarized in Section 4.7 of the

environmental assessment. The unclassified presentation stated that the

report concluded that significant new process inventions and new

weapons designs would be required before material resulting from the

process could be used in a nuclear weapons program. The major problems

for prospective weapons designers would be:

(a) the actinides collected with the fission products would result

in a very high heat output, which would complicate and might even

preclude the design of even a simple nuclear device due to the heat

output's effect on high explosive and plutonium components; (b)

radiation levels from the material would be incapacitating and lethal

to individuals coming in contact with the material for the purpose of

weapons fabrication; (c) designing processes to deal with these

radiation levels would significantly complicate a proliferant's

development and deployment programs and production activities; and (d)

over time, high radiation fields would

[[Page 25654]]

negatively impact material behavior and electronic circuitry.

Some of the commentors also suggested that, because this technology

separates highly-enriched uranium from the Experimental Breeder

Reactor-II driver spent nuclear fuel, use of the technology would

violate United States policy on nonproliferation. While it is correct

that the technology would separate the highly-enriched uranium from the

driver spent nuclear fuel, under the proposed demonstration project the

highly-enriched uranium would be melted in the casting furnace and

combined with depleted uranium to produce low-enriched uranium (less

than 20 percent enrichment) without ever leaving the argon cell. This

blending-down activity would, in fact, be part of the spent nuclear

fuel treatment process. Blending down would be done to reduce costs

associated with the higher levels of security required for safeguarding

highly-enriched uranium. Also, it should be noted that this technology

is incapable of increasing the level of enrichment of uranium contained

in spent nuclear fuel being treated. Therefore, this technology would

not be useful to a nation seeking to enrich uranium to weapons-grade

level. However, because the technology permits the separation of

highly-enriched uranium, which could, in the wrong hands, pose a

proliferation risk, the Department would exercise its authority to

prevent proliferation sensitive information and technology advances

resulting from the proposed demonstration from becoming available to

potential proliferant-risk countries, including exercising its

authority under the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act

of 1978 and the Department's implementing regulations. Separating the

highly-enriched uranium from Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent

nuclear fuel and blending it down to less than 20 percent enrichment is

consistent with United States nonproliferation policy.

Appropriate Level of National Environmental Policy Act Review:

Several commentors suggested that the Proposed Action is part of a

larger program, and that the Department must prepare an environmental

impact statement that analyzes the larger program, including full-scale

implementation of electrometallurgical treatment. Commentors further

expressed concern that the Proposed Action would prejudice the

Department's choice of options under a larger program, either because

of the commitment of resources that would be invested in studying the

electrometallurgical technology, or because the proposed demonstration

would set a precedent for the technology's further, broader

application.

The Department does not agree with these assertions. The Department

has no current proposal to apply the technology more broadly. The

Department prepared this environmental assessment to assess the

environmental impacts of a proposal to apply electrometallurgical

treatment technology only to a limited number of Experimental Breeder

Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel assemblies sufficient for the purpose of

further research and development as recommended by the National

Research Council. The Department needs the information from the

proposed demonstration to determine whether electrometallurgical

treatment is a feasible technology for treating the remainder of the

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or other spent

nuclear fuel requiring processing for disposal. Only after data from

such a demonstration are analyzed can the Department assess whether to

propose a broader application of the technology. In the absence of a

proposal for broader application, no ``program'' or broader activity

exists to be analyzed.

The Department has decided to proceed with the proposed

demonstration. Even if successful, however, the demonstration would not

automatically lead to the treatment of more Experimental Breeder

Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or to other broader applications of

electrometallurgical technology. The Department will not make any

significant additional use of the electrometallurgical refining

technology without first preparing an environmental impact statement.

Specifically, the Department will not use this technology to treat the

remaining Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel or make another

production-scale use of the technology without preparing an

environmental impact statement.

Public Comment Process: Several commentors suggested that the

Department did not allow the public proper and timely access to the

documents referenced in the draft environmental assessment. The draft

environmental assessment was transmitted for public review and comment

on January 29, 1996, with an initial comment period from February 5 to

March 22. References cited in the draft environmental assessment

originally were not sent to the public reading rooms, but were

available upon request from the Department of Energy document manager

in Idaho.

In the course of public hearings in Idaho Falls, Idaho, on February

21, 1996, a commentor requested that the documents referenced in the

draft environmental assessment be made available in the Department's

public reading rooms and that the public comment period be extended by

another two months. The Department agreed to place the references in

the public reading rooms but deferred the decision on extending the

comment period. A member of the Department of Energy panel stated that

he would ``* * * try to have them (the references) in the public

reading rooms within the next week.'' Thirty-seven of the 48 references

were reproduced and sent to each of the nine public reading rooms by

March 8. The Department believed the remaining 11 references were

already in the reading rooms as references to 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). On March 25,

another commentor brought to the Department's attention the fact that

not all documents were in the public reading rooms in Washington, D.C.

and in Idaho Falls. In response, the missing documents were sent

directly to the commentor, and duplicates were placed in the reading

rooms. The comment response period was extended to April 5.

In response to additional comments that not all documents had been

found in the public reading rooms, an inventory of each of the reading

rooms was taken by Department of Energy or Argonne National Laboratory

personnel on April 6. Missing documents were provided, and all

documents were personally verified by Department of Energy or Argonne

National Laboratory personnel to be in place in the reading rooms on

April 8. Further, an additional document and reference location was

established in the main library of the University of California at

Irvine. On April 15, 1996, the public comment period was reopened until

May 3. The Department believes that making the reference documents

available to the public and reopening the comment period have allowed

an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the environmental

assessment and to consult the reference documents.

Finding

Based on the analysis in the environmental assessment and after

considering all comments received

[[Page 25655]]

through the public review process, the Department of Energy has

determined that the Electrometallurgical Treatment Research and

Demonstration Project in the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne

National Laboratory - West does not constitute a major Federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the

meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Therefore, an

environmental impact statement is not required.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 15th day of May 1996.

Terry R. Lash,

Director Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology U.S.

Department of Energy.

[FR Doc. 96-12861 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P