Record of Decision for a Dry Storage Container System for the Management of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for a Dry Storage Container System for the

Management of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations implementing NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508; and

Chief of Naval Operations Environmental and Natural Resources Program

Manual, OPNAV Instruction 5090.1B; the Department of the Navy announces

its decision to implement the preferred alternative (dual-purpose

canisters) identified in the final Environmental Impact Statement for a

Container System for the Management of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel (EIS)

dated November 1996. The Department of Energy (DOE), which participated

as a cooperating agency, formally adopted the final EIS on October 9,

1996 (designated as DOE/EIS-0251) (61 FR 59435) and has concurred in

this Record of Decision. The DOE was a cooperating agency because the

DOE, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is responsible for the

ultimate disposition of all spent nuclear fuel, including civilian and

military. The DOE is also responsible for the facilities at the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) where naval spent nuclear fuel

is currently stored. The Navy will utilize a dual-purpose canister

system for the management of naval spent nuclear fuel and the

management of naval special case low-level radioactive waste. A dual-

purpose canister system will be used for the loading, dry storage,

transport, and possible disposal of naval spent nuclear fuel following

examination at the INEL. This Record of Decision neither decides nor

presumes that naval special case waste will be shipped to a geologic

repository or a centralized interim storage site as naval spent nuclear

fuel.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final EIS 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 EIS (61 FR 59423). For further information on

the Navy's utilization of a dry storage container system for naval

spent nuclear fuel, or to receive a copy of the final EIS, contact

William Knoll, Department of the Navy, Code NAVSEA 08U, 2531 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22242-5160, (703) 603-6126. For

information on the DOE's NEPA process, please contact Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C.

20585, (202) 586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

Introduction

More than 40% of the Navy's principal combatants are nuclear

powered. Since 1955, U.S. nuclear powered warships have steamed safely

more than one hundred million miles and accumulated over 4,700 reactor

years of safe operation. Continued operation of the Navy's nuclear

powered warships remains a vital element of the Navy's ability to

fulfill its national security mission in support of our nation's

defense.

The Navy creates spent nuclear fuel through the operation of its

nuclear powered warships and training reactors. When a warship is

refueled for continued service or is defueled because it is being

inactivated, its spent nuclear fuel is removed at a shipyard.

Similarly, naval spent nuclear fuel is removed from afloat and land-

based training reactors when they are refueled or deactivated. In all

cases, the naval spent nuclear fuel is transported to the INEL in

southeastern Idaho where it is examined at the Expended Core Facility

(ECF) located at the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF). This examination is

essential to verify the performance of current naval nuclear fuel and

to support the design of naval fuel with longer lifetimes. After

examination, the naval spent nuclear fuel is transferred to the Idaho

Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) for storage in water pools pending

final disposition. Currently, there are approximately 13 metric tons of

heavy metal of naval spent nuclear fuel at the INEL. A total of

approximately 65 metric tons of naval spent nuclear fuel will exist by

the year 2035.

The Navy is committed to ensuring that post-examination naval spent

nuclear fuel is managed in a fashion which (1) facilitates ultimate

safe shipment to a permanent geologic repository or centralized interim

storage site outside the State of Idaho;

(2) protects the Idaho environment while being temporarily stored

at the INEL;

(3) is consistent with the DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement (April 1995); and

(4) complies with the court ordered agreement among the State of

Idaho, the DOE, and the Navy, which is discussed in this Record of

Decision under Legal and Regulatory Considerations.

Until a geologic repository or centralized interim storage site

outside the State of Idaho (discussed in Section 2.8.2 of the final

EIS) is available, the Navy is committed to a number of actions to

ensure uninterrupted operation of the Navy's nuclear powered fleet.

These include transfer of all naval spent nuclear fuel at the INEL out

of wet storage facilities into dry storage, completion of a Dry Cell

expansion project at the ECF, completion of Hot Cell facility upgrades

at the ECF, construction of an ECF dry storage container loading

station, and performance of certain environmental restoration work at

the NRF. The high integrity and rugged nature of naval spent nuclear

fuel make it exceptionally well suited for safe transport, storage, and

ultimate disposal after service. The Navy must make a decision on the

type of dry storage container system now in order to support planning

required to meet its commitment as discussed in this Record of Decision

under Legal and Regulatory Considerations for dry storing naval spent

nuclear fuel and ultimately shipping it out of the State of Idaho.

Alternatives Considered

The Navy considered six alternative dry storage container systems

for the loading, storage, transport, and possible disposal of post-

examination naval spent nuclear fuel and the management of special case

waste. The alternatives may use either of the existing dry storage

containers or of dry storage containers that could be produced by

manufacturers of such equipment. Because of differences in

configurations of naval spent nuclear fuel assemblies, all of the

alternatives require containers to have internal baskets designed for

specific naval spent nuclear fuel types.

Two time frames were used for analyses. For complete system

operations, 1996-2035, a time period of 40 years is used. For analyses

concerning transportation to a spent nuclear fuel repository and

handling of post-examination naval spent nuclear fuel at the INEL, the

period 2010 to 2035 (25 years) was used because a repository would be

expected to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel before 2010. The actual

date that a repository would begin accepting spent nuclear fuel would

have minimal impact on the results presented in the final EIS and would

not change the number of shipments to be made.

There is also the possibility that a centralized storage site may

be designated for interim storage of civilian

[[Page 1096]]

spent nuclear fuel until a repository is available. If such a

centralized interim storage site were opened and if naval spent nuclear

fuel were allowed by law to be stored there, transportation of naval

spent nuclear fuel might begin before 2010. A range of transportation

routes was analyzed in the EIS. As such, the transportation analyses

are suitable for comparison of the impacts associated with

transportation to a centralized interim storage site among

alternatives.

A brief description of the six alternatives follows:

(1) No-Action Alterative--Use of existing technology to handle,

store, and subsequently transport naval spent nuclear fuel to a

geologic repository or a centralized interim storage site using the

Navy M-140 transportation cask. Prior to shipment to a repository or

centralized interim storage site, naval spent nuclear fuel would be

managed at the INEL in water pools or commercially available dry

storage containers, then loaded into M-140 transportation casks. At a

repository, the naval spent nuclear fuel would be unloaded from the M-

140 transportation casks and placed in a geologic repository's surface

facilities for loading into disposal containers. Following unloading,

the M-140 transportation casks would be returned to the INEL for reuse.

Because existing M-140 transportation casks are needed to maintain

scheduled fleet refuelings and defuelings, approximately 24 additional

M-140 transportation casks would have to be manufactured to handle the

shipment of about 425 cask loads of naval spent nuclear fuel to a

repository between 2010 and 2035. Two hundred and twenty-five dry

storage containers would be required for use at the INEL, and 300

disposal containers would be required under this alternative. For the

management of special case waste, up to 30 additional dry storage

containers, four additional M-140 transportation casks, and 60

additional disposal containers would be needed.

(2) Current Technology/Supplemented by High Capacity Rail

Alternative--This alternative uses the same storage methods and M-140

transportation casks described in the no-action alternative, but with

redesigned internal structures for the M-140 cask to accommodate a

larger amount of naval spent nuclear fuel per cask, thus reducing the

total number of shipments required. For the purpose of analysis, the

EIS assumes that approximately 24 additional M-140 transportation casks

would be needed in order to expedite shipment of approximately 325

containers of naval spent nuclear fuel by rail to a repository or

centralized interim storage site. One hundred and fifty dry storage

containers would be required for use at the INEL, and 300 disposal

containers would be required under this alternative. For the management

of special case waste, up to 26 additional dry storage containers, four

additional M-140 transportation casks, and 60 additional disposal

containers would be needed.

(3) Transportable Storage Cask Alternative--This alternative uses

an existing, commercially available transportable storage cask for

storage at the INEL as well as for transportation to a repository or

centralized interim storage site. At a repository, individual

assemblies of naval spent nuclear fuel would be unloaded from the casks

and placed in surface facilities for loading into disposal containers.

The unloaded transportable storage casks would be returned to the INEL

for further storage and transport. Approximately 325 shipments of the

reusable transportable storage cask (150 casks required) would be

necessary for the shipment of all naval spent nuclear fuel and 300

containers would be required for disposal. For the management of

special case waste, up to 21 additional storage casks and 60 additional

disposal containers would be needed.

(4) Dual-Purpose Canister Alternative--This alternative uses an

existing, commercially available canister and overpack system for

storage at the INEL and shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel to a

geologic repository or centralized interim storage site. At a

repository, the naval spent nuclear fuel would be unloaded from the

canisters and placed in surface facilities for loading into disposal

containers. Approximately 300 canisters would be required for dry

storage and shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel by rail to a

repository or centralized interim storage site. In addition, 150 dry

storage overpacks for use at the INEL, 15 transportation overpacks, and

300 disposal containers would be required. For the management of

special case waste, up to 45 additional canisters, 23 additional

storage overpacks, three additional transportation overpacks, and 60

additional disposal containers would be needed.

(5) Multi-Purpose Canister Alternative--This alternative uses about

300 large (125-ton) multi-purpose canisters for storage,

transportation, and disposal of naval spent nuclear fuel, without

repackaging or further handling of individual spent nuclear fuel

assemblies. In addition to the sealed metal canisters, specialized

casks or overpacks would be required for different stages of the

process, including 150 dry storage overpacks for use at the INEL, 15

transportation overpacks for transporting naval spent nuclear fuel to a

geologic repository or centralized interim storage site, and 300

disposal overpacks for disposal in a repository. For the management of

special case waste, up to 60 additional canisters, 30 additional

storage overpacks, three additional transportation overpacks, and 60

additional disposal overpacks would be needed.

(6) Small Multi-Purpose Canister Alternative--This alternative uses

about 500 smaller (75 ton) multi-purpose canisters, rather than large

multi-purpose canisters. The small multi-purpose canisters would be

similar in design, operations, and function to the large multi-purpose

canisters, but would offer a lower weight and size alternative for

transportation and handling at a geologic repository or centralized

interim storage site. Two hundred and twenty-five dry storage overpacks

for use at the INEL, 25 transportation overpacks for transporting naval

spent nuclear fuel to a geologic repository or centralized interim

storage site, and 500 disposal overpacks for disposal in a repository

would be required. For the management of special case waste, up to 85

additional canisters, 39 additional storage overpacks, five additional

transportation overpacks, and 85 additional disposal overpacks would be

needed.

Decisions

The Navy announces its decision to use a dual-purpose canister

system for the management of post-examination naval spent nuclear fuel

and special case low-level radioactive waste. The primary benefits of a

dual-purpose canister system are efficiencies in container

manufacturing and fuel reloading operations and potential further

reduction in radiation exposure. A dual-purpose canister system will

allow the safe storage and shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel for

ultimate disposition. The system might also be found to be acceptable

for disposal purposes once the disposal requirements for a geologic

repository have been formulated and finalized, making it functionally

equivalent to a multi-purpose canister system.

The Navy evaluated each of the alternatives to a set of criteria in

order to select a preferred alternative. The results of that evaluation

are summarized briefly below.

There was no obvious preference for any dry storage container

system based on public comments. Further, all of the alternative dry

storage container

[[Page 1097]]

systems technically support the storage, shipment, and disposal of

naval spent nuclear fuel.

The Department of the Navy's analysis of the environmental and

public health impacts from the following would be small and would

differ little among alternatives: the manufacture of any of the dry

storage container systems; the operations of handling, storage,

transportation and unloading at a repository; and the construction of

facilities. All alternatives are considered comparable and

indistinguishable under this criterion, thus, there is no

environmentally preferred alternative.

Cost comparisons were based on procurement costs for equipment, as

well as handling, storage, transportation and container disposal costs.

Under this criterion, the dual-purpose canister system has a medium

comparative cost. The multi-purpose canister has the lowest comparative

cost, in part because the fuel assemblies would only be handled one

time, but since no multi-purpose canisters currently exist the cost

comparison is somewhat conjectural. If the dual-purpose canister

alternative meets the repository design criteria for disposal packages

when those criteria are established, fuel assemblies would be handled

once instead of twice, and the cost would decrease such that it would

be comparable with the multi-purpose canister. There is a high

probability that a dual-purpose canister system for naval spent nuclear

fuel can be produced successfully and economically because it is

similar to currently available systems for civilian spent fuel.

To evaluate operational efficiency, the Navy evaluated the

processes which must be performed for any of the alternatives,

including: loading fuel into dry storage containers, unloading fuel

from dry storage containers for shipment, off-site transport, and

loading or reloading fuel at a geologic repository surface facility for

ultimate disposal. Each of these general operations may be performed

once, multiple times, or not at all, depending on the system

implemented. Each of the alternatives can be categorized as either a

cask or a canister system based on whether the naval spent nuclear fuel

would be transferred from storage for shipment as collections of

individual fuel assemblies (cask) or as a unit inside a sealed package

(canister).

It was concluded from the process evaluation that multi-purpose

canister systems would be the most efficient systems when considering

the handling of fuel. Individual fuel assemblies would not have to be

unloaded from the canisters once they had been loaded for the multi-

purpose canister alternatives. The individual fuel assemblies would be

handled only one time: during the initial loading of the canister. The

most inefficient systems from this standpoint are the No-Action and the

Current Technology/Rail Alternatives because individual fuel assemblies

must be handled three times, once for each packaging operation.

For the dual-purpose canister system, the individual fuel

assemblies would be loaded into a canister prior to storage. The

canister would not need to be reopened prior to packaging the canister

for transportation. It is possible that at a geologic repository the

individual fuel assemblies may need to be handled in the process of

packing disposal containers. However, if the canisters meet repository

disposal criteria when these criteria are established, the dual-purpose

canister system would be functionally equivalent to a multi-purpose

canister system in that the individual fuel assemblies would be handled

only once. Although handling fuel is routinely accomplished safely

without impact on human health or the environment, doing it multiple

times is inefficient, and incurs additional occupational radiation

exposure and some risk.

With respect to regulatory and disposal criteria impacts, the only

anticipated changes that may affect the selected alternative are in the

area of repository disposal regulations. The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is expected to issue revised draft standards (40 CFR part

197) for a geologic repository in 1997. The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) plans to issue changes to its repository disposal

regulations (10 CFR part 60) to establish design criteria within one

year of the issue of the EPA standards.

Based on the uncertainties and far term nature of the disposal

regulations, there are no discernible advantages or disadvantages

associated with any of the alternatives based on potential impact of

disposal regulations. No changes affecting this evaluation in the

storage and transportation regulations are anticipated and all of the

alternatives would meet the current regulations.

The Navy anticipates that final waste acceptance criteria for a

geologic repository will not be established for at least five years. As

a result there is some uncertainty in implementing a multi-purpose

canister system at this time. The Navy cannot wait five years for the

establishment of waste criteria plus any additional time required to

develop a multi-purpose canister based on such criteria in order to

meet its commitment as discussed in this Record of Decision under Legal

and Regulatory Considerations. If a multi-purpose canister is not

compatible with geologic repository criteria, the fuel canisters may

need to be opened and the individual fuel assemblies handled and placed

into acceptable disposal containers. In this event the multi-purpose

canister system would essentially become a dual-purpose canister

system.

The Navy also considered the direction of industry and

standardization in selecting an alternative. In implementing a dry

storage container system for the management of naval spent nuclear

fuel, there is an advantage in utilizing a system compatible with the

systems in use or planned for use by operators of reactors which

commercially generate electricity. All spent nuclear fuel, commercial

and naval, is destined for the same geologic repository or could be

destined for the same centralized interim storage site if such a site

were opened and naval spent nuclear fuel were allowed by law to be

stored there. Naval spent nuclear fuel containers will represent only

about one to four percent of the total number of containers that would

be shipped to a repository or centralized interim storage facility.

Therefore, to the extent that the most widely used systems for

commercial spent nuclear fuel drive any repository design or acceptance

criteria, it is considered prudent to utilize a system which is similar

to the systems being used or planned for use by commercial electric

utilities. Other advantages to using the same system or one similar to

that which the commercial utilities have recently licensed through the

NRC include prior completion of extensive technical reviews, prior

completion of peer and public review, and some proven applications

which may be in operation.

The majority of the new spent nuclear fuel storage systems being

designed or in review by the NRC are dual-purpose systems with

different overpacks for storage and transport. The 125-ton multi-

purpose canister, the 75-ton multi-purpose canister, the transportable

storage cask and the dual-purpose canister system were all found to

reflect current industry direction. The No-Action and the Current

Technology/Rail Alternatives do not.

Finally, the Navy looked at technical uncertainties and risks.

There are no substantial technical uncertainties associated with the

loading of naval nuclear spent fuel into dry storage containers, the

storage of the containers at the INEL, or the transportation off-site

[[Page 1098]]

to a geologic repository. All of the alternatives assume the use of dry

storage containers which will meet the storage requirements of 10 CFR

part 72 and the transportation requirements of 10 CFR part 71. Several

licensed systems are currently in use and other new systems are in the

review cycle for NRC approval for use.

As discussed in this Record of Decision under Legal and Regulatory

Considerations, the Navy must select a dry storage container system now

to support completion of its commitments for dry storing naval spent

nuclear fuel. Thus, the Navy cannot wait a minimum of five years

anticipated for the establishment of waste criteria plus any additional

time required to develop a multi-purpose canister based on such

criteria. Dual-purpose canisters represent the best system given the

need to make a decision now and their favorable comparison to the other

alternatives considering cost, operational efficiency, industry trends,

regulatory acceptance, and the other criteria discussed above.

Mitigation

The strictly controlled conduct of operations associated with the

DOE and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program spent fuel management

activities are mitigation measures integral to the selected

alternative. The DOE and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program have

directives and regulations for conduct of spent nuclear fuel management

operations. All government spent fuel shipments must comply with the

DOE and Department of Transportation regulations. The DOE 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 (ALARA). Singly and

collectively, these measures avoid, reduce, or eliminate any

potentially adverse environmental impacts from spent nuclear fuel

management activities, including those associated with

containerization. The Navy and the DOE have not identified a need for

additional mitigation measures.

Legal and Regulatory Considerations

The Record of Decision for the DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact

Statement was issued on June 1, 1995 (60 FR 28680). On October 17,

1995, the federal District Court entered a Consent Order that resolved

all issues related to the EIS raised by the State of Idaho and the

Governor of Idaho. The Consent Order incorporated as requirements all

of the terms and conditions of the parties' Settlement Agreement,

including a reduction in the number of spent nuclear fuel shipments

coming to the State of Idaho.

All proposed actions by the Navy will be in full compliance with

the requirements of the Consent Order/settlement agreement among the

State of Idaho, the U.S. Navy, and the DOE. The settlement agreement

included an obligation of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to fund

a dry storage container loading station at ECF, expending no less than

$20 million on that project by October 2000. This Record of Decision is

consistent with that obligation. The settlement agreement also

obligates the DOE to commence moving spent nuclear fuel currently in

water pool storage into dry storage by July 1, 2003.

In addition to the Consent Order, Chapter 8 of the final EIS

identifies the major applicable laws and regulations which the

Department of the Navy is mandated to comply with in the fabrication

and utilization of a dry storage container system for the management of

naval spent nuclear fuel.

Public Involvement

On October 24, 1994, the DOE published a Notice of Intent in the

Federal Register (59 FR 53442) to prepare an EIS for a multi-purpose

canister system for the management of civilian spent nuclear fuel. As

part of the public scoping process, the scope of the EIS for the multi-

purpose canister system was broadened to include naval spent nuclear

fuel. This determination was included in the Implementation Plan whose

availability was announced in the Federal Register on August 30, 1995

(60 FR 45147). However, the DOE halted its proposal to fabricate and

deploy a multi-purpose canister based system and ceased preparation of

that EIS.

On December 7, 1995 the Department of the Navy published a notice

in the Federal Register (60 FR 62828) assuming the lead responsibility

for an Environmental Impact Statement evaluating dry storage container

systems for the management of naval spent nuclear fuel. The Department

of the Navy assumed the lead responsibility from the DOE and narrowed

the focus of the EIS to include only naval spent nuclear fuel. Despite

the narrowing of the focus to only naval spent nuclear fuel and the

change in lead agency, the range of dry storage container alternatives

being considered did not change. Thus the EIS did not require another

scoping process. The DOE became a cooperating agency rather than the

lead agency in the preparation of that EIS.

On May 1, 1996, the Navy distributed the Draft EIS. The Notice of

Availability of the Draft EIS was announced in the Federal Register on

May 14, 1996 along with the locations and dates of public hearings (61

FR 24293). The Draft EIS was widely distributed to public officials,

tribal officials, and state agencies in the areas of potential

interest, as well as to individuals requesting the document. The public

comment period for the EIS was originally scheduled to be 45 days, but

a 15-day extension was granted based on a request from the State of

Nevada. During the public comment period, six public hearings were held

and both written and oral comments were received. Oral and written

comments were received from 51 parties, representing: federal, state,

and local agencies and officials; special interest groups; and

individuals.

Although no substantive changes to the Draft EIS were needed as a

result of public comments, several clarifications and editorial changes

were made in response to comments. For example, the Final EIS was

modified to clearly state that the effect of a terrorist attack or an

act of sabotage is expected to be conservatively bounded by the

limiting accidents already discussed. The discussion of transportation

routes used in the analysis was expanded to explain their application.

In addition, the EIS was modified to enhance the reader's ability to

use the results of analyses to evaluate the possibility that any of the

alternatives might have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on

minority or low-income populations.

A new Chapter 11 was added to the Final Environmental Impact

Statement in which each comment was reprinted in its entirety, followed

immediately by individual responses to each of the major points. The

EPA formally announced the availability of the final EIS on November

22, 1996 (61 FR 59435). The Navy also announced the availability of the

final EIS on November 22, 1996 (61 FR 59423).

Approval

This Record of Decision constitutes the Department of the Navy's

final action with regard to selection of a dry storage container system

for the management of post-examination naval spent nuclear fuel and

naval special case low-level radioactive waste. This Record of Decision

does not constitute

[[Page 1099]]

final action for location(s) for dry loading naval spent nuclear fuel

which is currently stored at the ICPP or which will be stored at ICPP

prior to establishment of a dry storage facility, or for location(s)

for temporary dry storage of naval spent nuclear fuel at the INEL.

Those actions will be the subject of an upcoming Record of Decision.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 26th day of December 1996.

Richard Danzig,

Acting Secretary of the Navy.

Alvin L. Alm,

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management U.S. Department of

Energy.

[FR Doc. 97-411 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P