[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28680-28696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13482]




[[Page 28679]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Energy





_______________________________________________________________________



Environmental Statements, Availability, Etc.; Programmatic Spent 
Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs: Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 1995 /  
Notices    
[[Page 28680]] 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


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

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

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