Federal Register, Volume 60 Issue 105 (Thursday, June 1, 1995)

[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}}}