[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25647-25655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12861]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Electrometallurgical Treatment Research and Demonstration Project
in the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne National Laboratory--West;
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Finding of no significant impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Department of Energy has prepared an
environmental assessment, DOE/EA-1148 (finalized on May 15, 1996), on
the proposed Electrometallurgical Treatment Research and Demonstration
Project in the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne National
Laboratory--West. The Proposed Action is to conduct a research and
demonstration project involving electrometallurgical processing of up
to 100 Experimental Breeder Reactor-II driver assemblies and 25
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II blanket assemblies in the Fuel
Conditioning Facility at Argonne National Laboratory--West.
Electrometallurgical processing involves the dissolution of spent
nuclear fuel by use of an electric current in a molten salt mixture.
The uranium in the fuel is collected at the cathode and subsequently
melted to form a metal ingot; the structural metals and some fission
products are retrieved undissolved from the anode and are cast into a
metal ingot; and eventually most fission products and all transuranic
elements are isolated in a ceramic waste form. The number of driver
fuel assemblies covered by the Proposed Action would provide the
minimum fission product loading (3 percent) necessary to evaluate the
effectiveness of the removal of fission products from the
electrorefiner salt and their concentration in the ceramic waste form.
In addition, the 25 blanket assemblies proposed would provide a
sufficient quantity of material to evaluate the higher efficiency
electrorefining necessary to process the much larger blanket
assemblies. The Proposed Action would require approximately three
years, and is designed to address demonstration goals for
electrometallurgical treatment technology outlined by the National
Research Council in a 1995 report to the Department. In accordance with
the Council on Environmental Quality requirements contained in 40 CFR
Parts 1500-1508, the environmental assessment examined the
environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and potential
alternatives.
The Department distributed a draft environmental assessment for
public review and comment from February 5, 1996 to March 22, 1996 (61
FR 3922, January 29, 1996), and conducted public meetings on the draft
assessment in Idaho Falls, Idaho on February 21, 1996, and Washington,
D.C. on February 27, 1996. In response to several requests, the
Department reopened the public review period until May 3, 1996 (61 FR
16471, April 15, 1996).
The Department has considered all comments on the draft
environmental assessment, including comments submitted by 5 members of
Congress, 17 organizations, and 53 individuals. Those comments and the
Department's responses are presented in an appendix to the final
environmental assessment entitled, ``Comment Response Document.'' A
summary of the major public comments and the Department's responses is
provided under Supplementary Information below.
The Department has decided to proceed with the proposed
demonstration. Even if successful, however, the demonstration will not
automatically lead to the treatment of more Experimental Breeder
Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or to other broader applications of
electrometallurgical technology. The Department will not make any
significant additional use of the electrometallurgical refining
technology without first preparing an environmental impact statement.
Specifically, the Department will not use this technology to treat the
remaining Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel or make another
production-scale use of the technology without preparing an
environmental impact statement.
The Department would exercise its authority to prevent
proliferation sensitive information and technology advances resulting
from the proposed demonstration from becoming available to potential
proliferant-risk countries, including exercising its authority under
the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 and the
Department's implementing regulations.
Based on the analysis in the environmental assessment, which is
incorporated herein by reference, and after consideration of all the
comments received as a result of the public review process, the
Department of Energy has determined that the Proposed Action does not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment within the meaning of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Therefore, an environmental impact
statement is not required.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Persons requesting additional information regarding the
Electrometallurgical Treatment Project or a copy of the environmental
assessment should contact: Mr. Robert G. Lange, Associate Director for
Facilities (NE-40), Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology,
U.S. Department of Energy (GTN), 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown,
Maryland 20874.
Mr. Lange may also be reached by calling (301) 903-2915.
Persons requesting general information on the Department of
Energy's National Environmental Policy Act process should contact: Ms.
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-
42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585.
Ms. Borgstrom may also be reached by calling (202) 586-4600, or by
leaving a message at (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department of Energy is responsible for managing spent nuclear
fuel in its inventory, including spent nuclear fuel from the
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. The Department manages 25.5 metric
tons (heavy metal) of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II fuel at Argonne
National Laboratory-West and the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, both
located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls.
The Department has a legally binding commitment to remove spent nuclear
fuel from the State of Idaho by the year 2035, including fuel from the
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. The Experimental Breeder Reactor-II
fuel is unlikely to be suitable for direct disposal in a geologic
repository because it is saturated with sodium, which is a reactive
material. Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel may also be
unsuitable for direct disposal in a geologic repository because of
criticality concerns associated with fuels containing highly-enriched
uranium.
The Department has identified electrometallurgical treatment as a
promising technology to treat
[[Page 25648]]
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel to make it suitable
for repository disposal, but an appropriate demonstration is needed to
provide sufficient information for the Department to evaluate the
feasibility of the technology. At the Department's request, the
National Research Council conducted an independent assessment of the
potential application of electrometallurgical technology to treat spent
nuclear fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. In its 1995
report, the Council recommended that the Department proceed to
demonstrate the feasibility of electrometallurgical technology using
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel. A successful
demonstration of the electrometallurgical technology on a sufficient
sample of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel,
combined with research and testing of the resulting waste forms, is
expected to provide information the Department needs to determine
whether to propose applying this technology to the remainder of the
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or other spent
nuclear fuel.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action is to conduct a research and demonstration
project involving electrometallurgical processing of up to 100
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II driver assemblies and 25 Experimental
Breeder Reactor-II blanket assemblies in the Fuel Conditioning Facility
at Argonne National Laboratory-West. Electrometallurgical processing
involves the dissolution of spent nuclear fuel by use of an electric
current in a molten salt mixture. The uranium in the fuel is collected
at the cathode and subsequently melted to form a metal ingot; the
structural metals and some fission products are retrieved undissolved
from the anode and are cast into a metal ingot; and eventually most
fission products and all transuranic elements are isolated in a ceramic
waste form. The number of driver fuel assemblies covered by the
Proposed Action would provide the minimum fission product loading (3
percent) necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the removal of
fission products from the electrorefiner salt and their concentration
in the ceramic waste form. In addition, the 25 blanket assemblies would
provide a sufficient quantity of material to evaluate the higher
efficiency electrorefining necessary to process the much larger blanket
assemblies. The Proposed Action would require approximately three
years, and is designed to address demonstration goals for
electrometallurgical treatment technology outlined by the National
Research Council in its 1995 report.
The one hundred driver assemblies involved in the Proposed Action
would require multiple batch operations of the processing equipment in
a remote, radioactive hot cell with an inert argon atmosphere. These
operations would be sufficient to demonstrate the overall dependability
and predictability of the process, considering equipment reliability,
repair and maintenance, and operability of linked process steps. In
addition, processing 100 driver fuel assemblies is expected to produce
waste-form samples with representative radioactive waste loadings in
quantities sufficient for testing. It is expected that the testing of
these samples will assist in the development and characterization for
future repository acceptance of the two process waste forms (ceramic
and metal) produced by the electrometallurgical processing technique.
In order to evaluate higher efficiency electrorefining, 25 blanket
assemblies would be processed in a second electrorefiner to be
installed in the Fuel Conditioning Facility hot cell. Testing of the
electrorefining concept with nonradioactive surrogate materials and
construction of the second electrorefiner are currently underway at the
Argonne National Laboratory-East site near Chicago, Illinois. Under the
Proposed Action, this electrorefiner would be transported to Argonne
National Laboratory-West, installed in the Fuel Conditioning Facility
hot cell, and used to process the 25 blanket assemblies. This
processing would require about seven batch operations in the high
efficiency electrorefiner. These operations would demonstrate a one-day
throughput of approximately 160 kilograms (353 pounds) per batch.
The Fuel Conditioning Facility is a small research facility, and
its material handling equipment could not sustain the continued
preparation of spent nuclear fuel for operation of the high- efficiency
electrorefiner at a throughput equivalent to a production operation.
Even though a production-scale operation in the Fuel Conditioning
Facility is not possible with existing equipment, however, this
demonstration would show the feasibility of batch operation
electrorefining at a capacity approaching 200 kilograms per day (441
pounds per day) of radioactive Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent
nuclear fuel in a suitably designed and equipped facility, as
recommended by the National Research Council. Seven batch operations
should be sufficient to evaluate the reliability of the equipment and
to meet the intent of the National Research Council's recommendation
regarding high-efficiency electrorefining.
Alternatives Analyzed
The environmental assessment analyzed in detail the following
alternatives to the Proposed Action:
1. Conducting the research and demonstration project in a facility
at an alternative location, i.e., the Test Area North Hot Shop at the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory;
2. Conducting an equipment performance verification project by
treating 50 driver assemblies and 10 blanket assemblies in the Fuel
Conditioning Facility; and
3. Taking no action, i.e., placing all the Experimental Breeder
Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel in interim storage, and not demonstrating
the electrometallurgical treatment technology.
Alternative 1, Demonstration at an Alternative Facility and
Location, would result in higher program cost and extensive additional
waste generated from required facility modifications and relocation of
the nuclear materials presently stored in the Test Area North Hot Shop
to allow for the appropriate reconfiguration of that facility to
accommodate electrorefining equipment. This alternative would also
require the transportation on public highways of spent nuclear fuel and
the electrometallurgical equipment from the Argonne National
Laboratory-West to the Test Area North Hot Shop, which would not be
necessary for the Proposed Action.
Alternative 2, Equipment Performance Verification, is very similar
to the Proposed Action in terms of its environmental impacts. However,
this alternative would not fully satisfy the purpose and need for
Department of Energy action because this alternative would not provide
sufficient quantities of fission products, transuranics, and sodium
impurities to test the electrorefiner under conditions comparable to
production-scale operation and to address the recommendations of the
National Research Council.
Alternative 3, No Action, is also similar to the Proposed Action in
that the environmental impacts that would result from packaging and
storing all the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel
would be small. However, the No-Action Alternative would not provide
the information and data needed to determine whether to
[[Page 25649]]
continue the development of this technology as a potential management
option for the disposal of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II sodium-
bonded spent nuclear fuel.
Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail in the Environmental
Assessment
Demonstration of a technology other than electrometallurgical
processing was not analyzed in detail because there are no other
``innovative'' spent nuclear fuel treatment technologies that have
reached a stage of development to warrant testing by the Department of
Energy with irradiated fuel. The environmental assessment discussed,
but did not analyze in detail, the following alternative treatment
technologies:
Chloride Volatility: This very high temperature process
would convert spent nuclear fuel to chloride compounds in a gaseous
state, from which the constituents could be separated into appropriate
streams for further treatment. Demonstration of chloride volatility
technology would require development of very high temperature,
corrosion-resistant equipment. This technology has not reached a stage
of development suitable for demonstration with spent nuclear fuel.
Glass Material Oxidation and Dissolution: This treatment
concept would dissolve spent nuclear fuel using a system of lead and
lead oxide with the intent of incorporating most spent nuclear fuel
constituents in a glass waste form. It too has not reached a stage of
development suitable for demonstration with spent nuclear fuel.
Plasma Arc Process: This extremely high temperature
process would use an electric arc to melt spent nuclear fuel, allowing
the constituents to separate into glass and metal phases. However, this
technology is still in the early stages of research and development and
is not currently suitable for demonstration with spent nuclear fuel.
Hot, Water-Saturated Carbon Dioxide and Alcohol/Water
Rinsing Processes: These processes, which would react the sodium to
form sodium carbonate, would require extensive development to safely
control the reactions and to stabilize the products of the reactions
before they could be considered ready for a demonstration with sodium-
bonded fuel.
Low-Temperature Vacuum Distillation: This process would
evaporate the sodium from around the uranium fuel. It would not work
for the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II driver fuel, however, because
from 20 to 40 percent of the sodium in the driver fuel has been
absorbed into the porous metal fuel alloy.
In addition, the environmental assessment considered, but did not
analyze in detail, existing technologies that would require some
development and modification. These technologies include:
Mechanical Processing: This process has been used on some
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II blanket fuel assemblies to strip away
the layer of metallic sodium under the fuel's cladding. Considerable
development of optical and control systems would be required for safe
and reliable remote operation of a high-power laser to remove the fuel
cladding in a radioactive hot cell environment. The sodium adhering to
the cladding material, as well as the uranium, would be contaminated by
cesium-137 during the cutting process and would require additional
treatment and perhaps creation of a new waste form for disposal
purposes. Mechanical processing would not work for the driver fuel
assemblies, however, because from 20 to 40 percent of the sodium in the
driver assemblies has been absorbed within the fuel, and therefore
could not be removed except by dissolving or melting the fuel.
Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Processing at the
Idaho Chemical Processing Plant: Modifying this reprocessing plant to
dissolve the modern Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel
would require changes in the dissolution process. These changes would
be necessary because the zirconium in the modern Experimental Breeder
Reactor-II fuel alloy inside a stainless steel cladding would require
chemical additives to control the dissolution reaction safely. In
addition, the plant would have to be restarted to carry out the
demonstration. Because of excessive cost and the development required,
processing of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel at the
Idaho Chemical Processing Plant is not a reasonable alternative to the
proposed limited demonstration of electrometallurgical treatment
technology.
Dissolution and Vitrification: This process, which would
dissolve spent nuclear fuel in acid (initial stage of PUREX process)
and then vitrify it in borosilicate glass, would require a major
modification to the existing dissolution process at the Savannah River
site in order to be used in a demonstration with Experimental Breeder
Reactor-II fuel. This modification would be similar to the modification
that would be required for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant
discussed above. Further, the fuel would have to be packaged and
shipped to Savannah River, which would be inconsistent with the Records
of Decision (60 Fed. Reg. 28680, June 1, 1995 and 61 Fed. Reg. 9441,
March 8, 1996) for the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement. These decisions
require the regionalization of the type of spent fuel that would be
involved in the demonstration to the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory.
Treatment at a Location Outside of the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory
The Department also considered electrometallurgical treatment at a
location outside of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. This
alternative would require the removal, decontamination and relocation
of existing equipment to a newly constructed hot cell facility where
the demonstration project would be conducted. This is not considered a
reasonable alternative for a limited demonstration, because of the
excessive cost and time involved for these preparative activities. This
alternative would also be contrary to the Records of Decision for the
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Environmental Impact Statement.
Spent Fuel, Byproduct, and Waste Material Management
The Proposed Action would generate process wastes from the
treatment operations and incidental wastes from the normal support
operations of a hot cell facility. The process wastes include the fuel
assembly hardware, metal waste form and ceramic waste form. The
incidental wastes include operational wastes such as broken equipment,
rags, packaging materials and other miscellaneous items. After use of
the demonstration equipment has been completed, decommissioning wastes
would include the disposal of the process equipment and process fluids
such as the electrorefiner salt and cadmium. These materials would be
categorized and disposed of according to existing Department of Energy
orders and the Argonne National Laboratory radioactive waste management
procedures. Two uranium byproducts would be recovered from the
demonstration: low-enriched uranium blended down from the highly-
enriched uranium in the driver fuel assemblies,
[[Page 25650]]
and depleted uranium from the blanket fuel assemblies. The uranium
byproducts would be characterized according to the level of residual
contamination. Adequate storage locations exist at Argonne National
Laboratory-West to accommodate the small volume of spent nuclear fuel,
waste materials, and byproduct uranium.
These materials, except the metal waste form and ceramic waste
form, are currently produced at the Argonne National Laboratory-West
site and would continue to be produced under all alternatives. The
metal waste form and ceramic waste form, which would be classified as
high level waste, would contain the fission products from the spent
nuclear fuel and would be stored in the Radioactive Scrap and Waste
Facility at Argonne National Laboratory-West. Both the high-level waste
forms and the spent nuclear fuel elements are highly radioactive,
requiring identical double containment and shielding, as well as
special handling procedures.
Because processing assemblies would result in waste forms that are
more compact, less storage volume would be required for the waste forms
and uranium byproducts of the treated assemblies than for the untreated
spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Under the Proposed Action, the
Radioactive Scrap and Waste Facility storage requirement would be 38
liners (vertical underground storage cylinders). Byproduct uranium
ingots would total 0.15 cubic meters (5.3 cubic feet) in volume
[equivalent to two Radioactive Waste and Scrap Facility canisters
(engineered storage containers with welded tops that fit into the
storage liners)]. The Equipment Performance Verification Alternative
(see Alternatives Analyzed, above) would require 59 Radioactive Waste
and Scrap Facility storage liners and storage space for 0.07 cubic
meters (2.5 cubic feet) of uranium byproduct ingots (equivalent to one
Radioactive Waste and Scrap Facility canister). A larger number of
storage liners would be required in this alternative because more spent
fuel would have to be stored. The No-Action Alternative would require
81 Radioactive Waste and Scrap Facility storage liners. The number of
storage liners required under the Demonstration in the Alternative
Facility at the Test Area North Hot Shops at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory is the same as the Proposed Action because only
the location of the treatment process is different.
Low level radioactive wastes would be generated by routine facility
operations under all alternatives, ranging in volume from 20 cubic
meters (700 cubic feet) in the Proposed Action to 70 cubic meters (2475
cubic feet) in the No-Action Alternative. Fifty cubic meters (1750
cubic feet) of transuranic waste would be generated in the action
alternatives.
Comparisons of waste that would be generated under the Proposed
Action and the current Idaho National Engineering Laboratory inventory
of similar waste are shown in Table 1. Adequate waste storage capacity
exists for all alternatives.
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action
Surface Water Impacts: As described in Section 4.3.5 of the
environmental assessment, the Proposed Action would not produce liquid
effluents, so there would not be any impacts to surface waters or
groundwater from effluents. To prevent potential releases to surface or
subsurface waters resulting from spills of hazardous materials used in
buildings, the Fuel Conditioning Facility and other buildings are
designed, constructed and maintained to contain these materials.
Table 1. Comparisons of Waste Generated Under the Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Percent of
Proposed INEL INEL
Waste streams Action inventory* inventory
(m\3\) (m\3\) (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High level waste............... 0.52 10,000 0.0052
TRU waste...................... 50 65,000 0.092
Low level waste................ 20 9,500 0.21
Mixed waste.................... 1 1,100 0.10
Greater than class C waste..... 1.4 9,100 0.015
Environmental restoration
waste**....................... 192 320,000 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Source: ``Intergration of EM activities at the INEL,'' Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory, March 31, 1995.
**Waste that would be generated from decommissioning activities
following the demonstration.
Land Impacts: Land use at Argonne National Laboratory-West has been
dedicated to nuclear reactor and spent fuel research since 1955. All
activities associated with the Proposed Action would take place on
previously disturbed land and within existing structures.
Cultural Resources: All activities associated with the Proposed
Action would be conducted within existing facilities. No archeological
or historic sites and structures would be affected.
Threatened or Endangered Species: There are no known threatened or
endangered species or sensitive habitats that would be affected by the
Proposed Action.
Nonradioactive Air Emissions: As summarized in Section 4.1.1.1 of
the environmental assessment, potential impacts from nonradioactive
releases associated with the Proposed Action are very small. A small
amount of refrigerant gas (freon R-22) may escape from the argon cell
cooling system at the Fuel Conditioning Facility and electrical
equipment cleaning will also contribute a small amount. No adverse
consequences would be expected to result from the estimated total
refrigerant gas release of about 90 kilograms (200 pounds) per year,
which is small (400 times less) compared with the 36,000 kilograms per
year (40 tons per year) Idaho regulatory threshold for ``significant''
release of volatile organic compounds.
Radioactive Air Emissions: As summarized in Section 4.1.1.2 of the
environmental assessment, potential offsite doses from routine
operations during this Proposed Action are quite small, less than
1.1 x 10-6 rem per year to the maximally exposed individual. This
is more than a factor of 9,000 less than the 0.01 rem per year annual
dose limit imposed by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutents program. No increased radiation levels, above background,
would be detectable at the Argonne National Laboratory-West site or at
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory site boundary.
[[Page 25651]]
Worker Health Effects (Normal Operating Conditions): As described
in Section 4.1.2 of the environmental assessment, under the Proposed
Action, the average exposure of workers to radiation is small, and is
not expected to increase to levels above those of the No-Action
Alternative. The average annual exposure for a worker in the Fuel
Conditioning Facility directly involved in the project is estimated to
be 0.06 rem per year, and 0.03 rem per year for those not directly
involved. These numbers are less than the 0.35 rem per year annual
natural background radiation in the surrounding Eastern Snake River
Plain. The probability of a single additional latent cancer fatality
among workers involved in the project from the increased exposure is
estimated to be one chance in 1,000.
Transportation Impacts: Transportation risks at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory are small and would not be increased as a result
of this Proposed Action. The Argonne National Laboratory-West workers
travel over public highways to reach work. Since the Proposed Action
would not require an increase in the total number of employees, there
is no increase in transportation risk for employees. Likewise, there
would be no increase in waste shipments over public highways from
Argonne National Laboratory-West facilities to the Radioactive Waste
Management Complex (such shipments are associated with routine facility
operations and would also be required for the No-Action Alternative).
High-level waste, spent nuclear fuel and low-enriched uranium transfers
between Argonne National Laboratory-West facilities do not use public
highways. The net number of transfers within the Argonne National
Laboratory-West site would not increase as a result of the Proposed
Action.
Socioeconomic Impacts: As described in Section 4.3.2 of the
environmental assessment, it is not anticipated that the Proposed
Action would have any measurable socioeconomic impacts on the area
surrounding the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Any additional
research personnel hired to help plan, conduct and interpret the
experiments would be more than offset by a reduction in force that has
been occurring due to shutdown of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. No
net additional personnel would be hired as a result of the Proposed
Action.
Procurements of materials or services required for the Proposed
Action would be minimal, and would be very small compared to the
overall Idaho National Engineering Laboratory budget.
Potential Environmental Impacts of Facility Accidents: As described
in Section 4.2 of the environmental assessment, the Final Safety
Analysis Report (Revision 0, May 1, 1995) for the Fuel Conditioning
Facility evaluated the consequences of a broad range of potential
facility accidents which could possibly release radioactivity to the
environment.
The largest radiological risk to an individual worker from any of
the reasonably foreseeable accidents would be an increase of 3 chances
in 10,000 of death by cancer due to radiation exposure following an
accidental spent fuel transfer cask drop outside the facility. (The
estimated probability of this accident is in a range from 1 chance in
100 to 1 chance in 10,000.) Since this accident would involve spent
nuclear fuel, it would apply to each of the alternatives, including the
No-Action Alternative. If such an accident occurred, up to 600 workers
might be exposed to radiation, resulting in approximately 0.2 latent
cancer fatalities; an estimated 0.003 latent cancer fatalities among
the off-site population (within 50 miles of the site) could occur. This
accident also represents the largest risk to the maximally exposed
(public) individual, with an increase of 1 chance in 20 million of
developing a fatal cancer if the accident did occur. The probability of
developing a nonfatal cancer would be 1 chance in 2 million for the
maximally exposed individual worker and 1 chance in 100 million for the
maximally exposed individual member of the public.
An air cell exhaust system flow reversal accident represents the
largest risk from an accident that distinguishes the action
alternatives, including the Proposed Action, from the No-Action
Alternative. (The probability of this accident is estimated to be
between 1 chance in 10,000 and 1 chance in 1 million.) If this accident
occurred, an individual worker would have 1 chance in 400,000 of
developing a fatal cancer. A member of the public at the site boundary
receiving the maximum dose would have 1 chance in 20 million of
contracting a fatal cancer as a result of such an accident.
Consequences of Beyond-Design-Basis Accidents: Beyond-design-basis
accidents are those accidents with probabilities of occurrence
estimated to be between 1 in a million and 1 in 10 million. As
described in Section 4.2.1.2 of the environmental assessment, two
beyond-design-basis accidents have been evaluated for the modified Fuel
Conditioning Facility. The first accident is a metal fire occurring
simultaneously with small breaches in the argon cell confinement and
with concurrent failure of abatement by the two separate stages of
high-efficiency particulate air filtration provided by the safety
exhaust system. The second accident, an aircraft crash into the
facility, is described in detail in DOE/ID-10471, ``Accident
Assessments for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Facilities.''
The airplane crash accident assumes that a large commercial jet
crashes into the Fuel Conditioning Facility, resulting in penetration
of the argon cell and a fire in the facility involving aviation fuel.
This accident would result in a radiation dose of 250 person-rem among
the potentially exposed population within an 80 kilometer (50 mile)
radius. The estimated increase in latent cancer fatalities is 0.13, or
approximately 1 chance in 8, of an additional cancer fatality. The
corresponding increase in nonfatal cancers is estimated to be 0.025, or
1 chance in 40, of an additional nonfatal cancer. Based on conservative
estimates (i.e., estimates that tend to overstate the impacts), 2
radiation-induced cancer fatalities among 600 potentially-exposed
workers would result.
In the metal fire accident, a fire in the hot process metal is
assumed to start after sufficient oxygen enters through argon cell
breaches resulting from a beyond-design-basis earthquake. This accident
would result in a radiation dose of 74 person-rem among the population
within an 80 kilometer (50 mile) radius. The estimated increase in
latent cancer fatalities is 0.037, or approximately 1 chance in 24, of
an additional cancer fatality among potentially exposed members of the
public. Based on conservative estimates, three radiation-induced cancer
fatalities among workers would result.
Taking account of the potential consequences and probabilities of
occurrence, the accident risks associated with the Proposed Action are
small.
Natural Hazards: As described in Section 4.2.2 of the environmental
assessment, the Fuel Conditioning Facility Final Safety Analysis Report
provides a discussion of natural phenomena hazards. The principal
potential natural hazard is earthquakes. The air cell, argon cell,
general building and safety equipment building were analyzed and were
confirmed to maintain structural integrity during and after the design-
basis earthquake (0.21 g acceleration). All structures can easily
accommodate the straight wind loading of 95 mph and the snow loading of
40 pounds per square foot.
Spent Nuclear Fuel, Uranium By-Products and Waste Management
[[Page 25652]]
Impacts: As discussed in Section 4.5 of the environmental assessment,
using a common comparison basis for estimating waste volumes for each
alternative, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a
net decrease in the combined volume of high-level waste and spent
nuclear fuel at Argonne National Laboratory-West. For the volume of
high level wastes generated by the process, adequate storage capacity
currently exists on-site. The Proposed Action would increase the volume
of low-enriched uranium and high-level radioactive waste stored at the
Argonne National Laboratory-West site. The increased volumes, however,
would occupy a small percentage of the available storage space.
Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would
also result in a net decrease in the amount of low-level waste
generated and shipped to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Radioactive Waste Management Complex, because some of the waste
generated from normal facility operations would be characterized as
transuranic waste. Therefore, the reduction in low-level waste volumes
would be offset by a net increase in the amount of transuranic waste.
Argonne National Laboratory-West and the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory Radioactive Waste Management Complex have adequate interim
storage capacity to accommodate the transuranic waste, which would be
less than one-tenth of one percent of the current inventory at the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
The amounts of mixed waste and nonradioactive waste generated under
the Proposed Action are the same as would be expected under the No-
Action Alternative. Existing, adequate storage capacity exists for any
of the wastes that would be generated.
Cumulative Impacts: A cumulative impact is the result of the
incremental impact of the Proposed Action added to all other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts
associated with Idaho National Engineering Laboratory spent nuclear
fuel, environmental restoration, and waste management activities have
been described and analyzed in Volume 2, Section 5.15 of the Spent
Nuclear Fuel and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental
Impact Statement. As discussed in Section 4.3 of the environmental
assessment, the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action would be
small and would add only a small increment to past, present or
reasonably foreseeable impacts at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in
significant cumulative impacts.
Environmental Justice: As discussed above and described in Section
4.6 of the environmental assessment, the potential environmental
impacts calculated for activities associated with the Proposed Action
are small, and present little or no risk to any segment of the
surrounding population. Therefore, the impacts also do not constitute
disproportionately high or adverse impacts on any minority or low-
income population.
Consistency with United States Nonproliferation Policy: It is the
policy of the United States not to encourage the civil use of
plutonium. The proposed demonstration project would not separate
plutonium from the processed Experimental Breeder Reactor-II fuel.
Moreover, the technology employed is not capable of separating
plutonium. Even with extensive modification, the technology would not
be capable of separating plutonium that would be suitable for a
proliferant nuclear weapons program. Further, by removing and then
blending down the highly enriched uranium in the Experimental Breeder
Reactor-II driver fuel, the project supports the United States goal of
seeking to eliminate, where possible, the accumulation of stockpiles of
highly enriched uranium. As a result, the proposed demonstration
project is consistent with United States nonproliferation policy.
Principal Concerns Raised During Public Comment Period: As noted
above, a draft environmental assessment was available for public
comment from February 5, 1996 through May 3, 1996. The Department
carefully considered all comments received and prepared a detailed
``Comment Response Document,'' which is an appendix to the final
environmental assessment. The following discussion summarizes the
principal concerns raised by commentors and the Department's responses.
Reprocessing: Some commentors suggested that the proposed
demonstration of electrometallurgical treatment technology is
``reprocessing'' because it involves the separation of spent nuclear
fuel constituents, could involve the future reuse of the separated
materials, and/or has evolved from a technology that was originally
intended to support the now-terminated Integral Fast Reactor project.
As a result, some commentors suggested that the Department's National
Environmental Policy Act regulation (10 CFR Part 1021, Appendix D to
Subpart D) requires the preparation of an environmental impact
statement for the proposed demonstration program.
It is important to note that preparation of an environmental impact
statement is not automatically required by Appendix D, which is
entitled ``Classes of Actions That Normally Require Environmental
Impact Statements'' (emphasis added). At most, the inclusion of a class
of actions in Appendix D establishes a presumption that activities
falling within that class are generally ``major'' activities requiring
the preparation of an environmental impact statement. That presumption
is overcome when an evaluation of a specific proposal indicates that it
is not a ``major'' activity and would not produce any significant
environmental impacts.
The particular provision of Appendix D at issue originated in 1990,
when the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (55 Federal
Register 46444, November 2, 1990) that eventually was promulgated in
1992 as 10 CFR Part 1021. Among the new classes of actions proposed as
``normally requiring Environmental Impact Statements'' was the
``siting, construction, operation, and decommissioning of reprocessing
facilities.'' The preamble to the proposed rule described this
provision's intended scope as one of several new classes of activity
``related to the siting, construction and operation of major nuclear
facilities'' (emphasis added). It is apparent from this preamble
language that the Department regarded the scale of the proposed
activity and its potential for significant impacts, not the designation
of an activity as ``reprocessing,'' as the important factor in
establishing the need for an environmental impact statement.
Unlike the large reprocessing facilities existing at the time the
regulations were promulgated, the proposed demonstration project does
not generate large volumes of liquid high-level waste or have other
significant impacts. The Proposed Action is simply a demonstration of
electrometallurgical treatment technology involving equipment whose
size and configuration cannot accommodate full-scale treatment
activities. As demonstrated in the environmental assessment, the
demonstration project would generate 640 kilograms (0.52 cubic meters,
or approximately the size of a three-drawer file cabinet) of solid
high-level waste in metal or ceramic form, but no liquid high-level
waste. In light of these minimal impacts, it was appropriate for the
Department to prepare an environmental assessment to assist in
determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement.
[[Page 25653]]
Indeed, the Department does not regard the proposed treatment
process as ``reprocessing'' as that term has been used historically and
is used in the Department's National Environmental Policy Act
regulations. The purpose of the Department's historical reprocessing
activities was to recover plutonium and highly-enriched uranium from
spent nuclear fuel for reuse in defense-related activities, including
weapons production. These activities required large production-scale
buildings and ancillary facilities. The Department of Energy
regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act were
drafted with these reprocessing activities in mind. In contrast, the
much smaller-scale proposed demonstration of electrometallurgical
technology would not involve the separation of plutonium from fission
products or the reuse or recycling of any separated materials for
defense-related purposes.
As noted in Section 2.3 of the environmental assessment, this
technology does separate spent nuclear fuel constituents into certain
groups. For driver spent nuclear fuel, these groups are (1) highly-
enriched uranium (which would promptly be blended with depleted uranium
to form low-enriched uranium), (2) a mixture of fission products and
plutonium, and (3) cladding metal. For the blanket fuel, these groups
are (1) low-enriched uranium, (2) a mixture of fission products and
plutonium, and (3) cladding metal.
With regard to the potential reuse of separated materials, the
treatment of the 100 driver assemblies would result, after blending, in
approximately 1400 kilograms (3080 pounds) of low-enriched uranium. As
described in Section 2.3 of the environmental assessment, this low-
enriched uranium would be stored at Argonne National Laboratory-West
until a decision is made regarding its ultimate disposition. The
disposition of this material would be consistent with future
departmental decisions regarding other similar materials, but it would
not involve reuse for defense-related purposes. Potential disposition
options for this material include its sale to the commercial nuclear
industry for use as power reactor fuel.
For all of these reasons, the Department of Energy does not believe
that the proposed demonstration of electrometallurgical technology
constitutes ``reprocessing'' within the meaning of 10 CFR Part 1021,
Appendix D to Subpart D, even if it does fall within some broader
definitions of ``reprocessing'' that are used in other contexts.
Nonproliferation: Some commentors suggested that the proposed
demonstration project is contrary to the nonproliferation policy of the
United States regarding materials that could be used by other countries
or groups to construct nuclear weapons. The United States policy on
nonproliferation is contained in Presidential Decision Directive 13, a
classified document. On September 27, 1993, at the time Presidential
Decision Directive-13 was signed, an unclassified press release
summarizing its contents was issued. Among other things, the summary
states that the United States does not encourage the civil use of
plutonium, and accordingly the United States does not itself engage in
plutonium reprocessing for either nuclear weapons or nuclear power
purposes. As described in Section 4.7 of the environmental assessment,
the electrorefining equipment that would be a part of the proposed
demonstration project is not capable of separating plutonium from spent
nuclear fuel. The plutonium contained in the spent nuclear fuel, along
with other actinides and most constituent fission products, would be
immobilized in the zeolite ceramic waste form. Thus, because it does
not separate plutonium, the proposed demonstration is consistent with
the nonproliferation policy of the United States.
Some of the commentors suggested, however, that with adjustment to
or refinements of either of the electrorefiners that would be a part of
the Proposed Action, this technology could be made to separate
plutonium for weapons use. During the Integral Fast Reactor Program,
which was canceled in 1994, the Department attempted to develop an
electrorefiner that included a liquid cadmium cathode to collect and
concentrate plutonium and all other transuranic elements present in the
spent nuclear fuel. Successful application of this process would have
resulted in a plutonium product contaminated or mixed with uranium,
other transuranic elements, and rare earth fission products.
Development of the cathode progressed only to the point where the
technical feasibility of the concept was established. No prototype or
working model was ever commissioned for the Fuel Conditioning Facility.
As conceived, however, the liquid cadmium cathode would have
produced a metal-alloy product containing up to 70 percent plutonium;
this plutonium alloy could have been obtained only after subsequent
processing in a high-temperature vacuum furnace. The balance of
materials remaining in the plutonium product after electrorefining, but
prior to subsequent processing, would be those most difficult to
separate from plutonium by any chemical means: uranium, americium,
neptunium, curium, and the rare earth fission products. This plutonium
metal-alloy product would have high transuranic content, a high heat
source, a high neutron radiation source, and a high gamma radiation
source, any one of which would make design of a weapon extremely
difficult. Neutron and gamma radiation sources would be three to four
orders of magnitude higher than weapons-grade or reactor-grade
material. These levels of radiation are lethal and would require
handling of the material by remote means. As a result of the high heat,
neutron, and gamma radiation sources, and the transuranic
contamination, any attempt to use plutonium in this form for weapons
purposes would add significant difficulties to any potential
proliferant's efforts.
The Department requested a study by the Defense Technologies
Engineering Division of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to
determine the feasibility of misusing electrometallurgical technology
in order to produce plutonium that could be used in a proliferant
nuclear weapons program. While the report from that study is
classified, an unclassified presentation on the conclusions from the
report was given to the Department by Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in March 1994 and is summarized in Section 4.7 of the
environmental assessment. The unclassified presentation stated that the
report concluded that significant new process inventions and new
weapons designs would be required before material resulting from the
process could be used in a nuclear weapons program. The major problems
for prospective weapons designers would be:
(a) the actinides collected with the fission products would result
in a very high heat output, which would complicate and might even
preclude the design of even a simple nuclear device due to the heat
output's effect on high explosive and plutonium components; (b)
radiation levels from the material would be incapacitating and lethal
to individuals coming in contact with the material for the purpose of
weapons fabrication; (c) designing processes to deal with these
radiation levels would significantly complicate a proliferant's
development and deployment programs and production activities; and (d)
over time, high radiation fields would
[[Page 25654]]
negatively impact material behavior and electronic circuitry.
Some of the commentors also suggested that, because this technology
separates highly-enriched uranium from the Experimental Breeder
Reactor-II driver spent nuclear fuel, use of the technology would
violate United States policy on nonproliferation. While it is correct
that the technology would separate the highly-enriched uranium from the
driver spent nuclear fuel, under the proposed demonstration project the
highly-enriched uranium would be melted in the casting furnace and
combined with depleted uranium to produce low-enriched uranium (less
than 20 percent enrichment) without ever leaving the argon cell. This
blending-down activity would, in fact, be part of the spent nuclear
fuel treatment process. Blending down would be done to reduce costs
associated with the higher levels of security required for safeguarding
highly-enriched uranium. Also, it should be noted that this technology
is incapable of increasing the level of enrichment of uranium contained
in spent nuclear fuel being treated. Therefore, this technology would
not be useful to a nation seeking to enrich uranium to weapons-grade
level. However, because the technology permits the separation of
highly-enriched uranium, which could, in the wrong hands, pose a
proliferation risk, the Department would exercise its authority to
prevent proliferation sensitive information and technology advances
resulting from the proposed demonstration from becoming available to
potential proliferant-risk countries, including exercising its
authority under the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act
of 1978 and the Department's implementing regulations. Separating the
highly-enriched uranium from Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent
nuclear fuel and blending it down to less than 20 percent enrichment is
consistent with United States nonproliferation policy.
Appropriate Level of National Environmental Policy Act Review:
Several commentors suggested that the Proposed Action is part of a
larger program, and that the Department must prepare an environmental
impact statement that analyzes the larger program, including full-scale
implementation of electrometallurgical treatment. Commentors further
expressed concern that the Proposed Action would prejudice the
Department's choice of options under a larger program, either because
of the commitment of resources that would be invested in studying the
electrometallurgical technology, or because the proposed demonstration
would set a precedent for the technology's further, broader
application.
The Department does not agree with these assertions. The Department
has no current proposal to apply the technology more broadly. The
Department prepared this environmental assessment to assess the
environmental impacts of a proposal to apply electrometallurgical
treatment technology only to a limited number of Experimental Breeder
Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel assemblies sufficient for the purpose of
further research and development as recommended by the National
Research Council. The Department needs the information from the
proposed demonstration to determine whether electrometallurgical
treatment is a feasible technology for treating the remainder of the
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or other spent
nuclear fuel requiring processing for disposal. Only after data from
such a demonstration are analyzed can the Department assess whether to
propose a broader application of the technology. In the absence of a
proposal for broader application, no ``program'' or broader activity
exists to be analyzed.
The Department has decided to proceed with the proposed
demonstration. Even if successful, however, the demonstration would not
automatically lead to the treatment of more Experimental Breeder
Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or to other broader applications of
electrometallurgical technology. The Department will not make any
significant additional use of the electrometallurgical refining
technology without first preparing an environmental impact statement.
Specifically, the Department will not use this technology to treat the
remaining Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel or make another
production-scale use of the technology without preparing an
environmental impact statement.
Public Comment Process: Several commentors suggested that the
Department did not allow the public proper and timely access to the
documents referenced in the draft environmental assessment. The draft
environmental assessment was transmitted for public review and comment
on January 29, 1996, with an initial comment period from February 5 to
March 22. References cited in the draft environmental assessment
originally were not sent to the public reading rooms, but were
available upon request from the Department of Energy document manager
in Idaho.
In the course of public hearings in Idaho Falls, Idaho, on February
21, 1996, a commentor requested that the documents referenced in the
draft environmental assessment be made available in the Department's
public reading rooms and that the public comment period be extended by
another two months. The Department agreed to place the references in
the public reading rooms but deferred the decision on extending the
comment period. A member of the Department of Energy panel stated that
he would ``* * * try to have them (the references) in the public
reading rooms within the next week.'' Thirty-seven of the 48 references
were reproduced and sent to each of the nine public reading rooms by
March 8. The Department believed the remaining 11 references were
already in the reading rooms as references to the Department of Energy
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Programs Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0203-F). On March 25,
another commentor brought to the Department's attention the fact that
not all documents were in the public reading rooms in Washington, D.C.
and in Idaho Falls. In response, the missing documents were sent
directly to the commentor, and duplicates were placed in the reading
rooms. The comment response period was extended to April 5.
In response to additional comments that not all documents had been
found in the public reading rooms, an inventory of each of the reading
rooms was taken by Department of Energy or Argonne National Laboratory
personnel on April 6. Missing documents were provided, and all
documents were personally verified by Department of Energy or Argonne
National Laboratory personnel to be in place in the reading rooms on
April 8. Further, an additional document and reference location was
established in the main library of the University of California at
Irvine. On April 15, 1996, the public comment period was reopened until
May 3. The Department believes that making the reference documents
available to the public and reopening the comment period have allowed
an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the environmental
assessment and to consult the reference documents.
Finding
Based on the analysis in the environmental assessment and after
considering all comments received
[[Page 25655]]
through the public review process, the Department of Energy has
determined that the Electrometallurgical Treatment Research and
Demonstration Project in the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne
National Laboratory - West does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Therefore, an
environmental impact statement is not required.
Issued in Washington, D.C., this 15th day of May 1996.
Terry R. Lash,
Director Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 96-12861 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P