[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 152 (Monday, August 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48224-48228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19926]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for the Savannah River Site Spent Nuclear Fuel 
Management Final Environmental Impact Statement, Aiken, SC

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Savannah River Site Spent Nuclear Fuel Management 
Environmental Impact Statement (SRS SNF Management EIS, DOE/EIS-0279, 
March 2000) considered alternative ways of managing spent nuclear fuel 
(SNF) at DOE's Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina. Based on 
that analysis, DOE has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative 
identified in the EIS. As part of the Preferred Alternative, DOE will 
develop and demonstrate the Melt and Dilute technology to manage about 
97 percent by volume and 60 percent by mass of the aluminum-based SNF 
considered in the EIS (48 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) aluminum-
based SNF).
    Following development and demonstration of the technology 
(including characterization and qualification of the Melt and Dilute 
product to meet anticipated repository acceptance criteria), DOE will 
begin detailed design, construction, testing, and startup of a 
Treatment and Storage Facility (TSF). The SNF will remain in existing 
wet storage until treated and placed in dry storage in the TSF. The TSF 
will combine the transfer and treatment (Melt and Dilute) functions, to 
be constructed in the existing 105-L building, with a new dry storage 
facility to be constructed in L Area near the 105-L building.
    DOE also has decided to use Conventional Processing (i.e., the 
existing canyons) to stabilize about 3 percent by volume and 40 percent 
by mass of the aluminum-based SNF. If the TSF becomes available before 
these materials have been stabilized, DOE may use the Melt and Dilute 
technology rather than Conventional Processing for their stabilization. 
DOE has also decided to continue to store small quantities of higher 
actinide materials until DOE determines their final disposition.
    In addition, DOE will ship approximately 20 MTHM of non-aluminum-
based SNF from the SRS to the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). If DOE identifies any imminent health 
and safety concerns involving any aluminum-based SNF before the TSF 
becomes available, DOE will use Conventional Processing to stabilize 
the material of concern.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SRS SNF Management EIS and this Record of 
Decision may be obtained by calling a toll free number (1-800-881-
7292), sending an e-mail request to ``[email protected],'' or by mailing a 
request to: Andrew Grainger, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
Compliance Officer, Savannah River Operations Office, Department of 
Energy, Building 742A, Room 185, Aiken, South Carolina 29808. The final 
SRS SNF Management EIS (including the 33-page Summary) and this Record 
of Decision are available on the Office of Environmental Management's 
web site, http://www.em.doe.gov, and on DOE's NEPA web site, http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the SRS SNF 
management program can be submitted by calling 1-800-881-7292, mailing 
them to Mr. Andrew Grainger at the above address, or sending them 
electronically to the Savannah River Operations e-mail address, 
``[email protected].''
    For general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: 
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, 
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 
DC 20585, 202-586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    DOE previously completed the Interim Management of Nuclear 
Materials (IMNM) EIS (DOE/EIS-0220, October 1995), that included the 
management of 195 MTHM of aluminum-based SNF at the SRS. The primary 
purpose of the actions considered in the IMNM EIS was to correct or 
eliminate potential health and safety vulnerabilities related to some 
of the methods used to store nuclear materials (including SNF) at the 
SRS.
    After completion of the IMNM EIS, DOE decided to stabilize about 
175 MTHM of the 195 MTHM of aluminum-based SNF that was in storage at 
the SRS in 1995. DOE also decided the remaining 20 MTHM (out of 195 
MTHM) of aluminum-based SNF at SRS was ``stable'' (i.e., the SNF likely 
could be safely stored for about 10 more years, pending decisions on 
final disposition). That 20 MTHM of aluminum-based SNF is included in 
the SNF inventory considered in the SRS SNF Management EIS. In 
addition, the SRS SNF Management EIS considered approximately 20 MTHM 
of other SNF that is to be managed at the SRS as a result of prior NEPA 
analyses, as described below.
    In 1995, DOE undertook a decision-making process to consolidate SNF 
across its nuclear facility complex. The Record of Decision (60 FR 
28680, June 1, 1995; amended 61 FR 9441, March 8, 1996) for the 
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National 
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
Programs EIS (DOE/EIS-0203, April 1995) identified three facilities 
within the DOE complex where SNF should be managed. The facilities were 
chosen based on fuel types.
    DOE decided that existing Hanford production reactor SNF would 
remain at Hanford, aluminum-based SNF would be consolidated at the SRS, 
and non-aluminum-based SNF would be consolidated at the INEEL. As a 
result, DOE will transfer about 20 MTHM of non-aluminum-based SNF from 
the SRS to INEEL and about 5 MTHM of aluminum-based SNF from INEEL to 
the SRS. Thus, the SRS SNF Management EIS evaluated the impacts of 
preparing 20 MTHM of non-aluminum-based SNF for shipment from the SRS 
to INEEL. The SRS SNF Management EIS also evaluated the management and 
treatment options for the 5 MTHM of aluminum-based SNF due to be 
received from INEEL.
    In 1996, DOE issued a Record of Decision for the Final EIS on a 
Proposed

[[Page 48225]]

Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research 
Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel (DOE/EIS-0218, February 1996). DOE decided 
(61 FR 25092, May 17, 1996) to accept approximately 18 MTHM of 
aluminum-based SNF (of United States origin) from foreign research 
reactors for management at the SRS, with additional SNF to be managed 
at INEEL. Shipments of foreign research reactor SNF to the SRS began in 
1996 and are expected to continue until 2009. Consequently, the 
potential environmental impacts of managing and treating the 18 MTHM of 
aluminum-based foreign research reactor fuel were evaluated in the SRS 
SNF Management EIS.
    The SRS SNF Management EIS also evaluated the treatment and storage 
of about 5 MTHM of aluminum-based domestic research reactor SNF. 
Shipments of spent domestic research reactor fuel to the SRS for 
management were assumed to continue until 2035. Finally, the SRS SNF 
Management EIS evaluated the storage and/or repackaging of higher 
actinide targets. These targets contain americium and curium isotopes 
that could be used in the production of elements with higher atomic 
numbers such as californium-252. Californium-252 is used as a neutron 
source for radiography and in the treatment of certain types of cancer, 
and for research in basic chemistry, nuclear physics, and solid-state 
chemistry. The mass of higher actinide targets stored at the SRS is 
less than 0.1 MTHM.
    As detailed above, the total quantity of SNF to be managed by the 
SRS that is evaluated in the SRS SNF Management EIS is approximately 68 
MTHM, composed of 48 MTHM aluminum-based SNF and 20 MTHM non-aluminum-
based SNF.
    The 48 MTHM of aluminum-based SNF to be managed and prepared for 
disposition are comprised as follows: 20 MTHM in existing wet storage; 
about 10 MTHM to be received from INEEL and domestic research reactors; 
and up to 18 MTHM to be received from foreign research reactors. The 
SRS must also manage about 20 MTHM of non-aluminum-based SNF until it 
is shipped to INEEL.
    DOE expects to dispose of its aluminum-based SNF in a geologic 
repository after treatment or packaging. To achieve that goal, DOE is 
developing and preparing to implement a management strategy that 
includes preparing SRS aluminum-based SNF for disposal. DOE is 
committed to avoiding indefinite storage at the SRS of SNF in a form 
that is unsuitable for disposal. Therefore, DOE has identified 
management technologies and facilities for storing and treating this 
SNF in preparation for disposal.

Materials Analyzed

    In order to facilitate the identification of appropriate treatment 
technologies for the SNF, DOE grouped the SNF based on characteristics 
such as fuel size, physical and chemical properties, and radionuclide 
inventory. SNF was assigned to six SNF groups. For the reader's 
convenience, the six SNF groups will be referred to according to the 
letters A through F as listed below:

Group A. Uranium and Thorium Metal Fuels
Group B. Material Test Reactor-Like Fuels
Group C. Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)/Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) 
Oxides and Silicides
Group D. Loose Uranium Oxide
Group E. Higher Actinide Targets
Group F. Non-Aluminum-Clad Fuels.

    The six SNF groups are described in the SRS SNF Management EIS 
beginning on page 1-7.

Technologies Analyzed

    DOE identified seven technologies that could be used to prepare SNF 
at SRS for disposition: (1) Prepare for Direct Disposal/Direct Co-
Disposal; (2) Repackage and Prepare to Ship to Other DOE Sites; (3) 
Melt and Dilute; (4) Mechanical Dilution; (5) Vitrification 
Technologies; (6) Electrometallurgical Treatment; and (7) Conventional 
Processing Technology.
    Technologies 1 and 2 are ``New Packaging Technology options;'' 
technologies 3 through 6 are ``New Processing Technology options.'' 
Most of the New Packaging Technology options and the New Processing 
Technology options are technologies that DOE previously has not applied 
to the management of aluminum-based SNF for the purpose of ultimate 
disposition. DOE assigned the highest confidence of success and 
greatest technical suitability to options that have relatively simple 
approaches.
    These seven technologies are described in the SRS SNF Management 
EIS beginning at page 2-8. The applicability of the New Packaging 
Technology options to the SNF groups is shown in Table 2-1 (page 2-10), 
and the applicability of the New Processing Technology options to the 
SNF groups is shown in Table 2-2 (page 2-14). The applicability of 
Conventional Processing technology to the SNF groups is described on 
page 2-17 of the SRS SNF Management EIS.

Alternatives Considered

    Considering the technology options applicable to the SNF groups and 
decisions previously made about managing certain types of SNF, DOE 
developed five broad categories of alternatives that could be used to 
manage SRS SNF: No-Action, Minimum Impact, Direct Disposal, Maximum 
Impact, and the Preferred Alternative. These alternatives are 
summarized below and in Table 2-8 (page 2-36 of the SRS SNF Management 
EIS), and described in more detail in the SRS SNF Management EIS 
beginning on page 2-35. For wastes generated under all alternatives, 
DOE would use the existing SRS waste management facilities to treat, 
store, dispose, or recycle the waste in accordance with applicable 
requirements.

Preferred Alternative

    DOE's Preferred Alternative is to use a combination of technologies 
(Melt and Dilute, Conventional Processing, and Repackage and Prepare to 
Ship to Other DOE Sites) to manage the SNF. The Preferred Alternative 
is within the mid-range on the scale of potential environmental impacts 
and provides for the long-term protection of the environment. DOE 
expects that the materials resulting from the Melt and Dilute process 
and Conventional Processing would be acceptable for disposal in a 
geologic repository. The Preferred Alternative would meet all legal 
requirements and policy commitments. In addition, the Preferred 
Alternative is consistent with DOE's long-range plans to dispose of 
SNF.
    Under the Preferred Alternative, DOE would use each technology to 
treat specific groups of SNF as described below and in the SRS SNF 
Management EIS (on page 2-38, and in Figure 2-15, page 2-40). Melt and 
Dilute would be used to treat Group B, most of Group C, and most of 
Group D. Conventional processing would be used for Group A, part of 
Group C, and part of Group D. Continued wet storage would be used for 
Group E. Repackage and Prepare to Ship to Other DOE Sites would be used 
for Group F.
    DOE will continue to store small quantities of higher actinide 
materials until DOE determines their final disposition, and will 
continue to wet-store the Non-Aluminum-Clad SNF at SRS until the 
material is shipped to the INEEL. DOE could transfer the Non-Aluminum-
Clad SNF to dry storage after the material has been relocated from the 
Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel to the L-Reactor Disassembly Basin in 
support of activities to phase-out operations in

[[Page 48226]]

the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel by fiscal year 2007.

No Action

    Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would continue to store the 
SNF in the wet basins at the SRS indefinitely with the exception of 
Group F, for which the alternative, Repackage and Prepare to Ship to 
Other DOE Sites, would be used. While the No Action Alternative would 
result in few immediate environmental impacts, it provides for the 
least overall protection of the environment because it would not 
prepare the SNF for eventual disposal in a repository. Over the 
potential 40 years of continued wet storage under the No Action 
Alternative, some fuel could deteriorate.
    Conventional Processing facilities, if they were operating for 
other reasons, could be used to stabilize any SNF that presented an 
environmental, safety, or health vulnerability. Conventional Processing 
facilities, however, are extremely unlikely to be operating over the 
entire potential 40 years of continued wet storage, and under the No 
Action Alternative there would be no means to stabilize SNF that 
presented a health or safety vulnerability once the Conventional 
Processing facilities were shut down. In addition, this alternative is 
inconsistent with DOE's commitment to avoid indefinite SNF storage at 
the SRS in a form that is unsuitable for final disposition.

Minimum Impact

    The Minimum Impact Alternative combines the technologies (Prepare 
for Direct Disposal/Direct Co-Disposal, Melt and Dilute, Repackage and 
Prepare to Ship to Other DOE Sites) that DOE believes would result in 
the lowest overall potential environmental impact from SNF management. 
Prepare for Direct Disposal/Direct Co-Disposal would be used for Groups 
A, B, and C. Melt and Dilute would be used to treat Group D. Repackage 
and Prepare to Ship to Other DOE Sites would be used for Groups E and 
F.
    The Minimum Impact Alternative was not selected because the use of 
Prepare for Direct Disposal/Direct Co-Disposal for HEU aluminum-clad 
fuel has a high degree of technical uncertainty concerning the 
acceptance of this type of fuel in a geologic repository without 
treatment. DOE has committed to store its SNF at the SRS in a ``road-
ready''/disposal form.
    Even if most of the HEU aluminum-clad SNF could be directly 
disposed of, there is a small portion of that SNF that DOE believes 
could not be disposed of without treatment. A Melt and Dilute facility 
thus would have to be developed in any event for that small portion of 
SNF. Finally, for any SNF that presented a potential health and safety 
vulnerability, mitigating actions (i.e., packaging and dry storage) 
would be delayed for several years.

Maximum Impact

    The Maximum Impact Alternative analyzed in the SRS SNF Management 
EIS represents the upper bound on the range of potential environmental 
impacts. For the analyses, two technologies (Conventional Processing 
and Repackage and Prepare to Ship to Other DOE Sites) are used for the 
management of the SNF. Repackage and Prepare to Ship to Other Sites 
would be used for SNF from Groups E and F. Conventional Processing 
would be used to treat all remaining SNF groups, including the Mark-18 
targets from Group E.
    This alternative would generate the greatest volume of liquid high-
level waste that would have to be stored and eventually vitrified into 
glass canisters in the Defense Waste Processing Facility at the SRS. 
DOE has a high level of confidence that the vitrified (borosilicate 
glass) waste canisters would meet geologic repository acceptance 
criteria because borosilicate glass has been tested and analyzed 
extensively under potential repository conditions.
    Conventional Processing operations would continue until the 
aluminum-based SNF inventory was eliminated and the SNF receipt rate 
was low (i.e., about 150 Materials Test Reactor-like elements per year 
and 12 High Flux Isotope Reactor assemblies per year). This state would 
be expected to occur around 2009. In parallel with the Conventional 
Processing operations, DOE could construct a Transfer, Storage, and 
Treatment Facility with capability to manage newly received SNF after 
Conventional Processing operations ceased.
    As stated in the SRS SNF Management EIS and based on the Record of 
Decision on a Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning 
Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel (61 FR 25092, May 17, 
1996), DOE prefers not to utilize Conventional Processing for reasons 
other than addressing safety and health concerns. In addition, H-Canyon 
capacity is already scheduled for several years to process materials 
other than those considered in the SRS SNF Management EIS, and 
therefore would not be available for several years to process SNF that 
did not present a health or safety vulnerability.

Direct Disposal

    The Direct Disposal Alternative would use a combination of 
technologies (Conventional Processing, Prepare for Direct Disposal/
Direct Co-Disposal, Melt and Dilute, and Repackage and Prepare to Ship 
to Other DOE Sites) to manage the SNF. This alternative is within the 
mid-range on the scale of potential environmental impacts.
    Conventional Processing would be used for all of Group A, the 
Sterling Forest Oxide from Group D, and the failed or sectioned SNF 
from Group C because these materials present potential health and 
safety concerns and would not likely be suitable for placement in a 
geologic repository. Prepare for Direct Disposal/Direct Co-Disposal 
would be used for Group B and all SNF (except the failed and sectioned 
SNF) in Group C. Melt and Dilute would be used for a majority of the 
SNF in Group D. Repackage and Prepare to Ship to Other DOE Sites would 
be used for Groups E and F.
    The Direct Disposal Alternative was not selected because there is a 
high degree of technical uncertainty regarding the potential 
acceptability of HEU aluminum-clad SNF for disposal in a geologic 
repository, and because costs of developing and building a Melt and 
Dilute Facility would have to be incurred to treat only a small portion 
of the SNF.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The environmentally preferable alternative is the Minimum Impact 
Alternative because implementation of this alternative would result in 
the lowest overall environmental impacts. The Minimum Impact 
Alternative was not selected because the use of Prepare for Direct 
Disposal/Direct Co-Disposal for HEU aluminum-clad fuel has a high 
degree of technical uncertainty concerning the ability of this type of 
SNF to be accepted in a geologic repository without treatment. If 
treatment were required to prepare SNF for disposal, further 
environmental impacts would result. Further, use of Melt and Dilute for 
any SNF that could not be directly disposed of would be costly. 
Finally, deferred treatment of any SNF with potential health and safety 
vulnerabilities is not considered a prudent course of action.

[[Page 48227]]

Comments on Savannah River Site Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Final 
Environmental Impact Statement

    Three public comments were received on the final EIS. One comment 
from Coalition 21, a not-for-profit corporation that promotes nuclear 
technology, opposed the use of the Melt and Dilute technology because 
potentially valuable HEU would be discarded, and because this 
technology would be more dangerous than Conventional Processing due to 
the higher temperature required for the Melt and Dilute technology. The 
amount of HEU that would be discarded would be insignificant compared 
to the amount of enriched uranium available to commercial nuclear power 
plants. Moreover, there is an excess supply of uranium for commercial 
use for the foreseeable future. Finally, all of the HEU from the 
research reactor SNF has been irradiated and, if this material were 
recovered and blended down for use in commercial nuclear power plants, 
the presence of uranium-236 in the enriched uranium would make it less 
attractive for use in nuclear fuels. DOE has experience in the melting 
of HEU and has a good safety record.
    While DOE acknowledges that some uncertainty surrounds the new 
technology, the development of the Melt and Dilute technology and the 
design of the TSF would ensure that safety standards are met and 
environmental releases are minimized. Further, safety analyses would be 
performed to ensure that the process would be safe and the risks to the 
public and plant personnel would be low.
    The second public comment, from the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4, stated that EPA continued to have 
environmental concerns about cumulative impacts of the project. DOE 
discussed this comment with EPA staff because no specific concerns were 
cited. EPA staff told DOE that this comment reflected the uncertainty 
regarding what alternative DOE ultimately would decide to implement. 
DOE has provided a thorough analysis of the cumulative impacts of SNF 
management at the SRS in Chapter 5 of the SRS SNF Management EIS, and 
believes that, by selecting the Preferred Alternative, it has addressed 
EPA's concerns.
    The third public comment, from the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human 
Services, stated that the Department of Health and Human Services' 
concerns have been addressed in the final EIS, and that the Department 
had no additional comments.

Decision

    DOE has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative identified 
in the SRS SNF Management EIS, which provides for long-term protection 
of the environment and minimizes potential short-term environmental 
impacts and health risks. Specifically:
    1. DOE has decided to implement the Melt and Dilute technology for 
managing about 97 percent by volume and 60 percent by mass of the 48 
MTHM of aluminum-based SNF considered in the SRS SNF Management EIS. 
Implementation of the Melt and Dilute technology will be achieved 
through development and demonstration of the technology using full-size 
irradiated fuel elements, characterization and qualification of the 
Melt and Dilute SNF product to meet anticipated geologic repository 
acceptance criteria, completion of full-scale facility design, and 
construction, testing, and startup of the TSF. These implementation 
steps will build on the development work done to date and will proceed 
in a disciplined manner to ensure that operation of the TSF is 
achieved. The fuel will remain in wet storage basins at the SRS until 
treated and placed in dry storage in the TSF. The specific steps in the 
DOE implementation program include continuation of the development 
program leading to a demonstration of the Melt and Dilute technology in 
FY 2002 using full-size irradiated research reactor SNF assemblies. 
Information from this program will support the detailed design effort 
and reduce engineering and operational uncertainties. Based upon 
preliminary review and feedback from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
and the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, DOE 
believes that the work to characterize and qualify the product from the 
Melt and Dilute technology can be completed. DOE will pursue a 
disciplined implementation approach that builds on the success of the 
development, demonstration, and qualification efforts, and incorporates 
recent project management improvements instituted by DOE.
    DOE plans to complete the conceptual design for the TSF in FY 2002, 
to be followed in FY 2003 by preparation of preliminary design, which 
will incorporate information gained from the Melt and Dilute technology 
demonstration. Preliminary design will be followed by final design in 
FY 2004 and FY 2005. When the preliminary design is completed, the 
construction cost estimate and schedule will be reviewed and validated 
to establish the project baselines for completing the TSF.
    With this implementation strategy, DOE expects to have the TSF 
ready for Melt and Dilute and dry storage operations in FY 2008. DOE 
will ensure continued availability of the SRS Conventional Processing 
facilities until DOE has demonstrated implementation of the Melt and 
Dilute technology.
    To implement the Melt and Dilute technology, DOE will construct a 
Melt and Dilute facility in the existing 105-L building at the SRS and 
build a dry storage facility in L Area, near the 105-L building. As a 
back-up to Melt and Dilute, DOE will continue to evaluate the Prepare 
for Direct Disposal/Direct Co-Disposal option of the New Packaging 
Technology and would pursue implementation of this option if Melt and 
Dilute were not feasible. DOE has decided that Group B SNF, most Group 
C SNF, and most Group D SNF would be stored and then treated using the 
TSF when it becomes available.
    If DOE identifies any imminent health and safety concerns involving 
any aluminum-based SNF before TSF becomes operational, DOE has decided 
to use Conventional Processing to stabilize the material of concern. 
This decision is consistent with the Record of Decision on a Nuclear 
Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor 
Spent Nuclear Fuel, under which DOE decided to pursue one or more new 
technologies that would put the foreign research reactor SNF in a form 
or container that is eligible for direct disposal in a geologic 
repository. In addition, the Melt and Dilute technology is fully 
compatible and supportive of the nonproliferation objectives of the 
United States.
    2. DOE has decided to use Conventional Processing to stabilize a 
small portion of materials before a new treatment facility is in place. 
The rationale for this processing is to avoid the possibility of urgent 
future actions, including expensive recovery actions that would entail 
unnecessary radiation exposure to workers, and, in one case, to manage 
a unique waste form (i.e., core filter block).
    This material includes the Experimental Breeder Reactor--II SNF, 
the Sodium Reactor Experiment SNF, the Mark-42 targets, and the core 
filter block from Group A; the failed or sectioned Tower Shielding 
Reactor, High Flux Isotope Reactor, Oak Ridge Reactor, and Heavy Water 
Components Test Reactor SNF and a Mark-14 target from Group C; and the 
Sterling Forest Oxide (and any other powdered/oxide fuel that may be 
received at SRS while

[[Page 48228]]

H-Canyon is still in operation) from Group D.
    Although it is possible that Melt and Dilute technology could be 
applied to most of these materials, DOE considers timely alleviation of 
potential health and safety vulnerabilities to be the most prudent 
course of action because it would stabilize materials whose forms or 
types pose a heightened probability of releasing fission products in 
wet storage. Nonetheless, if these materials have not been stabilized 
before the TSF becomes available, the TSF may be used rather than 
Conventional Processing. Some of this fuel will be processed in H-
Canyon where the highly enriched uranium would be blended down to low 
enriched uranium and stored pending potential sale as feed stock for 
commercial nuclear fuel.
    3. DOE has decided to continue to wet-store the Mark-18, Mark-51 
and the other higher actinide targets until DOE determines their final 
disposition. In addition, 20 MTHM of non-aluminum-based SNF will be 
shipped to INEEL.
    In reaching these decisions, DOE considered a number of factors, 
including the paramount goal that the processes and facilities used to 
prepare aluminum-based SNF for disposal in a geologic repository be 
cost-effective and present only low risks to workers and the public.
    Other factors considered in this decision include the environmental 
analyses reported in the SRS SNF Management EIS; estimated costs of the 
alternatives evaluated in the Report on the Savannah River Site 
Aluminum-based Spent Nuclear Fuel Alternatives Cost Study; 
nonproliferation impacts as reported in the DOE Office of Arms Control 
and Nonproliferation report, ``Nonproliferation Impacts Assessment for 
the Management of the Savannah River Site Aluminum-Based Spent Nuclear 
Fuel;'' the National Academy of Sciences report, ``Research Reactor 
Aluminum Spent Fuel--Treatment Options for Disposal;'' regulatory 
implications of the alternatives; DOE missions; and public comments on 
both the SRS SNF Management Draft and Final EIS, including those of the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
    DOE evaluated factors such as technical availability, 
nonproliferation and safeguards, cost, labor availability and core 
competency, and custodial care. There were no issues associated with 
these factors that indicated a clear advantage or disadvantage for a 
particular SNF management alternative.

Mitigation

    DOE is committed to operating the SRS in compliance with all 
applicable laws, regulations, DOE orders, permits and compliance 
agreements. Section 4.3 of the SRS SNF Management EIS presents an 
overview of the mitigation measures that will be taken to minimize the 
risks associated with the construction and operation of the TSF (e.g., 
strong ``stop work'' stipulations in the event that cultural resources 
or human remains are discovered, and runoff control). DOE considers 
these to be routine mitigation measures that do not require a 
mitigation action plan (see 10 CFR 1021.331(a)).

    Issued at Washington, DC, July 24, 2000.
Carolyn L. Huntoon,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 00-19926 Filed 8-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P