[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56565-56570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24005]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for the Treatment and Management of Sodium-
Bonded Spent Nuclear Fuel

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: DOE has issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Treatment and Management of Sodium-Bonded Spent Nuclear Fuel (final 
EIS) (Notice of Availability, 65 FR 47987, August 4, 2000) (DOE/EIS-
0306, July 2000). After careful consideration of public comments on the 
draft EIS and programmatic, environmental, nonproliferation, and cost 
issues, DOE has decided to implement the preferred alternative 
identified in the final EIS. That is, DOE has decided to 
electrometallurgically treat the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-
II) spent nuclear fuel (about 25 metric tons of heavy metal) and 
miscellaneous small lots of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. The fuel 
will be treated at Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-W). Because of 
the different physical characteristics of the Fermi-1 sodium-bonded 
blanket spent nuclear fuel (about 34 metric tons of heavy metal), DOE 
has decided to continue to store this material while alternative 
treatments are evaluated. Should no alternative prove more cost 
effective for this spent nuclear fuel, electrometallurgical treatment 
(EMT) of the Fermi-1 spent nuclear fuel remains a key option.

ADDRESSES: The final EIS and this ROD are available on the Office of 
Environment, Safety and Health National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
home page at http://www.tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ or on the Office of 
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology home page at http://nuclear.gov. 
You may request copies of the final EIS and this ROD by calling the 
toll-free number 1-877-450-6904, by faxing requests to 1-877-621-8288, 
via electronic mail to [email protected], or via mail to: 
Susan Lesica, Document Manager, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and 
Technology, NE-40, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, 
Germantown, Maryland 20874.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the alternative 
strategies for the treatment and management of sodium-bonded spent 
nuclear fuel, contact Susan Lesica at the address listed above. For 
general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Carol 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20585, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    For nearly four decades, research, development, and demonstration 
activities associated with liquid metal fast breeder reactors were 
conducted at EBR-II, about 40 miles west of Idaho Falls, Idaho; the 
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant (Fermi-1) in Monroe, Michigan; and the 
Fast Flux Test Facility at the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. 
These activities generated approximately 60 metric tons of heavy metal 
of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel for which DOE is now responsible 
for safe management and disposition.
    Sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel is distinguished from other 
nuclear reactor spent nuclear fuel by the presence of metallic sodium 
(a highly reactive material), metallic uranium and plutonium (which are 
also potentially reactive), and in some cases, highly enriched uranium. 
Metallic sodium in particular presents challenges for management and 
ultimate disposal of this spent nuclear fuel. Metallic sodium reacts 
with water to produce explosive hydrogen gas and corrosive sodium 
hydroxide that would likely not be acceptable for geologic disposal.
    DOE's sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel is of two general types: 
driver fuel and blanket fuel. Driver fuel is used mainly in the center 
of the reactor core to ``drive'' and sustain the fission chain 
reaction. Blanket fuel is usually placed at the outer perimeter of the 
core and is used to breed plutonium-239, a fissile material, and for 
shielding. The blanket and driver fuel addressed in this ROD contain 
metallic sodium between the cladding (outer layer) and the metallic 
fuel pins to improve heat transfer from the fuel to the reactor coolant 
through the cladding. When the driver fuel is irradiated for some 
period of time, the metallic fuel swells as fission products are 
generated until it reaches the cladding wall. During this process, 
metallic sodium enters the metallic fuel and becomes inseparable from 
it. In addition, fuel and cladding components interdiffuse to such an 
extent that mechanical stripping of the driver spent nuclear fuel 
cladding is not a practical

[[Page 56566]]

means of removing the sodium. On the other hand, when blanket fuel is 
irradiated, the metallic fuel does not swell to the same degree as the 
driver fuel because less fission occurs, producing fewer fission 
products (i.e., lower ``burnup''). As a result, minimal metallic sodium 
enters the fuel and there is no interdiffusion between the fuel and 
cladding. This allows mechanical stripping of the blanket spent nuclear 
fuel cladding. Because of these differences between irradiated driver 
fuel and blanket fuel, there are different treatment alternatives for 
each fuel type.
    There are approximately 60 metric tons of heavy metal in the DOE's 
inventory of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. The inventory includes 
25 metric tons of heavy metal of fuel from EBR-II, of which three 
metric tons of heavy metal are driver fuel and 22 metric tons of heavy 
metal are blanket fuel. EBR-II fuel is stainless steel clad and is 
stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 
(INEEL). The EBR-II driver fuel contains highly enriched uranium in a 
uranium alloy, typically either zirconium or fissium (an alloy of 
molybdenum, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, zirconium, and niobium). The 
EBR-II blanket fuel contains depleted uranium in metallic form. 
Approximately 34 metric tons of heavy metal are blanket fuel from the 
Fermi-1 reactor and are stored at INEEL. This blanket fuel consists of 
stainless steel-clad, depleted uranium in a uranium-molybdenum alloy. 
Fermi-1 blanket elements are similar to EBR-II blanket elements in 
enrichment but differ in dimensions (Fermi-1 elements are larger), form 
(Fermi-1's uranium-molybdenum alloy versus EBR-II's uranium metal), and 
burnup. Because of its lower burnup, the Fermi-1 blanket fuel, which 
contains only about 0.2 percent plutonium by weight compared to 
approximately 1 percent plutonium by weight for the EBR-II blanket 
fuel, is subject to less stringent safeguard and security requirements 
than the EBR-II blanket fuel. This is an important consideration in the 
cost of storing these two fuel types.
    The remainder of the DOE's sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel 
inventory consists of small lots of miscellaneous sodium-bonded fuel, 
with a combined weight of approximately 400 kilograms of heavy metal 
(or 0.4 metric tons of heavy metal). Three hundred kilograms of this 
miscellaneous fuel are from liquid metal reactor test assemblies 
containing driver fuel that were irradiated at the Fast Flux Test 
Facility. The remaining 100 kilograms of heavy metal are small 
quantities of fuel from liquid metal reactor experiments that have 
metallic sodium or an alloy of sodium and potassium. These fuels differ 
in cladding composition, uranium content, enrichment, and burnup. Some 
of the fuel consists of uranium and/or plutonium carbides, nitrides, 
and oxides in addition to metal uranium or uranium alloy. This fuel is 
stored at several DOE sites, including the Hanford Site, Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, Savannah River Site (SRS), Sandia National 
Laboratories, and INEEL. Those lots stored outside INEEL will be 
transported to INEEL pursuant to the Record of Decision (60 FR 28680, 
June 1, 1995) for the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel EIS (DOE/EIS-
0203, April 1995).
    Before electrometallurgical treatment could be considered as a 
technology choice for treating EBR-II spent nuclear fuel, an 
appropriate demonstration project was needed to evaluate its technical 
feasibility. As a preliminary step to demonstration, DOE requested that 
the National Research Council conduct an independent assessment of 
electrometallurgical treatment technology and its potential application 
to EBR-II spent nuclear fuel. In its report, published in 1995, the 
National Research Council recommended that DOE proceed with 
demonstrating the technical feasibility of electrometallurgical 
treatment using a fraction of the EBR-II spent nuclear fuel. DOE then 
conducted an environmental assessment of the demonstration project. The 
environmental assessment was completed in May 1996 and resulted in a 
Finding of No Significant Impact. In June 1996, DOE initiated a three-
year testing program at ANL-W to demonstrate the technical feasibility 
of electrometallurgical treatment of up to 100 EBR-II driver spent 
nuclear fuel assemblies and up to 25 EBR-II blanket spent nuclear fuel 
assemblies. The two types of EBR-II spent nuclear fuel, driver and 
blanket, are typical of most of DOE's sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel.
    Working with DOE and the National Research Council review 
committee, ANL-W established four criteria for evaluating the 
demonstration. Upon completion of the demonstration, all key 
performance criteria were met or exceeded, proving the technical 
feasibility of using electrometallurgical treatment technology to treat 
sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. In addition, the demonstration 
project validated the throughput rate of the sodium-bonded spent 
nuclear fuel, quantified all process streams, fine-tuned the 
operational parameters, refined the electrometallurgical treatment 
equipment, and provided actual waste forms for characterization.
    DOE is now at the point of deciding how to manage the sodium-bonded 
spent nuclear fuel to facilitate its ultimate disposal in a geologic 
repository. The reasonable alternatives for this proposed action are 
predicated on the technology options available to DOE. There is some 
risk in implementing any alternative in that the resultant waste form 
may still not be acceptable for disposal in a geologic disposal. DOE 
currently is studying Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a potential site for 
development of a geologic repository. Under current schedules, final 
waste acceptance criteria would not be available until about 2005, and 
then only if a decision has been made to proceed with development of a 
repository at Yucca Mountain and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
issues a licence to construct the repository. The preliminary waste 
acceptance criteria for Yucca Mountain are used as a basis for planning 
treatment of the sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel.
    Currently, more than 98 percent of DOE's sodium-bonded spent 
nuclear fuel is located at INEEL, near Idaho Falls, Idaho. DOE 
committed to remove all spent nuclear fuel from Idaho by 2035 in a 1995 
agreement with the State of Idaho (Settlement Agreement and Consent 
Order issued on October 17, 1995, in the actions of Public Service Co. 
of Colorado v. Batt, No. CV 91-0035-S-EJL [D. Id.], and United States 
v. Batt, No. CV 91-0054-EJL [D. Id.]). Before sodium-bonded spent 
nuclear fuel can be removed from the State of Idaho for ultimate 
disposal, some or all of the fuel may require treatment.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    Sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel contains metallic sodium that was 
used as a heat-transfer medium within the stainless steel cladding 
(outer layer) of the nuclear fuel. While sodium has been removed from 
the fuel's external surface, some sodium remains bonded to the uranium 
metal alloy fuel within the cladding and cannot be removed without 
further treatment. This sodium could complicate compliance with the 
eventual final repository waste acceptance criteria. Metallic sodium 
reacts vigorously with water, producing heat, potentially explosive 
hydrogen gas, and sodium hydroxide, a corrosive substance. Sodium is 
also pyrophoric (i.e., susceptible to spontaneous ignition and 
continuous combustion). Most (i.e., 99 percent by weight) of the 
sodium-

[[Page 56567]]

bonded spent nuclear fuel contains metallic uranium and plutonium. 
These metals are reactive in the presence of air and moisture. The 
Yucca Mountain preliminary waste acceptance criteria exclude reactive 
and potentially explosive materials beyond trace quantities. 
Additionally, some of the sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel contains 
highly enriched uranium that could create criticality (that is, a self-
sustained nuclear chain reaction) concerns requiring control methods.
    To ensure that the terms of the State of Idaho Settlement Agreement 
and Consent Order are met and to facilitate disposal, DOE needs to 
reduce the uncertainties associated with qualifying sodium-bonded spent 
nuclear fuel for disposal. Treating the sodium-bonded spent nuclear 
fuel could make it significantly easier to dispose of the fuel. In 
addition, DOE could significantly reduce the safeguard and security 
costs associated with long-term storage of the EBR-II blanket spent 
nuclear fuel, due to its high plutonium content, by treating the fuel. 
Furthermore, delaying the implementation of this decision could result 
in a loss of capability and of technical staff knowledgeable about and 
experienced with the demonstration project. This was an important 
consideration in the decision to proceed with this NEPA review.

NEPA Process

    On February 22, 1999, DOE published in the Federal Register a 
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for 
Electrometallurgical Treatment of Sodium-Bonded Spent Nuclear Fuel in 
the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne National Laboratory-West (64 
FR 8553). During the 45-day scoping period, DOE received 228 comments 
on the proposed scope of the EIS via mail, telephone, facsimile, and 
during the four public scoping meetings. DOE considered these comments 
and, as a result, changed the proposed action of the EIS as well as the 
structure of the alternatives. The proposed action was changed from 
electrometallurgical treatment of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel at 
the Fuel Conditioning Facility at ANL-W to the treatment and management 
of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. This change was made to address 
concerns about bias for one treatment technology over others. The 
alternatives were restructured to reflect differences in the 
characteristics of the sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel types. Thus, 
several alternatives were added that treat blanket and driver spent 
nuclear fuel by different technologies.
    In July 1999, DOE published the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Treatment of Sodium-Bonded Spent Nuclear Fuel. The 
45-day comment period began on July 31, 1999, and was scheduled to end 
on September 13, 1999. In response to commentor requests, the comment 
period was extended an additional 15 days through September 28, 1999. 
Four public hearings were held during the comment period. A total of 
494 comments were received and considered, and responses can be found 
in the final EIS, which was issued in July 2000. Most of these comments 
focused on the following issues: (1) The purpose, need for, and timing 
of the proposed action; (2) new waste forms produced by the proposed 
action, their acceptability in a geologic repository, and the 
disposition of uranium and plutonium by-products; (3) the public 
availability of information considered relevant to reviewing the draft 
EIS; (4) the cost of the various alternatives; (5) the impacts of the 
proposed action on U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy; (6) technical 
or NEPA-related issues regarding technologies and alternatives; and (7) 
issues related to the affected environment and the environmental 
consequences. Volume 2, Section A.2 of Appendix A of the final EIS 
provides an overview of the public hearings and DOE's responses to all 
comments. No comments have been received on the final EIS.

II. Treatment Technology Options

EMT Process

    The EMT process uses electrorefining, an industrial technology used 
to produce pure metals from impure metal feedstock. Electrorefining has 
been used to purify metal for more than 100 years. The 
electrometallurgical process for treatment of EBR-II blanket and driver 
spent nuclear fuel assemblies containing metallic fuel was developed at 
Argonne National Laboratory. The process has been demonstrated for the 
stainless steel clad uranium alloy fuel used in EBR-II. Modifications 
to the process could be used for the treatment of oxide, nitride, and 
carbide sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. The fuel would be chopped, 
placed in molten salt, and electrorefined. After electrorefining, the 
molten salt, fission products, sodium, and transuranics, including 
plutonium, would be removed from the electrofiner, mixed with a filter 
and ion-exchange agent known as zeolite, and heated so the salt becomes 
sorbed into the zeolite structure. Glass powder then would be added to 
the zeolite mixture and consolidated to produce a ceramic high-level 
radioactive waste form. The uranium would be removed, melted (and 
depleted uranium would be added, if necessary), and processed in a 
metal casting furnace to produce low-enriched or depleted uranium 
ingots. The ingots would be stored until a disposition decision is made 
through a separate NEPA review. The stainless steel cladding hulls and 
the insoluble fission products would be melted in the casting furnace 
to produce a metallic high-level radioactive waste form.

Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Process

    The PUREX process has been used extensively throughout the world 
since 1954 to separate and purify uranium and plutonium from fission 
products contained in spent nuclear fuel and irradiated uranium 
targets. It is a chemical separation process that uses aqueous solvent 
extraction to perform the separation. DOE has two operating facilities 
at the SRS, F-Canyon and H-Canyon, that use the PUREX process. Use of 
these facilities for treating sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel involves 
certain restrictions inherent in the design: (1) The sodium complicates 
the process as employed in the SRS facilities; (2) the stainless steel 
cladding would require significant modifications or additions to the 
existing facilities; and (3) the presence of alloys (e.g., zirconium) 
is incompatible with the SRS dissolution process. For this reason, 
treatment of driver sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel is not feasible 
without significant modification to the existing PUREX process. 
However, the F-Canyon facility could be used without modifications for 
the blanket sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel if the spent nuclear fuel 
were declad and the sodium were removed prior to the process.
    After processing, the following would be produced: (1) An aqueous 
high-level radioactive waste containing the bulk of the fission 
products, americium, and neptunium; (2) a material stream containing 
the recovered plutonium (as plutonium metal); and (3) a material stream 
containing the recovered uranium (as uranium oxide). The aqueous high-
level radioactive waste would be processed to a borosilicate glass 
form. The uranium oxide would be stored on site as depleted uranium. 
The plutonium would be disposed of in accordance with the ROD (65 FR 
1608, January 11, 2000) for the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0283, November 1999).

[[Page 56568]]

High-Integrity Can Packaging

    High-integrity can packaging would provide substitute cladding for 
damaged or declad fuel and another level of containment for intact 
fuel. The can is constructed of a highly corrosion-resistant material 
to provide corrosion protection during storage. The high-integrity cans 
are placed into standardized canisters that are ready for disposal in 
waste packages. High-integrity cans would be used to store the sodium-
bonded spent nuclear fuel on site until it can be shipped to a 
repository.
    The EIS analysis for packaging sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel in 
high-integrity cans was performed with and without decladding and/or 
sodium removal. Packaging sodium-bonded blanket spent nuclear fuel in 
high-integrity cans with sodium removal was analyzed in the EIS under 
Alternative 2. Packaging sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel in high-
integrity cans without sodium removal was considered in the EIS as a 
direct disposal option under the No Action Alternative. The high-
integrity cans would be placed in dry storage at ANL-W. They would be 
placed into a standardized canister for transportation and eventual 
placement in waste packages in a geologic repository.

Melt and Dilute Process

    The melt and dilute process involves chopping and melting the spent 
nuclear fuel and diluting it by adding depleted uranium or other 
metals. There are three options for the melt and dilute process that 
are applicable to sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. In the first 
option, bare uranium blanket spent nuclear fuel pins with the sodium 
removed would be melted with aluminum at SRS using technology similar 
to the technology that DOE selected in the ROD (65 FR 48224, August 7, 
2000) for the treatment of aluminum-clad research reactor fuel at SRS. 
The second and third options would be conducted at ANL-W using 
metallurgical technology developed for uranium and stainless steel 
cladding. In the second option, blanket spent nuclear fuel elements 
would be melted with the cladding and additional stainless steel. In 
the first two options, dilution of the fissile component of the uranium 
would not be needed because it is present in amounts far less than in 
natural uranium. The third option would involve developing a new melt 
and dilute process capable of handling sodium volatilized from 
processing the chopped driver spent nuclear fuel elements with the 
sodium and cladding intact. In this process option, the fuel and 
stainless steel would be melted under a layer of material such as 
molten salt to oxidize the molten sodium. The process can be used for 
the metallic sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. The non-metallic uranium 
nitride, oxide, and carbide sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel cannot be 
treated with this process because of their high melting points.

III. Alternatives

    The following alternatives were analyzed in the EIS.
    Alternative 1--Both driver and blanket fuel would be treated using 
EMT at ANL-W.
    Alternative 2--EMT would be used at ANL-W to treat the driver fuel. 
The sodium from the blanket fuel would be removed without decladding, 
and the blanket elements would be packaged in high-integrity cans. 
Sodium removal and packaging would occur at ANL-W.
    Alternative 3--EMT would be used at ANL-W to treat the driver fuel. 
The fuel pins in the blanket fuel would be separated from the cladding 
and cleaned to remove metallic sodium at ANL-W. The cleaned fuel pins 
would be shipped to SRS for treatment using the PUREX process at the F-
Canyon facility.
    Alternative 4--EMT would be used at ANL-W to treat the driver fuel. 
The metallic sodium would be removed from the blanket fuel without 
decladding. Then the elements would be treated using the melt and 
dilute process. All treatment would occur at ANL-W.
    Alternative 5--EMT would be used at ANL-W to treat the driver fuel. 
The fuel pins in the blanket fuel would be separated from the cladding 
and cleaned to remove the metallic sodium at ANL-W. Then they would be 
shipped to SRS and treated using the melt and dilute process.
    Alternative 6--Both the driver and blanket fuel would be treated at 
ANL-W using the melt and dilute process, which would be modified 
slightly for each fuel type.

No Action Alternative

    Under the No Action Alternative, all or part of the sodium-bonded 
spent nuclear fuel would not be treated (no sodium would be removed), 
except for stabilization activities that may be necessary to prevent 
potential degradation of some of the spent nuclear fuel. Two options 
were analyzed: (1) the sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel would continue 
to be stored until 2035 at its current location, subject only to 
activities dictated by the amended ROD (61 FR 9441, March 1996) for the 
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel EIS and other existing site-specific 
NEPA documentation or until another technology, currently dismissed as 
an unreasonable alternative because it is less mature (e.g., Glass 
Material Oxidation and Dissolution System (GMODS) or plasma arc), is 
developed; and (2) the sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel would be 
disposed of directly in a geologic repository without treatment. The 
fuel would be packaged in high-integrity cans without sodium removal. 
Option 2 would not meet current DOE or Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(10 CFR 60.135) repository acceptance criteria.

Preferred Alternative

    In the final EIS, DOE identified electrometallurgical treatment as 
its preferred alternative for the treatment and management of all 
sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel, except for the Fermi-1 blanket fuel. 
The No Action Alternative is preferred for the Fermi-1 blanket spent 
nuclear fuel. Thus, the preferred alternative is a combination of 
Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative.

IV. Alternatives Considered But Dismissed

    In identifying the reasonable alternatives for evaluation in the 
EIS, two separate issues led to the determination of alternatives that 
were considered and dismissed: (1) the level of maturity of the 
alternative technologies and (2) the level of effort required to modify 
an existing facility to implement a specific technology. The 
construction of new facilities when existing facilities are still 
operational was not considered a reasonable option because of cost 
implications. The GMODS process and the direct plasma arc-vitreous 
ceramic process are not as mature as the electrometallurgical, melt and 
dilute, and PUREX processes when applied to sodium-bonded spent nuclear 
fuel. The GMODS and plasma arc processes both require extensive 
research and development before they can be proven successfully to 
treat sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. The GMODS and plasma arc-
vitreous ceramic processes each present specific technological 
challenges that cannot be answered without demonstration in pilot-scale 
plants. In comparison, the melt and dilute process is being tested and 
evaluated and has been selected for treatment of aluminum-clad spent 
nuclear fuel at SRS. However, use of the melt and dilute process for 
sodium-bonded driver spent nuclear fuel would require some technology 
enhancements. In addition, unlike the other technologies that would not 
require new

[[Page 56569]]

construction, both of these technologies (i.e., GMODS and plasma arc) 
would require the installation of large, specialized equipment in new 
hot cell facilities, the size and complexity of which are not 
determined sufficiently to allow detailed environmental impact 
analysis.

V. Summary of Environmental Impacts

    This section summarizes the environmental impacts associated with 
the No Action Alternative and the six alternatives under the proposed 
action that were evaluated in the EIS. For the No Action Alternative 
and the six alternatives evaluated, the necessary facilities already 
exist. Except for internal building modifications and new equipment 
installation, no construction activities would be required. Therefore, 
the proposed action would have little or no impact on land resources, 
visual resources, noise, geology and soils, ecological resources, and 
cultural and paleontological resources.
    For the alternatives evaluated, the analyses showed that there 
would be no significant impacts on air quality, water resources, 
socioeconomics, public and occupational health and safety, 
environmental justice, and transportation. The radiological and 
nonradiological gas and liquid releases, as well as the associated 
exposures to workers and the public, would be well within regulatory 
standards and guidelines.
    A fundamental assumption made under the No Action Alternative is 
that the sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel will eventually be disposed 
of in a manner similar to the rest of the spent nuclear fuel owned by 
DOE and within the time period over which institutional controls could 
reliably be assumed to be in effect. If the sodium-bonded spent nuclear 
fuel has not been disposed of before 2035, the temporarily stored fuel 
would be removed from the State of Idaho by the year 2035. Should such 
removal be necessary, the potential environmental impacts would be 
evaluated in a separate NEPA review. The continued storage of sodium-
bonded spent nuclear fuel in the State of Idaho or elsewhere, beyond 
time periods for which institutional controls could reliably be assumed 
to be effective, could lead to significant impacts to the environment 
and the health and safety of the public from radioactive releases 
caused by the gradual degradation of the fuel and its containment.

VI. Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    As discussed in the previous section, the environmental impact 
analysis indicates that none of the action alternatives would result in 
significant environmental impacts. Further, small differences in 
potential environmental impacts among the alternatives do not provide a 
strong basis to discriminate among them. The following discusses some 
of the small differences.
    Transportation: Alternatives involving treatment at ANL-W would 
avoid the need to transport spent nuclear fuel to SRS, notwithstanding 
that the analysis shows that the risks associated with such 
transportation are small.
    Waste and Material Streams: The alternatives differ with respect to 
the quantities and types of waste streams and material that would be 
produced. The EIS presents a comparison of the volumes of high-level 
radioactive, low-level radioactive, and transuranic waste for each 
alternative (e.g., see Table S-4 on Page S-44).
     High-Level Waste. All of the alternatives would result in 
some form of spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste requiring storage 
and disposal. PUREX processing would generate liquid high-level waste 
that would require storage and eventual treatment by vitrification into 
glass canisters at the SRS. DOE regards the alternative using this 
technology option as less environmentally preferred than the other 
action alternatives, primarily because it is the only alternative that 
would generate liquid high-level waste. On the other hand, the volume 
of glass high-level waste ultimately produced that would require 
disposal in a geologic repository would be smaller than the volume of 
spent nuclear fuel and high level waste under any of the other 
alternatives. Also, this waste form has been tested and analyzed 
extensively under potential repository conditions.
    Electrometallurgical treatment would produce two new high-level 
waste forms (i.e., metallic and ceramic), and the melt and dilute 
process also would produce a new metallic form (i.e., a melt and dilute 
product). DOE expects that these waste forms and high-integrity cans 
that do not contain metallic sodium would be suitable for disposal in a 
geologic repository.
     Low-Level and Transuranic Waste. With the exception of 
Alternative 2, all of the action alternatives would generate greater 
volumes of low-level and transuranic waste than the No Action 
Alternative. Existing waste management infrastructure is adequate to 
safely manage these wastes under all of the alternatives, and the EIS 
shows that the associated environmental impacts would be small.
     Other Material Streams. Two of the treatment technology 
options would generate other material streams requiring storage and 
disposition. Electrometallurgical treatment would produce low-enriched 
and depleted uranium ingots, which would be stored safely pending 
decisions on their ultimate disposition. PUREX processing would 
generate uranium oxide and plutonium metal. The uranium oxide would be 
stored at SRS as depleted uranium, and the plutonium would be subject 
to the Record of Decision for the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final 
Environmental Impact Statement.
    Long-Term Uncertainties: The No Action Alternative would result in 
the least environmental impacts in the short-term. However, under the 
No Action Alternative metallic sodium would not be removed or converted 
to a non-reactive form and would pose long-term risks. Further, if 
treatment were required in the future to remove or deactivate the 
sodium, the associated environmental impacts would be incurred then. In 
contrast, all of the action alternatives would either remove or convert 
the metallic sodium into a non-reactive form, which would reduce the 
risks associated with long-term storage and uncertainties regarding 
disposal.

VII . Other Considerations

    In addition to environmental issues, DOE considered other issues in 
determining the treatment and disposition path of sodium-bonded spent 
nuclear fuel. Among these are cost, nuclear proliferation concerns, and 
the National Research Council's independent review of 
electrometallurgical techniques, including the research and 
demonstration project.
    DOE's Cost Study of Alternatives Presented in the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment and Management of 
Sodium-Bonded Spent Nuclear Fuel showed that the lowest cost 
alternative was the direct disposal option under the No Action 
alternative. However, untreated sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel does 
not meet current DOE or Nuclear Regulatory Commission repository 
acceptance criteria requirements. The cost study also concluded that 
the cost of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are similar and difficult to 
distinguish from each other, as are the costs of alternatives 4, 5, and 
6. This is due to an incomplete understanding of

[[Page 56570]]

the technical requirements for the treatment technology, uncertainty in 
the repository waste acceptance criteria, and unquantifiable 
programmatic risks associated with some of the alternatives.
    After reviewing the various alternatives, DOE's Office of Arms 
Control and Nonproliferation concluded that ``All but one alternative--
the one involving plutonium-uranium extraction reprocessing at the 
SRS--are fully consistent with U.S. policy with respect to reprocessing 
and nonproliferation.'' (DOE/Office of Arms Control and 
Nonproliferation, Nonproliferation Impacts Assessment for the Treatment 
and Management of Sodium-Bonded Spent Nuclear Fuel, July 1999)
    The National Research Council's final report on 
Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent Fuel Treatment (April 
2000) concluded that ``The EBR-II demonstration project has shown that 
the electrometallurgical technique can be used to treat sodium-bonded 
spent nuclear fuel.'' The report further stated that ``the committee 
has found no significant technical barriers in the use of 
electrometallurgical technology to treat EBR-II spent fuel, and EMT 
therefore represents a potentially viable technology for DOE spent 
nuclear fuel treatment.''

VIII. Decision

    DOE has decided to implement the preferred alternative as stated in 
the final EIS. That is, DOE will electrometallurgically treat the EBR-
II spent nuclear fuel (about 25 metric tons of heavy metal) and 
miscellaneous small lots of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. The fuel 
will be treated at ANL-W. In addition, Fermi-1 sodium-bonded spent 
nuclear fuel (about 35 metric tons of heavy metal) will be stored while 
alternative treatments are evaluated further. Should no alternative 
prove more cost-effective for this spent nuclear fuel, 
electrometallurgical treatment of the Fermi-1 spent nuclear fuel 
remains a key option.
    DOE will validate the cost of using alternative treatment 
techniques (e.g., sodium removal and placement in high-integrity cans) 
for the Fermi-1 blanket spent nuclear fuel. These techniques may be 
economically favorable for the Fermi-1 blanket spent nuclear fuel 
because of characteristics that distinguish it from the EBR-II spent 
nuclear fuel. The most significant distinguishing characteristic is 
that the Fermi-1 blanket spent nuclear fuel does not require the 
extensive safeguards and security measures that are required for the 
EBR-II blanket fuel. The difference in security requirements for these 
two types of fuel is a result of the difference in plutonium content; 
the EBR-II blanket fuel has 30 times more plutonium at a greater 
concentration than the Fermi-1 blanket fuel. DOE will proceed with the 
electrometallurgical treatment of the EBR-II spent nuclear fuel and 
monitor the results and costs while continuing the evaluation of sodium 
removal techniques for the Fermi-1 blanket spent nuclear fuel. While 
EBR-II spent nuclear fuel is undergoing electrometallurgical treatment 
and the Fermi-1 blanket spent nuclear fuel remains in storage, DOE has 
approximately four years in which to evaluate the operating experience 
of electrometallurgical treatment technology and further evaluate other 
alternatives for the Fermi-1 blanket spent nuclear fuel. After these 
data are evaluated, DOE will decide whether to treat the Fermi-1 
blanket spent nuclear fuel using electrometallurgical treatment or to 
use another treatment method and/or disposal technique.
    For several years, DOE has been actively developing 
electrometallurgical treatment technology specifically for the 
management of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. Having completed a 
successful demonstration of electrometallurgical treatment, DOE 
believes that this technology has the highest probability of meeting 
the objective of reducing the uncertainties associated with qualifying 
the sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel for disposal in a geologic 
repository. Electrometallurgical technology will convert the reactive 
fuel into ceramic and metallic waste forms, both of which are more 
stable than untreated sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. In addition, 
uranium would be separated from the spent nuclear fuel, blended with 
depleted uranium if needed to reduce the enrichment levels, and cast 
into ingots to be stored until a disposition decision is made through a 
separate NEPA review. Most of the plutonium will be disposed of in the 
ceramic waste form, with the remaining small fraction disposed of in 
the metallic waste form. Currently, the only waste form that has been 
tested and analyzed extensively under geologic repository conditions 
and may be accepted for repository disposal is borosilicate glass. 
Tests have shown that the ceramic and metallic waste forms from 
electrometallurgical treatment may perform as well as the standard 
borosilicate glass waste form. The ceramic and metallic waste forms 
would require less storage volume than untreated spent nuclear fuel.

IX. Mitigation

    The strictly controlled conduct of operations associated with DOE's 
spent nuclear fuel management activities are integral to the selected 
alternative. DOE has directives and regulations for safe conduct of 
spent nuclear fuel treatment and management operations. DOE has adopted 
stringent controls for minimizing occupational and public radiation 
exposure. The policy 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 treatment and management. DOE has not identified a 
need for additional mitigation measures.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 11th day of September 2000.
William D. Magwood IV,
Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 00-24005 Filed 9-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P