[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7888-7890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2369]



[[Page 7888]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Interim Management of Nuclear Materials

AGENCY: Department of Energy

ACTION: Amended record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: On December 12, 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
issued a Record of Decision (ROD) and Notice of Preferred Alternatives, 
60 FR 65300 (December 19, 1995), for the final environmental impact 
statement, Interim Management of Nuclear Materials (IMNM EIS) (DOE/EIS-
0220, October 20, 1995), at the Savannah River Site (SRS), Aiken, South 
Carolina. As part of its decision, DOE decided to construct a new 
facility, the Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility (APSF), to 
prepare, package, and store plutonium oxide and metal in accordance 
with DOE's plutonium storage standard, recently revised as 
Stabilization, Packaging, and Storage of Plutonium-Bearing Materials 
(DOE-STD-3013-2000). The APSF also was intended to provide space for 
consolidated storage of plutonium and special actinide materials at the 
SRS.
    For several reasons, including project cost growth concerns, DOE is 
canceling the APSF project and instead installing the stabilization and 
packaging capability to meet the plutonium storage standard within 
Building 235-F, an existing plutonium storage and processing facility 
in F-Area at the SRS. DOE also will use existing SRS vault storage 
space, including space in Building 235-F, to store plutonium (and other 
nuclear material inventories) pending disposition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the interim 
management of nuclear materials at the SRS, to receive a copy of the 
final IMNM EIS, or a copy of the 1995 IMNM ROD, contact: Andrew R. 
Grainger, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah 
River Operations Office, Building 703-47A, Room 122, Aiken, South 
Carolina 29802 (800) 881-7292 Internet: [email protected].
    For further information on the DOE NEPA process, contact: Carol M. 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42) U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 
20585, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.
    Additionally, DOE NEPA information, including the IMNM Final EIS 
and the 1995 IMNM ROD, can be found on the DOE NEPA web site at: 
www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

NEPA Review and Decisions

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared a final environmental 
impact statement, Interim Management of Nuclear Materials (IMNM EIS) 
(DOE/EIS-0220, October 20, 1995), in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA 
implementing regulations, and DOE implementing procedures. The IMNM EIS 
assessed the potential environmental impacts of actions necessary to 
safely manage nuclear materials at the Savannah River Site (SRS), 
Aiken, South Carolina, until decisions on their future use or ultimate 
disposition are made and implemented. The IMNM EIS grouped the nuclear 
materials at the SRS into three categories: Stable, Programmatic, and 
Candidates for Stabilization. Some of the ``Programmatic'' and all of 
the ``Candidates for Stabilization'' materials could have presented 
environmental, safety and health vulnerabilities in their then-current 
storage condition. For materials that could present environmental, 
safety, or health vulnerabilities, the IMNM EIS evaluated processing 
alternatives to meet the new plutonium storage standard to ensure safe 
intermediate to long-term storage. The capability to meet the new 
storage standard did not exist at the SRS at the time of the 
preparation of the IMNM EIS, nor at any other DOE site. Subsequently, 
DOE has been working to establish this capability at its non-pit \1\ 
surplus plutonium sites. Facilities providing this capability at the 
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS, Golden, Colorado), 
Hanford (Richland, Washington), and Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory (Livermore, California) are nearing completion and startup. 
Stabilizing and packaging plutonium to the storage standard are 
generally the last steps in completing the stabilization process. The 
IMNM EIS considered two options for providing this stabilization and 
packaging capability at the SRS: (1) The construction of a new 
facility, APSF, and (2) the modification of Building 235-F in F-Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pit'' is a nuclear weapon component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 12, 1995, DOE issued a Record of Decision (ROD) and 
Notice of Preferred Alternatives, 60 FR 65300 (December 19, 1995), on 
the interim management of several categories of nuclear materials at 
the SRS. As part of its decision, DOE decided to construct a new 
facility, the APSF, to enable plutonium oxides to be stabilized, and 
plutonium oxide and metal to be repackaged in accordance with DOE's 
plutonium storage standard, recently revised as Stabilization, 
Packaging, and Storage of Plutonium-Bearing Materials (DOE-STD-3013-
2000). The APSF also was intended to provide space for consolidated 
storage of plutonium and special actinide materials at the SRS. 
Subsequently, DOE issued four supplemental RODs (61 FR 6633, 61 FR 
48474, 62 FR 17790, and 62 FR 61099) to make additional decisions and/
or modify existing decisions concerning the management of nuclear 
materials at the SRS. None of these subsequent decisions altered DOE's 
decision to construct the APSF.
    In December 1996, DOE issued the Storage and Disposition of 
Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement (Storage and Disposition PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0229). The 
Storage and Disposition PEIS, among other things, assesses the 
potential environmental impacts of alternative approaches and locations 
for storing weapons-usable fissile materials (plutonium and highly 
enriched uranium). DOE decided in the Storage and Disposition ROD 
(January 14, 1997, 62 FR 3014) to expand the storage capacity (from a 
nominal 2,000 storage positions to 5,000 storage positions) of the 
prospective APSF to accommodate at the SRS the storage of surplus non-
pit plutonium to be received from RFETS, pending disposition. DOE also 
indicated in the Storage and Disposition ROD that DOE would pursue a 
strategy for surplus plutonium disposition that allows for 
immobilization of surplus weapons plutonium in glass or ceramic forms 
and burning of the surplus plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX)\2\ fuel in 
existing reactors. The immobilized plutonium and the spent MOX fuel 
would be disposed of in a geologic repository.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A physical blend of uranium oxide and plutonium oxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, in order to support the early closure of RFETS, DOE 
issued an amended Storage and Disposition ROD (August 6, 1998, 63 FR 
43386) to allow the RFETS surplus non-pit plutonium to be sent to the 
SRS before completion of the APSF. Based upon the amended Storage and 
Disposition ROD, DOE undertook the K-Area Materials Storage (KAMS) 
project to modify and prepare existing space within Building 105-K to 
store surplus plutonium in shipping containers as received from RFETS, 
pending disposition. The first shipment of surplus plutonium from RFETS 
for

[[Page 7889]]

storage in KAMS is scheduled to arrive in early calendar year 2001.
    In November 1999, DOE issued the Surplus Plutonium Disposition 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (SPD EIS) (DOE/EIS-0283), which 
analyzed alternatives for the siting, construction, and operation of 
three surplus plutonium disposition facilities. These three facilities 
would accomplish pit disassembly and conversion, plutonium conversion 
and immobilization, and MOX fuel fabrication. DOE issued the Surplus 
Plutonium Disposition ROD on January 4, 2000 (65 FR 1608), which 
selected the SRS for all three of the new surplus plutonium disposition 
facilities.

Plutonium Stabilization and Storage Evaluation

    In light of APSF project cost growth concerns, SRS program and 
overall DOE resource limitations, and an opportunity to increase the 
integration of the surplus plutonium storage and surplus plutonium 
disposition missions, DOE suspended the APSF project in January 1999, 
and undertook a systematic review of SRS stabilization and storage 
options. This review is documented in Evaluation of Savannah River 
Plutonium Storage and Stabilization Options (July 2000). The evaluation 
considered several options for managing DOE's surplus plutonium, 
pending disposition, including: completion of the as-designed (5,000 
storage position) APSF project, construction of a further-expanded 
(10,000 storage position) APSF, and cancellation of the APSF project 
with surplus plutonium managed through other means (e.g., processed to 
allow consolidation to metal and/or stabilization and storage in 
existing modified facilities).
    The key recommendations of the evaluation are: (1) Cancel the APSF 
project and (2) initiate a project to install stabilization and 
packaging capability in Building 235-F at SRS. The evaluation also 
recommends that DOE continue with the decision to transfer RFETS 
stabilized plutonium (packaged in DOE-STD-3013 storage containers 
within shipping containers) for storage in KAMS in unopened shipping 
containers. The evaluation also recommends that DOE store SRS 
stabilized materials in DOE-STD-3013 containers inside shipping 
containers in existing vaults in Building 235-F, and KAMS as necessary, 
pending disposition.
    The evaluation determined that there would be basically no 
difference between the APSF and Building 235-F options regarding the 
completion dates of the capital improvements or the stabilization and 
packaging activities, but the estimated costs are different, 
particularly for the near-term. Over the 10-year evaluation period (FY 
2001-2010), cost differences (in FY 2001 dollars) range from 
approximately $5.5 million to $230 million. The least costly options 
involve varying degrees of modification to Building 235-F. The capital 
cost for the recommended Building 235-F option is estimated to be $100 
million to $250 million, which is $30 million to $180 million less than 
the lowest cost APSF option. The ``high'' capital cost estimate of $250 
million for the recommended Building 235-F option was used in the 
evaluation to compare costs between the stabilization and storage 
options.
    The evaluation considered options which could best meet the 
Department's stabilization and storage needs, given various factors, 
such as funding levels, de-inventory strategies, and surplus plutonium 
disposition schedules. Surplus plutonium disposition schedules most 
notably affected overall costs. Delays of approximately seven years or 
more to DOE's surplus plutonium disposition program would favor the 
more consolidated plutonium storage options (the APSF options) because 
operating costs for a large single storage facility are less than for 
multiple smaller facilities. Even though this ``payback'' would 
eventually occur if there were substantial delays to the surplus 
plutonium disposition mission, DOE believes there are more worthy 
unfunded projects that would provide earlier investment returns in 
carrying out DOE missions.

Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS

Alternatives

    The IMNM EIS analyzed several alternatives, including the No Action 
alternative, for the interim management of eleven (11) types of nuclear 
materials at the SRS. All of the alternatives except the Continued 
Storage (No Action) would support DOE's objective of removing nuclear 
materials from vulnerable conditions and from vulnerable facilities in 
preparation for decontamination and decommissioning. The IMNM RODs 
include decisions to undertake stabilization and processing actions for 
ten (10) SRS nuclear material types. (DOE decided to continue existing 
actions for the ``Stable'' nuclear material types/category.) Six of 
these nuclear materials types--(1) plutonium and uranium stored in 
vaults, (2) Mark-31 targets, (3) aluminum-clad Taiwan Research Reactor 
fuel and Experimental Breeder Reactor-II slugs, (4) plutonium-239 
solutions, (5) plutonium-242 solutions, and (6) neptunium-237 
solutions--require, or could require, a new capability to stabilize and 
package the material to DOE's storage standard to complete 
stabilization for safe interim management. The latter two materials, 
plutonium-242 and neptunium-237, were categorized as programmatic 
materials in the IMNM EIS but were analyzed for completeness of the 
potential impacts from stabilization and packaging for long-term 
storage. DOE has since stabilized the plutonium-242 to oxide, and 
transferred it to the Los Alamos National Laboratory for programmatic 
use without undergoing stabilization and packaging to the storage 
standard. The neptunium-237 has yet to be stabilized, and a 
determination on program need or requirements for packaging to the 
storage standard has yet to be made. The need for neptunium-237 is 
being addressed in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research 
and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, 
Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (DOE/EIS-0310, 
December 2000). A Record of Decision for that PEIS is expected to be 
issued in January 2001.
    The IMNM EIS considered two options [see IMNM EIS, Chapter 2. 
Alternatives and Appendix C, pp. C-41 to C-45] for stabilizing, 
packaging, and storing plutonium to DOE's storage standard--(1) the 
construction of the new APSF, and (2) the modification of Building 235-
F. The storage standard is designed to help ensure the safe storage of 
the materials for long periods (e.g., 50 years). Each option was 
designed to provide the capability to heat plutonium oxide materials to 
drive off residual and absorbed moisture; package stabilized material 
(oxides and metal) in at least two corrosion-resistant containers (a 
container within a container) without the use of plastics, hydrogenous 
compounds, or organic material; weld-seal the outer container in an 
inert atmosphere to ensure weld joint and container material integrity; 
and store the stabilized material and sealed containers.
    In addition, the IMNM EIS considered modifications to the FB-Line 
in the F-Canyon building (Building 221-F) at the SRS to provide storage 
standard stabilization and packaging capabilities. Under decisions 
associated with the Final F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions Environmental 
Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0219, December 1994) and ROD (February 22, 
1995, 60 FR 9824), DOE added to the FB-Line a capability to package 
plutonium metal within a

[[Page 7890]]

single, inert gas-filled, welded container, without the need for 
plastic and other organic materials. However, DOE concluded that adding 
the full stabilization and packaging mission to the FB-Line facility 
would delay completion of the FB-Line's nuclear materials stabilization 
activities and the planned shutdown of the FB-Line facility.

Potential Environmental Impacts

    The IMNM EIS analyzed potential impacts of alternatives for 
managing all SRS nuclear materials. Summaries of the potential impacts 
from the alternatives are presented in the IMNM EIS, Table 2-2 through 
Table 2-12 (pp. 2-48 through 2-58). The IMNM EIS analysis includes 
potential impacts from heating and repackaging activities to package 
plutonium to DOE's storage standard.
    DOE has reviewed the IMNM EIS and determined that there are no 
substantial changes in the proposed modification of Building 235-F nor 
are there any significant new circumstances or information relevant to 
environmental impacts that would result from modifying Building 235-F. 
The analysis of potential environmental impacts and the description of 
the Building 235-F option in the IMNM EIS have not changed since the 
Final EIS was issued.
    The IMNM EIS indicated that there would be minimal environmental 
impacts from the implementation of any alternative (including the APSF 
or Building 235-F options) in the areas of geologic, ecological, 
cultural, aesthetic, and scenic resources, noise, and land use. Impacts 
in these areas would be limited because facility modifications or 
construction of new facilities would occur within existing buildings or 
industrialized portions of the SRS. The existing SRS workforce would 
support any construction projects and other activities required to 
implement any of the alternatives, and thus negligible socioeconomic 
impacts would be expected from implementing any of the alternatives.
    Emissions of hazardous air pollutants and releases of hazardous 
liquid effluents for any of the alternatives would be within applicable 
standards and existing regulatory permits for the SRS facilities. 
Similarly, for either the APSF or Building 235-F option for plutonium 
stabilization and packaging, potential transuranic waste, mixed 
hazardous waste, and low-level solid waste generated would be handled 
by existing waste management facilities. All of the waste types and 
volumes are within the capability of the existing SRS waste management 
facilities for storage, treatment, or disposal.
    While the IMNM EIS indicated that potential adverse impacts to the 
environment, public, or workers would be small for the packaging and 
storage alternatives, there would be minor differences between the APSF 
``new construction'' and the Building 235-F modification. The 
modification to Building 235-F would involve work in an existing and 
radiologically contaminated facility, thereby potentially leading to a 
small increase over the APSF option in radiological waste generation 
and construction worker exposure. Through the use of site 
administrative control limits, however, no worker would be expected to 
receive a radiological dose beyond that allowed for radiological 
workers from normal operations, or from facility modification work. 
Likewise, the existing waste management facilities are capable of 
handling the additional radiological waste that would result from the 
Building 235-F modification.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The IMNM EIS indicated that potential adverse impacts to the 
environment, public, or workers would be small for either the APSF or 
Building 235-F options. While small increases in radiological waste and 
worker radiological exposure could be expected from the Building 235-F 
modification option over the APSF option, both options would involve 
relatively small impacts, and thus neither could be deemed 
environmentally preferable over the other.

Decision

    DOE is amending its previous decision (60 FR 65300) on how to 
provide a SRS capability for the stabilization and packaging of 
plutonium to the storage standard (recently revised to DOE-STD-3013-
2000). Instead of constructing a new Actinide Packaging and Storage 
Facility (APSF), DOE will modify existing space within Building 235-F 
in F-Area. DOE will continue to use existing vault space in Building 
235-F for interim storage pending disposition, and existing vault space 
in FB-Line for interim storage during stabilization actions. [By way of 
information, DOE previously had decided (63 FR 43386) to store RFETS 
surplus non-pit plutonium in new vault space established in Building 
105-K, instead of in the APSF, pending disposition.]
    This decision will allow DOE to stabilize and repackage plutonium 
to the storage standard within the same time-frame as would have a new 
APSF (or possibly up to two years sooner). It also allows DOE to 
accomplish plutonium stabilization and repackaging at a lower cost by 
cost-effectively integrating surplus plutonium storage activities with 
surplus plutonium disposition activities. The reduced capital 
expenditure requirements are more consistent with current and projected 
near-term budget resources.

    Issued at Washington, DC, January 12th, 2001.
Carolyn L. Huntoon,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 01-2369 Filed 1-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P