[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75165-75172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7497]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Environmental Management; Record of Decision for the 
Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental 
Impact Statement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: DOE is making decisions pursuant to the Idaho High-Level Waste 
and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final 
EIS) (DOE/EIS-287), issued in October 2002. The Final EIS presents the 
analysis of a proposed action containing two sets of alternatives:
    (1) Waste processing alternatives for treating, storing and 
disposing of liquid mixed (radioactive and hazardous) transuranic (TRU) 
waste/sodium-bearing waste (SBW) \1\ and newly-generated liquid 
radioactive waste (NGLW) stored in below-grade tanks and solid high-
level radioactive waste (HLW) calcine stored in bin sets at the Idaho 
Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) on the Idaho National 
Laboratory (INL) Site, previously named the Idaho National Engineering 
and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Final EIS refers to SBW as mixed transuranic waste/SBW. 
However a determination that SBW is transuranic waste has not been 
made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Facility disposition alternatives for final disposition of 
facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC after their 
missions are complete, including any new facilities necessary to 
implement the waste processing alternatives.
    DOE plans a phased decision making process. DOE considered the 
information in the Final EIS, a related Supplement Analysis (DOE/EIS-
0287-SA-01) (SA), and comments received on the Federal Register Notice 
(70 FR 44598; August 3, 2005) that announced DOE's preferred treatment 
technology for SBW when making the decisions in this ROD. This first 
ROD addresses SBW treatment, facilities disposition, excluding the 
INTEC Tank Farm Facility (Tank Farm) and bin sets closure, and DOE's 
strategy for HLW calcine.
    DOE has decided to treat SBW using the steam reforming technology. 
The Department's preferred disposal path for this waste is disposal as 
TRU waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New 
Mexico. Until such time as the regulatory approvals are obtained and a 
determination that the waste is TRU is made, the Department will manage 
the waste to allow disposal at WIPP or at a geologic repository for 
spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and HLW.
    For facilities disposition, DOE has decided to conduct performance-
based closure (to contamination levels below those that would impact 
the human health and the environment as established by applicable 
regulations and DOE Orders as determined on a case-by-case basis 
depending on risk) of existing facilities directly related to the HLW 
Program at INTEC once their missions are complete. Newly constructed 
waste processing facilities needed to implement the decisions in this 
ROD, such as the steam reforming facility for SBW treatment, will be 
designed consistent with clean closure methods and planned to be clean 
closed when their missions are complete, regardless of the 
classification of the waste they treat. All INTEC facilities directly 
related to the HLW Program will be closed in accordance with applicable 
regulations and DOE Orders.
    Further, consistent with DOE's Environmental Management Performance 
Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at the INEEL (July 2002), 
DOE's strategy for HLW calcine is to retrieve the calcine for disposal 
outside the State of Idaho. Accordingly, DOE will develop calcine 
retrieval demonstration processes and conduct risk-based analyses, 
including disposal options, focused on the calcine stored at the INTEC.
    After the Final EIS was issued, the Ronald W. Reagan National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA), Pub. L. 108-375, 
was enacted. Section 3116 of the NDAA provides that certain waste 
resulting from reprocessing of SNF is not high-level waste if the 
Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC), makes certain determinations. Therefore, DOE plans to 
issue an amended ROD in 2006 specifically addressing closure of the 
Tank Farm Facility, which stored certain wastes resulting from 
reprocessing, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy's 
determination, in consultation with the NRC, under Section 3116.
    In a future ROD, DOE will decide the final strategy for HLW calcine 
retrieval, including determining whether and how to further treat, if 
applicable, package, and store calcine pending disposal. DOE expects to 
issue the amended ROD for HLW calcine disposition and bin set closure 
in 2009.
    The State of Idaho participated as a cooperating agency in the 
preparation of the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition 
Environmental Impact Statement. The State provided the following input 
to DOE's decisions for waste processing and facility disposition.
    Waste Processing: The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's selection 
of steam reforming as the technology for solidifying remaining INTEC 
Tank Farm liquids, provided DOE obtains required permits for its 
treatment facility and post-treatment storage, and produces a waste 
form acceptable for disposal at a repository outside Idaho.
    Facility Disposition: The State concurs with the performance-based 
closure of existing facilities directly related to the high-level waste 
program at INTEC, once their missions are complete, subject to the 
State's separate approval of individual closure plans under the Idaho 
Hazardous Waste Management Act and compliance with section 3116 of the 
NDAA. The State also concurs with DOE's decision to clean close newly 
constructed waste processing facilities.
    Remaining Decisions: The State will provide additional input on 
DOE's remaining decisions for HLW facility disposition and calcine 
treatment, which DOE must make by December 31, 2009, in accordance with 
our 1995 Settlement Agreement. The State will continue to coordinate 
with DOE and the NRC as appropriate regarding the classification of 
tank residuals under Section 3116 of the NDAA, as well as the 
classification of other wastes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the ROD and 
the Idaho Cleanup Project, contact Joel Case, Team Lead, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-
1222, Idaho Falls, ID 83415, Telephone: (208) 526-6795.
    For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) process, please 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, Telephone: (202) 586-
4600 or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.

[[Page 75166]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    From 1952 to 1991, DOE and its predecessor agencies reprocessed SNF 
at INTEC, prior to 1998 known as the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, 
on the INL Site. Reprocessing operations used solvent extraction 
systems to remove mostly uranium-235 from SNF. The waste product from 
the first extraction cycle of the reprocessing operation was liquid HLW 
mixed with hazardous materials. Subsequent extraction cycles, treatment 
processes, and follow-on decontamination activities generated 
additional liquids that were combined to form liquid SBW, which is 
generally much less radioactive than HLW generated from the first 
extraction cycle. These liquid wastes were stored in eleven 300,000-
gallon below-grade storage tanks. The last campaign of SNF reprocessing 
at INTEC was in 1991 and HLW is no longer generated at INTEC. From 1963 
to 1998, DOE processed HLW and some SBW through calcination that 
converted the liquid waste into a dry powder calcine. Additional SBW 
was processed by calcination from 1998 to 2000. At present, 
approximately 4,400 cubic meters of HLW calcine remain stored in six 
bin sets (a series of reinforced concrete vaults, each containing three 
to seven stainless steel storage bins), and approximately one million 
gallons of SBW remain in three 300,000 gallon below-grade tanks. Liquid 
SBW and newly generated liquid waste (NGLW) has continued to accumulate 
in the tanks from the calcination process, decontamination, and other 
activities. NGLW continued to be collected in the tank farm tanks from 
a number of sources at INTEC (e.g., laboratory drains, snow melt, 
sumps, and evaporator operations) until September 2005 and is now being 
stored in other permitted storage tanks.
    As a result of litigation, DOE and the State of Idaho reached an 
agreement in 1995 referred to as the Idaho Settlement Agreement/Consent 
Order (Settlement Agreement) that, among other things, provides for DOE 
to complete calcination of SBW liquid wastes by a target date of 
December 31, 2012. Although the agreement requires treatment of SBW by 
calcination, it also provides for modifying this requirement if 
supported by analysis and decisions under NEPA. The agreement also sets 
a target date of December 31, 2035, for treating all HLW and SBW to be 
``road-ready'' for shipment out of Idaho.
    In 1997, DOE issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS to 
evaluate the environmental impacts of the range of reasonable 
alternatives for treating Idaho HLW calcine, SBW, associated 
radioactive waste such as NGLW, and for the disposition of related HLW 
Program facilities at INTEC. The State of Idaho participated as a 
cooperating agency in the development of the EIS to support the 
Settlement Agreement and to facilitate the EIS review process.
    In January 2000, DOE issued the Draft Idaho High-Level Waste and 
Facilities Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) (DOE/
EIS-0287D) for public review and comment. Subsequently, DOE and the 
State of Idaho received approximately 1,000 comments on the Draft EIS 
and considered those comments while revising the EIS.
    DOE issued the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) (DOE/EIS-0287) in 
October 2002. The Final EIS presents the analysis of a proposed action 
containing two sets of alternatives: (1) Waste processing alternatives 
for treating, storing and disposing of liquid SBW and NGLW stored in 
below-grade tanks and solid HLW calcine stored in bin sets at the INTEC 
on the INL Site; and (2) facility disposition alternatives for final 
disposition of facilities directly related to the HLW Program after 
their missions are complete, including any new facilities necessary to 
implement the waste processing alternatives.
    After the Final EIS was issued, DOE conducted four workshops to 
inform the public about the five technologies that the DOE was 
considering for treatment of the SBW with the preferred disposition at 
WIPP. The five technologies were Direct Vitrification, Cesium Ion 
Exchange with a grout waste form, Calcination with Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology upgrades, Direct Evaporation, and Steam Reforming. 
Workshops were held from March 13 to April 28, 2003, in Jackson, 
Wyoming, and Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, and Fort Hall, Idaho. In 
addition, briefings were held with individual stakeholders through June 
2003. The public was given the opportunity to provide comments on all 
technologies presented through August 31, 2003, via e-mail or regular 
mail.
    During the workshops and briefings, DOE informed the public that 
the DOE strategy was to select one of the five technologies for 
treatment of the SBW. Subsequently, DOE modified this strategy by 
incorporating the requirement for a contractor to propose a treatment 
technology for SBW in a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Idaho 
Cleanup Project (ICP) contract. At public meetings of the Idaho 
Environmental Management Citizens Advisory Board (CAB), public meetings 
conducted by the National Academy of Sciences in Idaho, and other 
meetings with local stakeholders, DOE informed the public that the DOE 
would identify a preferred treatment technology for SBW after the 
contract was awarded. At these meetings, DOE also informed the public 
that they would have an opportunity to provide comments on the draft 
RFP.
    DOE issued the draft RFP for the ICP contract for comment in 
February 2004. The draft RFP required bidders to propose technologies 
for treating SBW for disposal at WIPP and an alternative technical 
approach to prepare this waste for disposal as HLW in a geologic 
repository for SNF/HLW if this waste could not be disposed of at WIPP. 
The RFP also included the DOE strategy to meet the settlement agreement 
milestones for HLW calcine, facilities disposition, and segregating the 
NGLW from the Tank Farm Facility to other storage by September 30, 
2005. DOE responded to comments received on the draft RFP and issued 
the final RFP in July 2004.
    On October 28, 2004, the NDAA was enacted. Among other provisions 
of the Act, section 3116 of this NDAA provides that certain wastes from 
reprocessing is not HLW if the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary), in 
consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), determines 
that the criteria in 3116 have been met. Section 3116 provides that 
with respect to materials stored at a DOE site in Idaho, which 
activities are regulated by Idaho pursuant to closure plans or permits 
issued by the State, the term ``high-level radioactive waste'' does not 
include radioactive waste resulting from the reprocessing of SNF if the 
Secretary, in consultation with the NRC, makes certain determinations. 
Section 3116 is related to the requirements for the INTEC Tank Farm 
closure; therefore, tank closure will be addressed in an amended ROD in 
coordination with the Secretary's determination.
    In July 2005, DOE issued a SA (DOE/EIS-0287-SA-01) that documented 
DOE's review of changes in the proposed action and new information 
obtained (e.g., updated waste inventory) since the 2002 Final EIS was 
issued. Based on the analysis in the SA, DOE determined that there were 
no substantial changes in the proposed action and no significant new 
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearing 
on the proposed action or its impacts, and that a supplemental EIS was 
not required.

[[Page 75167]]

DOE then issued a Federal Register Notice (70 FR 44598, August 3, 2005) 
that announced steam reforming as DOE's preferred treatment technology 
for SBW.

II. Waste Processing Alternatives Considered

    The Final EIS analyzed six waste processing alternatives for HLW 
calcine, SBW, and NGLW: No Action; Continued Current Operations; 
Separations with three treatment options; Non-Separations with four 
treatment options; Minimum INEEL Processing; and Direct Vitrification 
with two treatment options. These alternatives are briefly described as 
follows:

No Action Alternative

    Under this alternative, the New Waste Calcining Facility (NWCF) 
calciner would remain in standby, the SBW would remain in the Tank 
Farm, and the calcine would remain in the bin sets indefinitely.

Continued Current Operations Alternative

    This alternative involves calcining the SBW and adding it to the 
bin sets, where it would be stored indefinitely with calcined HLW. 
Under this alternative, the NWCF calciner would remain in standby 
pending receipt of a RCRA permit from the State of Idaho and upgrades 
to air emission controls required by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA).

Separations Alternative

    This alternative comprises three treatment options, each of which 
would use a chemical separations process, such as solvent extraction, 
to divide the SBW and calcine into fractions suitable for disposal in 
either a geologic repository or a low-level waste disposal facility, 
depending on waste characteristics. Separating the radionuclides in the 
waste into fractions would decrease the amount of waste that would have 
to be shipped to a geologic repository, saving repository space and 
reducing disposal costs. The three waste treatment options under the 
Separations Alternative are described below.
1. Full Separations Option
    This option would separate the radioisotopes in the SBW and the HLW 
calcine into high-level and low-level waste fractions. The HLW fraction 
would be vitrified in a new facility at INTEC, placed in stainless 
steel canisters, and stored onsite until shipped to a storage facility 
or geologic repository. DOE would dispose of the low-level waste 
fraction on site, or at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste 
disposal facility.
2. Planning Basis Option
    This option reflects previously announced DOE decisions and 
agreements with the State of Idaho regarding the management of HLW and 
SBW. The NWCF calciner would remain in standby, pending receipt of a 
RCRA permit from the State and upgrades to air emission controls 
required by EPA. It is similar to the Full Separations Option, except 
that, prior to separation, the SBW would be calcined and stored in the 
bin sets along with the HLW calcine. After separations, the HLW 
fraction would be vitrified in a new facility at INTEC, placed in 
stainless steel canisters, and stored onsite until shipped to a storage 
facility or geologic repository. DOE would dispose of the low-level 
waste fraction at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste disposal 
facility.
3. Transuranic Separations Option
    This option would consist of separating the HLW and SBW into two 
fractions. The resulting fractions would be managed as TRU and low-
level waste. There would be no HLW after separations under this option. 
The TRU fraction would be solidified, packaged, and shipped to WIPP for 
disposal. DOE would dispose of the low-level waste fraction on site or 
at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste disposal facility.

Non-Separations Alternative

    This alternative includes four treatment options for solidifying 
HLW calcine and SBW. In the Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Option and 
Direct Cement Waste Option, SBW would be removed from the Tank Farm 
and, after receipt of a RCRA permit from the State and upgrades to air 
emission controls required by the EPA, treated in the NWCF calciner. In 
the Early Vitrification Option and Steam Reforming Option, SBW would be 
retrieved from the Tank Farm and sent directly to a treatment facility. 
The four treatment options are briefly described as follows:
1. Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Option
    Under this option, SBW would be calcined and added to the 4,400 
cubic meters of HLW calcine currently stored in the bin sets. HLW and 
SBW calcine would then be treated in a high pressure, high temperature 
process that would convert the calcine into a glass-ceramic waste form. 
The final product would be packaged for storage and subsequent disposal 
in a geologic repository.
2. Direct Cement Waste Option
    Under this option the remaining SBW would be calcined and placed in 
the bin sets. HLW and SBW calcine would then be retrieved, mixed with 
cement, poured into stainless-steel canisters, and cured at elevated 
temperature and pressure. The canisters would be placed in storage for 
subsequent disposal in a geologic repository. Some secondary waste 
(e.g., tank farm heels) would be treated and sent to WIPP.
3. Early Vitrification Option
    This option would involve vitrifying both the HLW calcine and the 
SBW into a glass-like solid. The vitrified SBW would be sent to WIPP 
for disposal and the vitrified HLW would be placed in interim storage 
pending disposal in a geologic repository.
4. Steam Reforming Option
    This option would involve treatment of SBW by steam reforming. The 
central feature of the steam reforming process is the reformer, a 
fluidized bed reactor in which steam is used as the fluidizing gas. A 
solid, remote-handled waste form consisting of primarily inorganic 
salts is produced that is similar in form to HLW calcine. This option 
also includes packaging of HLW calcine without additional treatment for 
shipment to a geologic repository.

Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative

    This alternative would minimize the amount of waste treatment at 
the INEEL by using the vitrification facility planned for the DOE 
Hanford Site in the State of Washington. The HLW calcine would be 
placed into shipping containers and sent to the Hanford Site where it 
would be vitrified. The SBW would be treated at INTEC where it would be 
separated into fractions in an ion exchange column to remove cesium. 
The HLW fraction would be packaged and sent to the Hanford Site for 
treatment with the calcine. The remaining TRU fraction would be grouted 
and disposed of at WIPP.

Direct Vitrification Alternative

    This alternative includes two treatment options: Vitrification 
without Calcine Separations and Vitrification with Calcine Separations. 
The option to vitrify SBW and calcine without separations would be 
similar to the Early Vitrification Option. The option to vitrify SBW 
and the HLW fraction from calcine separations would be similar to the 
Full Separations Option. Under either option, SBW would be retrieved

[[Page 75168]]

from the Tank Farm, vitrified, and disposed of in an appropriate 
disposal facility. Under the Vitrification with Calcine Separations 
Option, calcine would be retrieved from the bin sets, chemically 
separated into a HLW fraction to be vitrified and a low-level waste 
(LLW) fraction to be grouted. Under the Vitrification without Calcine 
Separations Option, calcine would be directly vitrified. Under either 
option, vitrified HLW would be stored pending disposal in a geologic 
repository.
    Under either option, DOE would segregate NGLW from the SBW. The 
post-2005 NGLW could be vitrified in the same facility as the SBW or 
DOE could construct a separate facility to grout the NGLW. The 
vitrified or grouted waste would be packaged and disposed of as low-
level or TRU waste, depending on its characteristics.

Preferred Waste Processing Alternatives

    From the range of waste processing alternatives/options analyzed, 
two Preferred Alternatives were identified in the Final EIS, one by DOE 
and one by the State of Idaho. The Preferred Alternatives were 
identified after consideration of public comment and the following 
factors: Technical maturity, environment, safety and health (ES&H), 
cost, schedule, and programmatic risk.
    The DOE Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS for waste 
processing was to implement the proposed action by selecting from among 
the action alternatives, options, and technologies analyzed in the 
Final EIS. The selection of any one of, or combination of, technologies 
or options used to implement the proposed action would be based on the 
performance criteria of technical maturity, ES&H, consideration of 
public comment, cost, schedule and programmatic risk. Options excluded 
from DOE's preferred alternative were storage of calcine in bin sets 
for an indefinite period of time (analyzed under the Continued Current 
Operations Alternative), shipment of calcine to the Hanford Site for 
treatment (analyzed under the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative), 
and disposal of mixed-LLW at INEEL (analyzed under multiple 
alternatives). On August 3, 2005, after the Final EIS was issued, DOE 
published a Federal Register Notice (70 FR 44598) identifying steam 
reforming as its preferred treatment technology for SBW. Steam 
Reforming is one of the options under the Non-Separations Alternative 
in the Final EIS.
    The State of Idaho Preferred Alternative identified in the Final 
EIS for waste processing was the Direct Vitrification Alternative. The 
State of Idaho preferred vitrification based on the belief that it was 
the treatment alternative with the lowest technical and regulatory 
uncertainty for meeting waste removal goals and provided a clear 
baseline for fulfilling the objectives of removal of waste from Idaho 
within the timelines envisioned by the Settlement Agreement. The State 
of Idaho was willing to consider other waste treatment options, if they 
were comparable or better than the Direct Vitrification Alternative in 
terms of environmental impact, schedule and/or cost.

III. Facility Disposition Alternatives Considered

    The Final EIS analyzed six facility disposition alternatives: No 
Action, Clean Closure, Performance-Based Closure, Closure to Landfill 
Standards, Performance-Based Closure with Class A Grout Disposal, and 
Performance-Based Closure with Class C Grout Disposal. These 
alternatives reflect different ways to address the final risk component 
of the proposed action and close facilities directly related to the HLW 
Program at INTEC after their missions are complete. These alternatives 
differ in the degree to which land is considered ``cleaned up'' and in 
the type of use that could be made of the land as a result. These 
alternatives are briefly described as follows:

No Action Alternative

    Under this alternative, DOE would not close the facilities 
identified in the Final EIS. Nevertheless, over the period of analysis 
through 2035, many of the facilities could be placed in an industrially 
safe condition (deactivated). Surveillance and maintenance of 
facilities would be performed to ensure the safety and health of 
workers and the public until 2095. For purposes of analysis, DOE 
assumed that institutional controls to protect human health and the 
environment would not be in effect after 2095.

Clean Closure Alternative

    Under this alternative, hazardous wastes and radiological 
contaminants, including contaminated equipment, would be removed from 
the site or treated so the hazardous and radiological contaminants are 
indistinguishable from background concentrations.

Performance-Based Closure Alternative

    Under this alternative, contamination would remain that is below 
the levels that would impact human health and the environment as 
established by applicable regulations (e.g., RCRA, Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)), and 
by DOE Orders. Once the performance-based levels are achieved, the 
unit/facility is considered closed according to RCRA and/or DOE 
requirements. The residual contaminants would no longer pose an 
unacceptable risk to workers, the public, or the environment. Closure 
methods would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Closure to Landfill Standards Alternative

    Under this alternative, the facilities would be closed as 
established by regulations such as RCRA or CERCLA, and by DOE Orders 
for closure of landfills. Once the wastes within tanks, vaults, and 
piping are removed to the extent practicable and the remaining 
residuals are stabilized, protection of the public, workers, and the 
environment would be ensured by installing an engineered cap, 
installing a groundwater monitoring system, and providing post-closure 
monitoring. Care of the waste containment system would be provided, 
appropriate for the type of contaminants. Also, a landfill closure 
would include post closure activities such as monitoring and plans for 
appropriate response/corrective actions to be taken in the event of 
migration of contaminants above health based action levels.

Performance-Based Closure With Class A Grout Disposal Alternative

    This is one of two alternatives that would accommodate the 
potential use of the Tank Farm and bin sets for disposal of the low-
level waste fraction. These facilities would be closed as described 
above for the Performance-Based Closure Alternative. Following 
completion of those activities, the Tank Farm or bin sets would be used 
to dispose of low-level waste Class A-type grout (suitable for near 
surface disposal and would have radioactive concentrations in the grout 
that are less than Class A concentration limits specified in NRC 
regulation 10 CFR 61.55).

Performance-Based Closure With Class C Grout Disposal Alternative

    This alternative would also accommodate the potential use of the 
Tank Farm and bin sets for disposal of the low-level waste fraction. 
The facility would be closed as described above for the Performance-
Based Closure Alternative. Following completion of those activities, 
the Tank Farm or bin sets would be used to dispose of low-level waste 
Class C-type grout (suitable

[[Page 75169]]

for near surface disposal but would have higher radioactive 
concentrations in the grout than Class A-type grout, but would not 
exceed Class C concentration limits specified in 10 CFR 61.55).

Preferred Facility Disposition Alternative

    In the Final EIS, both DOE and the State of Idaho identified 
performance-based closure methods as the Preferred Alternative for 
disposition of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program 
at INTEC. These methods encompass three of the six facility disposition 
alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS: Clean Closure, Performance-
Based Closure, and Closure to Landfill Standards. Performance-based 
closure methods would be implemented in accordance with applicable 
regulations and DOE Orders. Also, as analyzed in the Final EIS, 
consistent with the objectives and requirements of DOE Order 430.1B, 
Real Property Asset Management (previously DOE Order 430.1A, Life Cycle 
Management), and DOE Order 435.1 and Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste 
Management and its Manual, all newly constructed facilities necessary 
to implement the waste processing alternatives would be designed and 
constructed consistent with measures that facilitate clean closure. 
Therefore, the preferred alternative for disposition of new facilities 
is clean closure. DOE and the State of Idaho weighed several factors in 
selecting the Preferred Alternative for facility disposition, including 
size and complexity of facilities, volume of waste streams generated 
during facility disposition, residual waste/contaminant risk reduction, 
technical and economic feasibility, and protection of the workers, 
public and environment.

IV. Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The Final EIS presents the environmental impacts for 14 areas of 
interest for the waste processing alternatives and the facility 
disposition alternatives. DOE considered those impacts in its 
evaluation of the environmentally preferable alternatives as described 
below.

Waste Processing

    In 9 of the 14 areas of interest, the Final EIS indicates little or 
no environmental impact would occur under all of the action 
alternatives. In the remaining 5 areas analyzed (air, traffic and 
transportation, health and safety, waste and materials, and facility 
accidents), the results indicate short-term impacts from routine 
exposures, but they are small and do not differ significantly among 
action alternatives. Under normal operations, none of the waste 
processing action alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS would result 
in large short-term or long-term impacts to human health or the 
environment. Also, none of the action alternatives would result in 
appreciably different impacts on historic, cultural and natural 
resources.
    Under normal operations, the risk to workers and the public in 
terms of anticipated latent cancer fatalities over the life cycle of 
any waste treatment alternative (including No Action) would be less 
than one. Under the No Action and Continued Current Operations waste 
treatment alternatives, however, waste would remain in storage at INTEC 
indefinitely and would result in continued long-term risks. Under the 
No Action Alternative liquid SBW and solid HLW calcine would remain in 
storage indefinitely, and under the Continued Current Operations 
Alternative liquid SBW would be calcined, but the calcine would remain 
stored in the bin sets indefinitely. Though much of the radioactivity 
in the liquid SBW and solid HLW calcine would decay during the first 
500 years, the material would continue to present a long-term risk to 
human health and the environment from potential releases of both 
radiological and hazardous waste.
    Waste processing alternatives that result in indefinite waste 
storage exhibit the longest window of vulnerability to accidental 
releases and therefore the highest anticipated risk of environmental 
impact. The Final EIS shows that, although unlikely, the estimated 
probability of the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident for the No 
Action and Continued Current Operations Alternatives is a factor of 
nine more likely than the comparable accidents for the other waste 
treatment alternatives that place waste in a road-ready form over a 35-
year period.
    For these reasons, any of the waste treatment alternatives that 
place SBW and calcine in a waste form suitable for disposal would be 
environmentally preferable compared to the No Action and Continued 
Current Operations Alternatives.

Facilities Disposition

    The Final EIS also evaluates the impacts of the facilities 
disposition alternatives. Under normal operations, the risk to workers 
and the public in terms of anticipated latent cancer fatalities over 
the life cycle of any facility disposition alternative would be less 
than one. Clean closure of facilities would restore the land to a 
condition that ``presents no risk to workers or the public'' and would 
be environmentally preferable in the long-term, but such action also 
would pose the highest short-term risk to workers because clean closure 
would require the most activity and result in the most impacts. 
Performance-based closure of facilities would also be protective of the 
public and environment in the short- and long-term, but would balance 
the risk to workers by tailoring activity to risk reduction.
    Under the facilities disposition No Action alternative, it is 
assumed for analytical purposes that institutional control would be 
lost after 2095. After that date, access would be uncontrolled, natural 
processes would degrade the facilities, and they could also be breached 
and the contents dispersed by human and animal activity. The 
deteriorating facilities would present some risk to the environment and 
human health over a long, indefinite period of time. It is estimated 
that 270 latent cancer fatalities could result from seismic induced 
failure of a degraded calcine bin set after 500 years. Also, the 
likelihood of an external event resulting in a release would increase 
over time.
    The maximum reasonably foreseeable impact from accidents during 
implementation of the facility disposition action alternatives result 
in an estimated two fatalities from non-radiological hazards, such as 
trauma, fire, spills, or falls, during clean closure of the Tank Farm.
    For these reasons, any of the facility disposition alternatives 
that actively close facilities under environmentally based standards 
would be environmentally preferable to the No Action Alternative.

V.A. Comments on the Final EIS

    DOE received two letters commenting on the Final EIS.
    By letter dated November 18, 2002, the EPA raised four issues:
    (1) Reclassification of HLW and the nature and extent of 
separations or decontamination necessary to meet the requirements of 
DOE Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, which poses 
programmatic risk due to ongoing litigation and regulatory uncertainty, 
(2) the viability of the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative (option 
of treating waste at Hanford), (3) DOE identifying a broad scoped 
Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS, which the EPA said did not meet 
the objectives of NEPA, and (4) the viability of the calciner as an 
alternative, its cost, and use of the EIS to delay closure of the 
calciner.

[[Page 75170]]

    DOE provides the following responses to the EPA comments:
    1. The Final EIS presents the analysis of the potential 
environmental impacts of retrieving and treating HLW, SBW, NGLW, and 
facilities disposition using various technologies and managing the 
wastes as either HLW, TRU waste, or LLW. Moreover, the analysis is not 
based on particular waste classification but is based on the estimated 
volume and radioisotopic content of the HLW, SBW, NGLW, and waste from 
facilities disposition. By preparing the analysis in a manner that is 
not dependent on waste classification, DOE has mitigated the impact of 
litigation and reduced the programmatic risks. Specifically, for SBW 
some EIS alternatives included an evaluation of retrieved SBW as HLW to 
be treated for disposal at a geologic repository for SNF/HLW; some 
alternatives evaluate retrieved SBW as TRU to be treated and disposed 
of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; and some alternatives evaluate 
SBW to be separated into HLW, TRU waste and LLW fractions. Moreover, 
DOE will manage the SBW to permit disposal at either WIPP or at a 
geologic repository for SNF/HLW and will evaluate the waste form to 
determine its suitability for disposal.
    2. The Final EIS presents an alternative that would treat INL Site 
waste at Hanford by taking advantage of a national investment in 
significant waste treatment capabilities and facilities in the State of 
Washington. Both the INL Site and Hanford are DOE facilities in the 
Northwest region of the U.S. and have wastes derived from similar 
sources. INL Site wastes could be treated using treatment processes 
being developed at Hanford prior to being transported to WIPP or a 
geologic repository for SNF/HLW for disposal. Therefore, DOE believes 
this alternative is reasonable and analyzed the alternative as required 
by NEPA. Further, DOE believes it is important to inform national and 
state decision makers of this alternative for treating INL Site wastes 
at Hanford, especially in view of the costs and risk involved in 
developing the same capabilities at two sites about 550 miles apart. 
The Final EIS presents associated risks, including transportation, and 
considers issues associated with meeting Hanford's schedule for waste 
treatment of Hanford waste.
    3. Regarding EPA's concern with DOE's broad expression of its 
preferred alternative in the Final EIS, DOE believes that the phased 
decision making process under this EIS not only meets the objectives of 
NEPA, but also includes meaningful public participation opportunities 
that substantially exceed the applicable regulatory requirements.
    DOE identified its preferred alternative in the Final EIS as 
follows: ``DOE's preferred waste processing alternative is to implement 
the proposed action by selecting from among the action alternatives, 
options and technologies analyzed in this EIS. The selection of any one 
of, or combination of, technologies or options used to implement the 
proposed action would be based on performance criteria that include 
risk, cost, time, and compliance factors.'' DOE did not identify a 
preference for a specific SBW treatment technology in this expression 
of preferred alternative. Rather, DOE first provided additional 
opportunities for public participation as part of its evaluation of the 
alternative technologies analyzed in the EIS, which included steam 
reforming, the technology that DOE is selecting today.
    Under this phased decision making strategy, after issuing the Final 
EIS, DOE conducted four public workshops to inform the public about the 
five technologies that DOE was considering. Further, DOE provided 
additional public comment opportunities on the draft RFP for the Idaho 
Cleanup Project, which required bidders to propose technologies for SBW 
treatment. Finally, DOE announced its preference for a specific SBW 
treatment technology, steam reforming, in a Federal Register Notice (70 
FR 44598; August 3, 2005), and again provided the opportunity for the 
public to comment. Section V.B. summarizes the comments received and 
DOE's responses.
    4. DOE has determined that the alternative of reconfiguring the 
calciner in the New Waste Calcining Facility with Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) upgrades is reasonable because calcination is 
a proven process for reliably placing liquid HLW and SBW into a powder 
form. The Final EIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of 
operating the calciner with MACT air emission upgrades. Compliance 
requirements and potential conflicts with state and Federal law are 
also considered. Prematurely taking irreversible closure actions on the 
calciner would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives analyzed in 
the Final EIS.
    In a November 21, 2002 letter, the INEEL CAB raised some of the 
same issues expressed by the EPA. In addition, the CAB recommended that 
DOE re-issue the Final EIS or issue a supplemental EIS and that DOE 
provide meaningful opportunities for the public to review and comment 
on the selection of technologies.
    DOE provides the following response to the INEEL CAB (Now the INL 
EM CAB) comments:
    As described in Section I of this ROD, DOE prepared a Supplement 
Analysis to examine whether a supplemental EIS is required. Based on 
the Supplement Analysis, DOE determined that there has been no change 
in the proposed action or significant new information or circumstances 
relevant to environmental concerns that would require DOE to re-issue 
the Final EIS or prepare a supplemental EIS. If DOE were to re-issue 
the Final EIS or prepare a supplemental EIS that identified a preferred 
alternative focusing on a single technology, it would not enhance the 
detail or precision of the environmental analysis. As part of continued 
public involvement, DOE held workshops in 2003 to obtain public input 
on the technologies being considered for treatment of the SBW.
    Further, as described above, DOE provided meaningful opportunities 
for the public to participate in identifying their concerns related to 
the proposed technologies for treatment of the SBW in the DOE 
technology selection process. The public also was provided an 
opportunity to comment on the draft RFP. DOE believes that these public 
participation opportunities, which exceed DOE's obligations under NEPA, 
were responsive to the CAB's comment.

V.B. Comments in Response to the August 3, 2005, Federal Register 
Notice of Preferred Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Technology (70 FR 
44599), That Invited Public Comments on DOE's Preferred Treatment 
Technology

    DOE received comments from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, INL EM 
Citizens Advisory Board, Coalition 21, Snake River Alliance, Mr. Barry 
O'Brian, Mr. G.V. Wieg, and Mr. D. Siemer in response to the August 3, 
2005, Notice. The comments in these documents did not raise any new 
issues relevant to environmental concerns that were not addressed in 
the Final EIS.
    The commentors expressed five general areas of concern: (1) Several 
commentors expressed concerns regarding the disposition uncertainty for 
the treated SBW and recommended deferral of the SBW treatment decision 
until a waste determination is made for the SBW and a disposal facility 
is identified (i.e., WIPP or a geologic repository for SNF/HLW). 
Commentors also stated if the Department does make a SBW treatment 
technology selection, the selected treatment method should be neutral 
with regard to repository

[[Page 75171]]

requirements; (2) Several commentors questioned whether DOE adequately 
considered all the alternatives for the treatment of SBW and some 
suggested that vitrification is the best technology for the treatment 
of SBW; (3) There were several comments related to the type and 
availability of shipping containers and the mode of transportation; (4) 
Several commentors expressed concerns related to the design of the 
steam reformer facility and the type of product created, and whether 
that waste form can be properly disposed of; and (5) Some commentors 
recommended that facilities disposition decisions should be addressed 
in a future, separate, ROD.
    DOE provides the following responses to the comments received:
    1. DOE believes that delaying the SBW treatment technology decision 
does not support both the Department's and the State of Idaho's 
priority to reduce potential risk to the Snake River Plain Aquifer. In 
addition, the product resulting from steam reforming is neutral 
regarding repository requirements and can be integrated with the 
calcine disposition path if it cannot be disposed of at WIPP.
    2. During the NEPA process, DOE evaluated the environmental impacts 
of the range of reasonable alternatives, including vitrification, in 
the preparation of the Final EIS. DOE identified steam reforming as its 
preferred treatment technology for SBW after consideration of public 
comment and the following factors: Technical maturity, environment, 
safety and health (ES&H), schedule, and programmatic risk, as presented 
in the Final EIS. DOE also considered the cost of the various 
alternatives. This technology supports the Settlement Agreement 
milestone to treat SBW by December 31, 2012 (see Section VII of this 
ROD, Basis for Decision).
    3. DOE evaluated the environmental impacts of transportation in the 
Final EIS, which shows that transportation risks would be small. It 
should be noted that the Department of Transportation regulates the 
shipment of the waste while the NRC regulates the packaging of the 
material for shipment. DOE will ship all wastes in accordance with 
applicable regulations regardless of the mode of shipment. There are no 
known regulatory issues associated with the packaging and shipping of 
the reformed product.
    4. The steam reformer facility will be designed and constructed to 
meet all applicable regulatory and safety requirements (e.g., emission 
and radiological controls). DOE must also obtain the appropriate 
permits to construct and operate the facility. Presently, DOE is 
planning to create a carbonate waste product from the steam reformer 
which is similar in form to the HLW calcine. DOE anticipates the solid 
waste form will be acceptable for disposal at WIPP, or if not 
acceptable at WIPP, would be integrated into the strategy for 
management of HLW calcine.
    5. The Department believes it is prudent to proceed with facilities 
disposition decisions at INTEC to reduce the overall risk to the Snake 
River Plain Aquifer and to support the cleanup at the INL Site.

VI. Decision

    DOE plans a phased decision making process. This first ROD focuses 
on SBW treatment, NGLW, facilities disposition excluding the Tank Farm 
Facility and bin sets closure, and DOE's strategy for HLW calcine.
    SBW Treatment: The existing INTEC Evaporators will continue to 
operate to reduce SBW volume to enable DOE to cease use of the Tank 
Farm tanks by December 31, 2012, pursuant to the Notice of 
Noncompliance Consent Order between DOE and State of Idaho. DOE has 
decided that SBW will be treated using the steam reforming technology. 
The Department's preference for this treated waste is disposal as TRU 
waste at WIPP near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Until such time as the 
regulatory approvals are obtained and a determination the waste is TRU 
is made, the Department will manage the waste to allow disposal at WIPP 
or at a geologic repository for SNF and HLW.
    The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's selection of steam reforming 
as the technology for solidifying remaining INTEC Tank Farm liquids, 
provided DOE obtains required permits for its treatment facility and 
post-treatment storage, and produces a waste form acceptable for 
disposal at a repository outside Idaho.
    NGLW: NGLW is no longer being sent to the Tank Farm and is being 
stored in other permitted storage tanks. This NGLW may be treated in 
the same facility and with the same technology used to treat SBW, or 
grouted in a facility constructed for that purpose, and disposed of as 
either low-level or TRU waste, depending on its radioactive waste 
characteristics, at an offsite DOE or commercial facility.
    The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's decision to segregate newly 
generated liquid waste at INTEC and manage it in compliance with the 
Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act and other legal requirements.
    Facilities Disposition: DOE has decided to conduct performance-
based closure of existing facilities directly related to the HLW 
Program at INTEC, excluding the tank farm and bin sets, once their 
missions are complete. Performance based closure activities will be 
implemented in accordance with applicable regulations and DOE Orders. 
The method of closure for specific facilities will be determined on a 
case-by-case basis depending on risk, and may include closure to 
landfill standards. Newly constructed waste processing facilities, such 
as the steam reforming treatment facility, at INTEC necessary to 
implement the decisions in this ROD will be designed consistent with 
clean closure methods in accordance with the objectives and 
requirements of DOE Order 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management 
(previously DOE Order 430.1A, Life Cycle Management), and DOE Order 
435.1 and Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management and its Manual 
and closed when their missions are complete regardless of the 
characteristics of the waste they treat. These closure activities are 
analyzed in the Final EIS.
    The State concurs with the performance-based closure of existing 
facilities directly related to the high-level waste program at INTEC, 
once their missions are complete, subject to the State's separate 
approval of individual closure plans under the Idaho Hazardous Waste 
Management Act and compliance with section 3116 of the NDAA, where 
applicable. The State also concurs with DOE's decision to clean close 
newly constructed waste processing facilities.
    HLW Calcine: Consistent with DOE's Environmental Management 
Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at INEEL, DOE's 
strategy for HLW calcine is to retrieve the calcine for disposal 
outside the State of Idaho. Accordingly, DOE will develop calcine 
retrieval demonstration processes and conduct risk-based analyses, 
including disposal options, focused on the calcine stored at the INTEC. 
This strategy will culminate in the issuance of a future ROD, as 
discussed below.
    The State of Idaho will provide additional input on DOE's remaining 
decisions for calcine treatment, which DOE must make by December 31, 
2009 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

Future RODs

    DOE will issue an amended ROD addressing closure of the Tank Farm 
in coordination with the Secretary's determination, in consultation 
with the NRC, as to whether or not the waste residuals in the tank 
system, the tanks,

[[Page 75172]]

vaults, piping and associated ancillary equipment are HLW in accordance 
with Section 3116 the NDAA. That determination and amended ROD are 
expected to be issued in calendar year 2006. The State of Idaho has 
stated that: The State will continue to coordinate with DOE and the NRC 
as appropriate regarding the classification of tank residuals under 
Section 3116 of the NDAA, as well as the classification of other 
wastes.
    DOE plans to issue another amended ROD in 2009 that will contain 
DOE's decision on the final strategy for HLW calcine retrieval and the 
technology for additional treatment, if necessary, packaging and safe 
storage based on transportation and disposal requirements. Following 
that amended ROD, DOE would begin to manage the HLW calcine so it is 
ready to be moved out of Idaho for disposal by a target date of 2035, 
in accordance with the 1995 Settlement Agreement. Additionally, it is 
DOE's goal to complete calcine retrieval, packaging, additional 
treatment (if required) and shipping to a geologic repository for SNF/
HLW by December 2035, as described in DOE's Environmental Management 
Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at INEEL. In 
addition, the amended ROD will address closure of the bin sets and 
their associated facilities.

VII. Basis for Decision

    Based on the analysis in the Final EIS, all of the waste processing 
alternatives that treat the SBW and remove the calcine would have small 
environmental impacts. The long-term impacts of the No Action and 
Continued Current Operations alternatives (i.e., the uncertainty of 
leaving the SBW and calcine in storage), however, are uncertain and 
could be high. Implementing any of the action alternatives through the 
technologies or options analyzed in the Final EIS and a related SA 
(DOE/EIS-0287-SA-01) would eliminate the element of uncertainty and 
provide the most certain long-term protection of the environment.
    DOE's decision to use the steam reforming technology for the 
treatment of SBW is based on DOE's consideration of environmental 
impacts, programmatic needs, safety and health risks, technical 
viability, ability to meet regulatory requirements and agreement 
milestones, public comments, and cost. DOE believes steam reforming 
provides the best value to the Government and meets its need for 
treatment flexibility, acceptable cost, and probability of success.
    DOE's decision to defer a final decision on calcine is based on the 
need to continue detailed evaluation of repository performance 
criteria, regulatory requirements, cost, schedule, and programmatic 
risk.
    DOE's decision to implement performance-based closure methods for 
disposition of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program 
at INTEC and plan to clean close newly constructed facilities, such as 
the steam reforming facility for SBW treatment, was based on the 
analysis of the potential environmental impacts identified in the Final 
EIS as well as to meet regulatory requirements, such as RCRA, and 
because each method of closure is determined on a case-by-case basis.
    DOE's decision to defer a final decision for closure of the Tank 
Farm was based on DOE's intent to coordinate this decision with the 
Secretary's determination, in consultation with the NRC, under Section 
3116 of the NDAA that will allow DOE to decide the appropriate 
performance-based closure method.
    No impact resulting from normal operations under any of the 
alternatives or options analyzed would require specifically designed 
mitigation measures. DOE will, however, adopt all practicable means to 
avoid or minimize environmental harm when implementing the actions 
described in this ROD. Those measures include employing engineering 
design features to address flooding, emission controls to reduce or 
eliminate releases of pollutants and meet regulatory requirements, 
maintaining a rigorous health and safety program to protect workers 
from radiological and chemical contaminates, and continuing efforts to 
reduce the generation of wastes.
    These decisions are also consistent with the objectives of the DOE 
Environmental Management Performance Management Plan for Accelerating 
Cleanup at INEEL.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 13th day of December 2005.
James A. Rispoli,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. E5-7497 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P