SUMMARY DOE/EIS-0203-F
Department of Energy Programmatic
Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
and
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Programs
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Summary
April 1995
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Management
Idaho Operations Office
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
April 1995
Dear Citizen:
This is a summary of the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Department of Energy and
the Department of the Navy, as a cooperating agency, have prepared the final
Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act and a 1993 Federal District Court order.
Volume 1 analyzes alternatives for the management of existing and reasonably
foreseeable inventories of the Department's spent nuclear fuel. Site-specific
analyses, provided in appendices, support the discussion of the environmental
consequences related to five alternative approaches for managing the
Department's spent nuclear fuel through the year 2035. Volume 2 is a detailed
analysis of environmental restoration and waste management activities at the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. This analysis supports facility-
specific decisions regarding new, continued or discontinued environmental
restoration and waste management operations through the year 2005. Volume 3
is the Comment Response Document which comprises summaries of public comments
received on the draft Environmental Impact Statement during a 90-day public
comment period, and the responses to those comments.
A complete copy of the final Environmental Impact Statement and a list of
reference documents are available in public reading rooms and information
locations. Their addresses are included in this summary. For further
information or to request additional copies, call or contact:
U. S. Department of Energy
Idaho Operations Office
Office of Communications
850 Energy Drive, MS 1214
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
(208) 526-0833
The Department of Energy will issue a Record of Decision no less than thirty
days after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a Notice of
Availability for the final Environmental Impact Statement. The Record of
Decision will be announced by June 1, 1995.
Sincerely,
(signature)
Thomas P. Grumbly
Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management
Printed with soy ink on recycled paper
Cover Sheet
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Lead Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Energy
Cooperating Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Navy
TITLE: Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
CONTACT: For further information on this Environmental Impact Statement call or contact:
Office of Communications
Bradley P. Bugger
DOE Idaho Operations Office
850 Energy Drive, MS 1214
Idaho Falls ID 83403-3189
208-526-0833
For general information on the U.S. Department of Energy NEPA process call 1-800-472-2756 to leave a
message or contact:
Carol Borgstrom, Director
Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42)
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington D.C. 20585
202-586-4600
ABSTRACT: This document analyzes (at a programmatic level) the potential environmental conse-
quences over the next 40 years of alternatives related to the transportation, receipt, processing, and storage
of spent nuclear fuel under the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy. It also analyzes the site-
specific consequences of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory sitewide actions anticipated over the
next 10 years for waste and spent nuclear fuel management and environmental restoration. For program-
matic spent nuclear fuel management, this document analyzes alternatives of no action, decentralization,
regionalization, centralization and the use of the plans that existed in 1992 and 1993 for the management
of these materials. For the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, this document analyzes alternatives of
no action, ten-year plan, and minimum and maximum treatment, storage, and disposal of U.S. Department
of Energy wastes.
Summary i
Reader's Guide
The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Programs [DOE/EIS- 0203-F] is divided into three volumes:
. Volume 1, DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear
Fuel Management
. Volume 2, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Programs (including
site-specific spent nuclear fuel
management)
. Volume 3, Comment Response Document.
Volume 1 comprises five primary sections and ten key appendices. The five
primary sections provide (a) an introduction and overview to DOE's spent
nuclear fuel management program throughout the nation, (b) the purpose and
need for action to manage spent nuclear fuel, (c) management alternatives
that are under consideration, (d) the affected environment, and (e)
potential environmental consequences that may becaused by the
implementation of each alternative. The information contained in these
sections relies, in part, upon more detailed information and analyses in
the ten key appendices. These appendices describe and assess the
site-specific spent nuclear fuel management programs at three primary DOE
facilities and several alternative sites, the naval spent nuclear fuel
management program, offsite transportation of spent nuclear fuel,
environmental consequences data, and environmental justice considerations.
Two additional appendices include a glossary and a list of acronyms and
abbreviations.
Volume 2 is similarly constructed. Five primary sections are presented that
provide (a) the purpose and need for an integrated 10-year environmental
restoration, waste management, and spent nuclear fuel management program at
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, (b) background, (c) management
alternatives under consideration, (d) the affected environment, and (e)
potential environmental consequences that may be associated with the
implementation of each alternative. The information presented in these
sections relies, in part, upon four key appendices, which include a basic
description of radioactivity and toxicology (chemical effects), agency
consultation letters, detailed project summaries, and technical
methodologies and key data. Two additional appendices include a glossary
and a list of acronyms and abbreviations.
Volumes 1 and 2 provide an index as well as a list of references to enable
the reader to further review and research selected topics. DOE has
established reading rooms and information
iii Summary
locations across the United States where these references may either be
reviewed or obtained for review through interlibrary loan. The addresses,
phone numbers, and hours of operation for these reading rooms and
information locations are provided at the end of this EIS Summary.
A line in the margin in Volumes I and 2 indicates a change since the Draft
EIS.
Volume 3 comprises a primary section, called Comment Summaries and
Responses, and three appendices. In the primary section
individual public comments are summarized, grouped with others that are
similar and organized into topical sections, called Response Sections. The
appendices are designed to aid the reader in locating specific comment
summaries and responses. Appendix A is an alphabetical list of commentors,
showing for each the associated comment document number and response
section number(s). Appendix B is a numerically ordered list of comment
document numbers, showing associated commentors and response section
numbers, and Appendix C provides a correlation of response section numbers
to comment document numbers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 1)
To find a response to comment(s), the reader should:
1. Turn to Appendix A in Volume 3 and find the name (or organization or Agency),
and note the comment document number(s) assigned to his/her comments.
2. In the same entry, find the response section number(s) where the response to
the comments are located,
3. Turn to the Table of Contents in Volume 3 under the heading Comment
Summaries and Responses, where response section numbers are listed in
numerical order, to find the page on which the response section number(s)
that apply to the comment(s) appear.
4. Turn to the appropriate page(s) to find a response to a summary of the
comment.
A copy of the actual comments (rather than the comment summaries found in
Volume 3 of the EIS) can be found along with the EIS in the public reading rooms
listed at the end of this summary.
Example:
1. The first alphabetical entrant, Dinah Abbott, has been assigned comment
document number 615.
2. Ms. Abbott's first entry is for response number 01.01.01.01(005); four other
response numbers are applicable to her comments.
3. That first entry is in Section 1.1.1.1, entitled Action alternatives" under
Specific Preferences for SNF Management Alternatives.
4. Section 1.1.1.1 begins on page 1-1. The selected entry for Ms. Abbott is
Response 005 in that section and is located on page 1-2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents
Reader's Guide iii
Introduction 1
National Environmental Policy Act Process 1
General Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement 2
Comments and Responses 5
Volume 1-Spent Nuclear Fuel 7
Overview 7
History of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management 7
Purpose and Need for Future Spent Nuclear Fuel Management 7
Technologies for Spent Nuclear Fuel Management 9
Alternatives 13
No Action Alternative 14
Decentralization Alternative 16
1992/1993 Planning Basis Alternative 18
Regionalization and Preferred Alternative 20
Centralization Alternative 22
Environmental Consequences 25
Number of Shipments 25
Public and Worker Health Effects 25
Spent Nuclear Fuel-Related Employment 29
Generation of Radioactive Wastes 33
Impact on DOE and Navy Missions 36
Cost of Implementation 37
Cumulative Impacts 37
Environmental Justice 39
Consultations and Environmental Requirements 41
Relationship Between Volumes 1 and 2 43
Volume 2 - INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 45
Overview 45
Waste Management, Environmental Restoration, Spent Nuclear
Fuel, and Technology Development at the INEL 47
Waste Management 47
Environmental Restoration 47
Spent Nuclear Fuel 48
Technology Development 50
Purpose and Need for Future Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management 51
Alternatives 53
Alternative A (No Action) 54
Alternative B (Ten-Year Plan) 55
Alternative C (Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal) 55
Alternative D (Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal) 57
Preferred Alternative 59
Affected Environment at the INEL 61
Environmental Consequences 63
Air Quality 63
Cultural Resources 64
Ecology 65
Groundwater Quality 66
Normal Operations Impacts 66
Facilities 66
Workers 67
Transportation 67
Accidents 67
Facilities 67
Workers 67
Transportation 68
Environmental Justice 68
Consultations and Environmental Requirements 71
Attachment-Reading Rooms and Information Locations 73
Summary vi
Introduction
National Environmental Policy Act Process
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is currently evaluating its options for
two separate, but related, sets of decisions. The first involves
programmatic (DOE-wide) approaches to DOE's management of spent nuclear
fuel. The second involves site-specific approaches regarding the future
direction of environmental restoration and waste management programs
(including spent nuclear fuel) at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
A key element of DOE's decisionmaking is a thorough understanding of the
environmental impacts that may occur during the implementation of the
proposed action. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended,
provides federal agency decisionmakers with a process to consider potential
environmental consequences (both positive and negative) of proposed actions
before agencies make decisions. In following this process, DOE has prepared
this final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess various
management alternatives and to provide the necessary background, data, and
analyses to help decisionmakers and the public understand the potential
environmental impacts of each alternative. DOE's decisions will be
discussed in a Record of Decision to be issued by June 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 2)
National Environmental Policy Act
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: A law that
requires Federal agencies to consider in their
decisionmaking processes the potential environmental
effects of proposed actions and analyses of alternatives
and measures to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of a
proposed action.
Alternatives: A range of reasonable options considered in
selecting an approach to meeting the proposed objectives.
In accordance with other applicable requirements, the No-
Action alternative is also considered.
Environmental Impact Statement: A detailed
environmental analysis for a proposed major Federal action
that could significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. A tool to assist in decision making, it
describes the positive and negative environmental effects
of the proposed undertaking and alternatives.
Record of Decision: A concise public record of DOE's
decision, which discusses the decision, identifies the
alternatives (specifying which ones were considered
environmentally preferable), and indicates whether all
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental
harm from the selected alternative were adopted (and if
not, why not).
------------------------------------------------------------
Summary 1
General Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 1 of this EIS considers programmatic (DOE-wide) alternative
approaches to safely, efficiently, and responsibly manage existing and
projected quantities of spent nuclear fuel until the year 2035. This amount
of time may be required to make and implement a decision on the ultimate
disposition of spent nuclear fuel. DOE's spent nuclear fuel
responsibilities include fuel generated by DOE production, research, and
development reactors; naval reactors; university and foreign research
reactors; domestic non-DOE reactors such as those at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology and the Armed Forces Radiobiology
Research Institute; and special-case commercial reactors such as Fort St.
Vrain and the Lynchburg Technology Center. Volume 1 focuses on the
following:
. Impacts to worker safety, public health,
the environment, and socioeconomic
factors related to transporting,
receiving, stabilizing, and storing DOE
and naval spent nuclear fuel, as well as
special-case commercial fuels under DOE
responsibility.
. Siting locations for spent nuclear fuel
management operations, which may
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 3)
What Is Spent Nuclear Fuel?
Spent nuclear fuel is fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following
irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been separated. For
purposes of this EIS, spent nuclear fuel inventory also includes uranium/neptunium
target material, blanket subassemblies, pieces of fuel, and debris.
Fuel in a reactor consists of fuel assemblies
that come in many configurations but
generally consist of the fuel matrix, cladding,
and structural hardware. The matrix, which
contains the fissionable material (typically
uranium oxide or uranium metal), is typically
plates or cylindrical pellets. The cladding
(typically zirconium, aluminum, or stainless
steel) surrounds the fuel, confining and
protecting it. For gas-cooled reactors, this
may be a ceramic coating over fuel particles.
Structural parts hold fuel rods or plates in the
proper configuration and direct coolant flow
(typically water) over the fuel. Structural
hardware is generally nickel alloys, stainless
steel, zirconium, or aluminum, or for gas-
cooled reactors, graphite.
The radiation ot most concern from spent
nuclear fuel is gamma rays. Although the
radiation levels can be very high, the gamma-
ray intensities are readily reduced by
shielding the fuel elements with such
materials as concrete, lead, steel, and water. The shielding thicknesses are
dependent on the energy of the radiation source, desired protection level, and
density of the shielding material. Shielding thicknesses for concrete or lead are
smaller than for water.
Figure (Summary 2)What Is Spent Nuclear Fuel?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Summary
. include storing, stabilizing, and
continuing research and development.
(Stabilizing reduces fuel
deterioration.)
. Fuel stabilization activities required
for safe interim storage such as canning
of degraded fuels or processing,
research and development of spent
nuclear fuel management technologies,
and pilot programs.
DOE will not analyze the ultimate disposition (final step in which material
is disposed of) of spent nuclear fuel in this EIS. Decisions regarding the
actual disposition of DOE's spent nuclear fuel will follow appropriate
review under the National Environmental Policy Act and be subject to
licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
DOE will not select spent nuclear fuel stabilization technologies on the
basis of this EIS. These technology-based decisions are more appropriately
dealt with on a fuel-type basis. DOE will conduct additional National
Environmental Policy Act reviews for research and development, and
characterization activities that help select technologies for placing the
fuel in a form suitable for ultimate disposition (this is commonly referred
to as "tiering" within the National Environmental Policy Act process).
For example, the Waste Management Programmatic EIS complements decisions to
be made in Volume 2. Other EISs being prepared complement decisions for the
disposition of other nuclear materials, and these EISs and their
relationships to this EIS are discussed in Section 1.2 of Volume 1. The
Draft EIS on a Proposed Nuclear Nonproliferation
Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel will be
distributed for public review and comment in April 1995. Decisions derived
from that policy also complement this EIS.
Except for special-case commercial fuel, management of spent nuclear fuel
from commercial nuclear power plants is not the subject of this EIS.
Volume 2 of this EIS addresses alternative approaches for the management of
DOE's environmental restoration, waste management, and spent nuclear fuel
activities over the next 10 years at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. This volume includes evaluations of potential environmental
impacts associated with Idaho National Engineering Laboratory programs and
site activities that contribute to waste streams requiring handling or
disposal. Waste management activities are evaluated at both the site- wide
and project-specific levels.
Summary 3
Figure (Summary 3)Waste management activities at the Idaho national Engineering laboratory.
Environmental restoration activities are addressed only at the site-wide
level. Volume 2 considers site-specific activities for spent nuclear fuel
management, including fuel receipt, transportation, characterization,
stabilization, storage, and technology development for ultimate
disposition.
Volume 2 evaluates impacts of operations or programs associated with the
spent nuclear fuel, environmental restoration, and waste management
programs at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Other activities are
discussed when they are relevant to understanding the affected environment
or are expected to occur during the next 10 years, and are included as part
of the cumulative effects analysis. This EIS does not evaluate the DOE-
wide programmatic alternatives for waste management, which are being
evaluated in a separate programmatic EIS to be issued in draft form in
1995. However, the alternatives presented in Volume 2 have been developed
to be consistent with the programmatic objectives of the Waste Management
Programmatic EIS (previously known as the Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement), which will
not be completed before the Record of Decision is signed for the EIS
summarized here. Any conflicts between these Records of Decision will be
evaluated and, as appropriate, additional National Environmental Policy Act
reviews will be conducted.
4 Summary
Comments and Responses
During the public comment period for the Draft EIS, more than 1,430
individuals, agencies, and organizations provided DOE with comments.
Comments were received from all affected DOE and shipyard communities. Most
citizens and organizations expressed broad opinions, especially on siting
and transportation options, and recommended new or enhanced alternatives or
additional sites, or commented on the National Environmental Policy Act
process. Many commentors used this opportunity to comment on legislation,
policies, or federal programs not specifically related to the EIS. Some
questioned or commented on the laws and regulations applicable to DOE's
mission, DOE interim spent nuclear fuel management, or environmental
restoration and waste management at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory.
Many commentors expressed strongly held opinions about the EIS, DOE, and
the Navy and/or the alternatives. Some commentors expressed the opinion
that DOE does not consider public comments and that some comments will be
given more weight than others. Others stated that fear- driven commentors
should be ignored, and decisions should be based on good science.
Recurring and controversial issues raised during the public comment period
included comments on DOE and Navy credibility; the apparent lack of a clear
path forward with respect to ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel and
nuclear waste; continued generation of spent nuclear fuel; cost of
implementation; safety of, and risk to, the public; transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and waste; impacts of accidents and perceived risk on local
economies and the quality of life; other issues of local interest; and U.S.
nuclear, defense, energy, and foreign policies.
Public comments were considered by the DOE and Navy and resulted in changes
to the Draft EIS and in the preparation of the Comment Response Document,
Volume 3, of this Final EIS. In general, public comments, coupled with
consultations with commenting agencies and state and tribal governments,
resulted in additional analyses, clarifying or correcting facts, or
expanded discussion in certain technical areas. Where appropriate, Volume 3
provides an explanation of why certain comments did not warrant further
change to the EIS.
Both volumes of the Final EIS identify DOE's preferred alternatives-
Regionalization by fuel type (Alternative 4A) for managing spent nuclear
fuel, and a hybrid alternative that is the Ten-Year Plan (Alternative B)
enhanced to include elements of other alternatives for the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory. The DOE's preferred alternatives are consistent
with the Navy's preferred alternative identified in the draft EIS- to
continue to conduct refueling and defueling of nuclear-powered vessels and
prototypes, and to transport spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory for full examination and interim storage, using the
same practices as in the past. Identification of the preferred alternatives
was based on consideration of environmental impacts, public issues and
concerns, regulatory compliance, the DOE's and Navy's spent nuclear fuel
missions, national security and defense, cost, and DOE policy.
As committed to in the Draft EIS, the evaluation and discussion of
environmental justice has been expanded to both Volumes 1 and 2 of the
Final EIS. This approach is consistent with draft interagency definitions
at the time of its preparation and reflects public comments received
regarding environmental justice. Consultation with commenting Native
American
Summary 5
Tribes is reflected in the environmental justice analysis, as well as in
various sections of the EIS, as appropriate.
In response to concerns raised by public comments regarding the technical
analysis, seismic and water resource discussions and analyses were
reviewed, clarified, and enhanced for all alternative sites, and current
data and analyses were added to Volumes 1 and 2, as appropriate.
In Volume 1, a discussion of potential accidents caused by a common
initiator was added. The option of stabilizing some of DOE's spent nuclear
fuel (specifically Hanford site production reactor fuel) by processing it
at available facilities located overseas was added, thus expanding
processing options discussed in the EIS. An analysis of barge
transportation was added to the EIS, addressing the option of transporting
production-reactor fuel to a shipping point for overseas processing and
supporting the transport of Brookhaven National Laboratory spent nuclear
fuel to another site, as appropriate. In addition, an analysis of shipboard
fires was added, primarily in response to comments related to receiving
spent nuclear fuel of U.S. origin from foreign research reactors.
In response to public comments, the results of a separate evaluation of the
various alternatives' costs were summarized in the EIS. The cost evaluation
was performed independently of the EIS for purposes broader than those
analyzed in the EIS.
The discussion of the option of leaving Fort St. Vrain spent nuclear fuel
in Colorado has been expanded, specifically with respect to contractual
commitments versus programmatic benefits.
Other enhancements include clarification that potential shipment of spent
nuclear fuel of U.S. origin from foreign research reactors consists of
approximately 20 metric tons of heavy metal. As a result of public
comments, Volume 1 was enhanced to include a description that clarifies the
relationship between other DOE NEPA reviews related to spent nuclear fuel
and this EIS. This description explains the interrelationship of these
actions in response to comments about segmentation. In the same regard, the
relationship between the EIS and Spent Fuel Vulnerability Action Plans was
clarified.
With regard to naval spent nuclear fuel, enhancements to Appendix D (Naval
Spent Nuclear Fuel Management) include providing additional information in
the following areas: importance of naval spent nuclear fuel examination,
impacts of not refueling or defueling nuclear-powered vessels, the reasons
why storage and processing of naval spent nuclear fuel in foreign
facilities were not evaluated in detail, environmental justice
considerations, the transition period required to implement naval spent
nuclear fuel alternatives, potential accident scenarios at naval shipyards,
and uncertainties in calculating potential environmental impacts.
In Volume 2, the air quality analysis was revised to upgrade the
information on existing baseline conditions. The analysis compared impacts
of each alternative with Prevention of Significant Deterioration increment
limits. The Waste Experimental Reduction Facility project summary was
enhanced with respect to related operation and combustion strategy. The EIS
was also revised to reflect employment projections resulting from the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory contractor consolidation.
6 Summary
Volume I - Spent Nuclear Fuel
Overview
The DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Program is intended to (a) provide
interim storage and management of fuel at specified locations until
ultimate disposition, (b) stabilize the fuel as required for
environmentally safe storage and protection of human health (for both
workers and the public), (c) increase safe storage capacity by replacing
facilities that cannot meet current standards and providing additional
capacity for newly generated spent nuclear fuel, (d) conduct research and
development initiatives to support safe storage and/or ultimate
disposition, and (e) examine fuel generated by the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program. DOE's spent nuclear fuel management responsibilities include fuel
generated by DOE production and research and development reactors, naval
reactors, university and foreign research reactors, other miscellaneous
generators, and special-case commercial reactors. The primary goals of the
management program are to reduce the risk of nuclear accidents during
transportation and storage and to minimize the release of radionuclides to
the environment where they can pose hazards to human health, plants, and
animals.
History of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
Most DOE spent nuclear fuel is currently stored at three primary locations:
the Hanford Site (State of Washington), the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory (State of Idaho), and the Savannah River Site (State of South
Carolina) (Figure 1). Much smaller quantities of spent nuclear fuel remain
at other locations throughout the nation (see Figure 1). Historically, DOE
has reprocessed spent nuclear fuel at the three primary locations to
recover and recycle uranium and plutonium.
Much of the spent nuclear fuel at the three primary locations resulted from
production reactors at the Hanford and Savannah River Sites. These reactors
are no longer operating, but they previously produced material for DOE's
defense programs and research and development programs. Smaller quantities
of spent nuclear fuel at other locations have resulted from experimental
reactor operations and from research conducted by approximately 55
university- and Government-owned test reactors. DOE proposes to adopt and
implement a policy concerning management of spent nuclear fuel containing
enriched uranium that originated in the United States and was used by
foreign research reactors. DOE also would manage limited amounts of
special-case commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel.
Since 1957, spent nuclear fuel from nuclear-powered naval vessels and naval
reactor prototypes (operating reactors used for land-based training) has
been transported from shipyards and prototype sites to the Naval Reactors
Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for testing and
examination. A court order issued on June 28, 1993 prohibited the receipt
of all spent nuclear fuel by Idaho; that order was amended on December 22,
1993 allowing only a limited number of shipments of spent nuclear fuel to
Idaho, pending completion of this EIS and the Record of Decision.
Purpose and Need for Future Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
DOE is responsible for developing and maintaining a capability to safely
manage its spent nuclear fuel. During the last four decades, DOE and its
Summary 7
Figure (Summary 8)Figure 1. Locations of current spent nuclear fuel generators and storage
sites
predecessor agencies have transported, received, stored, and reprocessed
more than 100,000 metric tons of heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel.
Approximately 2,700 metric tons heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel stored at
various locations in the United States and overseas have not been
reprocessed. This spent nuclear fuel is in a wide range of enrichments
(that is, percent uranium-235), types, and conditions. By the year 2035,
this quantity may increase by approximately 100 metric tons of heavy metal.
The end of the Cold War led DOE to reevaluate the scale of its weapons
production, nuclear propulsion, and research missions. In April 1992, DOE
began to phase out reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for recovery and
recycling of highly enriched uranium. In November 1993, DOE documented
current and potential environmental, safety, and health vulnerabilities
regarding DOE spent nuclear fuel storage facilities. DOE also identified
storage locations of fuel with degraded cladding (metal coverings to
prevent fuel corrosion) and other problems that require action to ensure
continued safe storage. This situation has also been identified by the
independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in Recommendation 94-1,
issued May 26, 1994. The Board concluded that imminent hazards could arise
within several years unless certain problems are corrected, including those
related to spent nuclear fuel storage. Thus, DOE needs to establish an
integrated complex-wide program that provides safe and effective management
for present and reasonably foreseeable quantities of spent nuclear fuel,
pending its ultimate disposition. Relevant decisions that must be made
include the selection of:
. Locations to conduct specific spent
nuclear fuel management activities after
evaluating existing and potential
locations
. Appropriate capabilities, facilities,
and technologies
. Research and development activities
needed to support the DOE Spent Nuclear
Fuel Management Program.
In other words, this EIS will provide the environmental information to
support decisions that will facilitate a transition between DOE's current
management practices and ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel.
Technologies for Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
Technologies for spent nuclear fuel management are required to ensure safe,
environmentally sound, and economic management until ultimate disposition
is implemented. Ultimate disposition of DOE's spent nuclear
a. A metric ton of heavy metal is the unit used throughout this document to
indicate the amount of spent nuclear fuel It corresponds to 1,000
kilograms (2,200 pounds) of heavy metal (uranium, plutonium. thorium).
------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 4)
What Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
Decisions Will Be Made Based on this EIS?
Where should DOE locate specific spent nuclear
fuel management activities?
What capabilities, facilities, and technologies are
needed for spent nuclear fuel management?
What research and development activities are
needed to support the spent nuclear fuel
management program?
------------------------------------------------------
Summary 9
fuel is a high priority. Two broad strategies may at this point be
envisioned for the ultimate disposition of DOE spent nuclear fuel. The
Department could (a) work toward direct disposal of spent fuel in a
geologic repository or (b) chemically dissolve the fuel and produce a waste
form (such as vitrified glass) for repository disposal. Variations on these
broad strategies are also possible and both remain under consideration. It
is possible that much of DOE's spent fuel could qualify for direct
disposal. Aggressive characterization and, if appropriate, preparation
programs would be necessary to support the first repository schedule.
Sufficient quantity and quality of information is still not available to
determine at this time whether the Yucca mountain site is a suitable
candidate for geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste. The DOE, however, is in the early planning stages for a
repository EIS, which will be prepared pursuant to the directives of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended. The DOE plans to issue in mid-1995 a
formal notice of its intent to prepare this analysis. The repository EIS is
being prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts, based on the
best available information and data, that would be associated with the
repository's development and operation, and to support the Secretary of
Energy's final recommendation to the President, as required by the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, as amended. The repository EIS will examine the site
specific environmental impacts from construction, operation, and eventual
closure of the repository, including potential post-closure radiological
effects to the environment. Until the repository EIS is complete, no final
decision could be made concerning what DOE spent nuclear fuel would be
accepted in a geologic repository.
As part of its spent nuclear fuel management program, DOE would (1)
stabilize the spent nuclear fuel as needed to ensure safe interim storage,
(2) characterize the existing spent nuclear fuel inventory to assess
compliance with the repository acceptance criteria as they are developed,
and (3) determine what processing, if any, is required to meet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 5)
Definition of Terms Related to Spent Nuclear Fuel
management (of spent nuclear fuel)-Emplacing, operating, and administering
facilities, transportation systems, and procedures to ensure safe and environmentally
responsible handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel pending (and in anticipation of)
a decision on ultimate disposition.
stabilization (of spent nuclear fuel)-Actions taken to further confine or reduce the
hazards associated with spent nuclear fuel, as necessary for safe management and
environmentally responsible storage for extended periods of time. Activities that may
be necessary to stabilize spent nuclear fuel include canning, processing, and
passivation.
canning-The process of placing spent nuclear fuel in canisters to retard corrosion,
contain radioactive releases, or control geometry.
processing (of spent nuclear fuel)-Applying a chemical or physical process designed
to alter the characteristics of the spent nuclear fuel matrix.
passivation-The process o4 making metals inactive or less chemically reactive. For
example, the surface of steel can be passivated by chemical treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the criteria. Decisions regarding the actual disposition of DOE's spent
nuclear fuel would follow appropriate review under the National
Environmental Policy Act, and would be subject to licensing by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This "path forward" would be implemented so
as to minimize impacts on the first repository schedule. The current
planning assumption is that any DOE material (vitrified high-level waste
and/or spent nuclear fuel) qualified and selected for emplacement in the
first repository would be disposed beginning in the year 2015. Disposition
of the remaining DOE spent nuclear fuel and vitrified high- level waste
that is not emplaced in the first repository would not be decided until the
DOE recommendation on the need for a second repository (which would
consider such factors as the physical and statutory limits of the first
repository). The Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, requires DOE to make
that recommendation between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2010.
Several technology options are available to accomplish overall spent
nuclear fuel management objectives. Their selection is dependent upon fuel
design and its structural integrity, fuel enrichment, and the chemical
stability of the cladding including the degree of corrosion, and of the
fuel matrix. These options include direct storage (limited to
high-integrity fuels) or stabilization in preparation for storage.
Direct storage means storing spent nuclear fuel in essentially the same
physical form in which it is removed from the reactor (that is, little or
limited stabilization of the fuel elements). Fuel that has high-integrity
cladding, for example naval fuel, can be direct stored, indefinitely. Both
wet storage in water pools and dry storage in casks and vaults provide
effective cooling and shielding for the safe storage of such high-integrity
spent nuclear fuel.
Some stabilization technologies provide additional containment for spent
nuclear fuel with reduced integrity. These technologies include (a) direct
canning, (b) passivation, and (c) coating.
Several processing technologies are available to stabilize spent nuclear
fuel without separating uranium and/or plutonium from the highly
radioactive constituents. These technologies involve changing the physical
and chemical form to reduce fuel volume and reactivity, or make the fuel
more homogeneous. They include (a) oxidation, (b) chemical dissolution, and
(c) mechanical steps, such as chopping or shredding.
Some processing technologies separate uranium and/or plutonium from
degraded cladding. Available technologies include (a) aqueous extraction
from the chemically dissolved fuel, and (b) electrometallurgical processing
with an electrical current to create chemical reactions at high temperature
to extract the chemical elements.
Processing facilities and capabilities exist at various DOE sites. For some
fuel, such as Hanford Site production reactor fuel, existing foreign
processing capabilities could be employed. Foreign processing would be on a
pay-as-you-go basis, without a substantial investment in facility upgrades
and maintenance. A viable scenario would have to consider proliferation
concerns, safety of overseas transport of spent nuclear fuel and returned
materials, and national security.
Summary 11
Alternatives
DOE must provide for safe, efficient management of its spent nuclear fuel
during the next 40 years, pending ultimate disposition. The alternatives
considered are: No Action, Decentralization, 1992/1993 Planning Basis,
Regionalization, and Centralization. These alternatives include variations
of several components: (a) number of storage locations, (b) amounts of
spent nuclear fuel shipped, (c) fuel stabilization methods (ways to reduce
deterioration) required, (d) number and types of storage facilities to be
constructed, and (e) scope of technology research and development efforts
for management technologies.
In addition to the three DOE sites that have conducted extensive spent
nuclear fuel management activities, four naval shipyards (Norfolk,
Portsmouth, Pearl Harbor, and Puget Sound) and one prototype reactor site
(Kesselring Site) were selected as potential storage locations for naval
spent nuclear fuel. In response to public comments raised during the
scoping process, DOE undertook a process for identifying possible
alternative sites. The end result of the selection process was the
inclusion and evaluation of two additional sites, the Oak Ridge Reservation
(State of Tennessee) and the Nevada Test Site (State of Nevada). DOE did
not be a preferred site for the management of spent nuclear fuel in the
Draft EIS because of the State's current role as the host site for the
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project. DOE's identification of the
preferred alternatives also indicates that DOE does not consider the Nevada
Test Site as a preferred site for spent nuclear fuel management in the
Final EIS. Figure 2 depicts the various alternatives, options, and
locations that DOE is evaluating for spent nuclear fuel management.
The DOE's preferred alternative is Regionalization by fuel type
(Alternative 4A). Under this alternative, spent nuclear fuel would be
assigned to sites having the largest inventory of similar fuel types. The
DOE's preferred alternative is consistent with the Navy's preferred
alternative to continue to conduct refueling and defueling of
nuclear-powered vessels and prototypes, and to transport spent nuclear fuel
to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for full examination and
interim storage, using the same practices as in the past.
-------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 6)
Summary of Alternatives for
the Management of DOE
Spent Nuclear Fuel
No Action
Take minimum actions required for
safe and secure management of
spent nuclear fuel at or close to the
generation site or current storage
location.
Decentralization
Store most spent nuclear fuel at or
close to the generation site or current
storage location with limited
shipments to DOE facilities.
1992/1993 Planning Basis
Transport to and store newly
generated spent nuclear fuel at the
Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or Savannah River Site.
Consolidate some existing fuels at
the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or the Savannah River
Site.
Regionalization
Distribute existing and projected
spent nuclear fuel among DOE sites
based primarily on fuel type
(Preferred Alternative) or geography.
Centralization
Manage all existing and projected
spent nuclear fuel inventories from
DOE and the Navy at one site until
ultimate disposition.
-------------------------------------------
Summary 13
Figure (Summary 14)Figure 2. Alternatives for management of DOE spent nuclear fuel.
The programmatic (DOE-wide) decisions will not select all site- specific
spent nuclear fuel management options. Such decisions will be made
following additional site- specific National Environmental Policy Act
evaluations.
No Action Alternative
In the No Action alternative, which provides a baseline for comparison, DOE
would limit actions to the minimum necessary for safe and secure management
of spent nuclear fuel at or near the point where it is generated or
currently located (Figure 3). Under this
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 7)
No Action Alternative
Take minimum actions required for safe and secure
management of spent nuclear fuel at or close to the
generation site or current storage location.
. After an approximate three-year transition period,
no shipment of spent nuclear fuel to or from DOE
facilities would occur.
. Stabilization activities would be limited to the
minimum actions required to safely store spent
nuclear fuel.
. Naval reactor spent nuclear fuel would be stored
at naval sites.
. Facility upgrade/replacement and onsite fuel
transfers would be limited to those necessary for
safe interim storage.
Existing research and development activities
would continue.
-------------------------------------------------------------
14 Summary
Figure (Summary 15)Figure 3. Spent nuclear fuel distribution for the No Action alternative.
Summary 15
alternative, both small and large DOE sites, naval shipyards and
prototypes, university and other non-DOE domestic research reactors, and
foreign research reactors would independently manage their fuel onsite. No
spent nuclear fuel would be transported between DOE sites.
Naval spent nuclear fuel at the Newport News Shipyard would be transferred
to Norfolk Naval Shipyard for retention. Naval reactors would be refueled
and defueled as planned. Naval spent nuclear fuel would be stored in
shipping containers at the naval or DOE facility where refueling and
defueling are conducted. This alternative would require about a three-year
transition period to obtain additional shipping containers for storage.
During the transition period, fuel would be transported to the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory for examination at the Expended Core
Facility. The shipping containers would be unloaded and reused for
additional refueling and defuelings. However, after the transition period,
the fuel removed from naval reactors would remain in storage at the naval
sites and the Expended Core Facility at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory would be shut down. Examinations of naval spent nuclear fuel
would also cease. Current technology development activities related to
spent nuclear fuel management would continue within DOE.
Decentralization Alternative
Under this alternative, DOE would maintain existing spent nuclear fuel in
storage at current locations and store newly generated fuel at or near the
site of generation (Figure 4). This
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 8)
Decentralization Alternative
Store most spent nuclear fuel at or close to the generation site or current storage location with limited
shipments to DOE facilities.
. DOE spent nuclear fuel shipments would be limited to the following:
- Spent nuclear fuel stored or generated at universities and non-DOE facilities
- Potential foreign research reactor fuel.
. Spent nuclear fuel processing might need to be conducted. Other forms of stabilization might
occur to provide for safe storage and/or transport.
. Some facilities would be upgraded/replaced and additional storage capacity required by the
alternative would be constructed.
Onsite fuel transfers would occur for improved safe storage.
. Research and development activities would be undertaken for spent nuclear fuel management,
including stabilization technology.
. Three options for naval spent nuclear fuel
- No inspection-fuel remains close to refueling/defueling site
- Limited inspection at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
- Full inspection at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory followed by storage close to
refueling/defueling site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 Summary
Figure (Summary 17)Figure 4. Spent nuclear fuel distribution for the Decentralization
alternative.
Summary 17
alternative differs from the No Action alternative by allowing fuel
shipments from universities, non-DOE facilities, and foreign research
reactors to DOE sites, which requires developing and upgrading facilities.
Actions that would improve management capability, although not essential
for safety, would be undertaken, and spent nuclear fuel research and
development (including stabilization technology) would be performed.
The Decentralization alternative at the naval sites is similar to the No
Action alternative because naval reactors would continue to be defueled and
refueled as planned, and the fuel would be stored close to the
refueling/defueling site. Three Decentralization options are included. The
options differ only with regard to the examination of the fuel: no
examination, limited examination, and full examination. Each option would
require a transition period of about three years to develop storage
facilities. During the transition period, spent nuclear fuel would be
transported in shipping containers to the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory and the containers would be unloaded and reused.
The various small non-DOE, university, and foreign research reactors would
only transport spent nuclear fuel in limited amounts to permit continued
operations. No additional storage facilities would be constructed at these
locations.
1992/1993 Planning Basis Alternative
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 9)
1992/1993 Planning Basis
Transport to and store newly generated spent nuclear fuel
at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory or Savannah
River Site. Consolidate some existing fuels at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory or the Savannah River
Site.
. Fuel would be transported as follows:
- TRIGA fuel from the Hanford Site to the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory; Hanford Site
receives limited fuel for research of storage and
dispositioning technologies
- Naval fuel to the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory for examination and storage
- West Valley Demonstration Project and Fort St.
Vrain fuel to Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory
- Oak Ridge Reservation fuel to the Savannah
River Site
- Domestic research fuel, and foreign research
reactor fuel as may yet be determined, divided
between the Savannah River Site and the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory.
. Facilities upgrades and replacements that were
planned would proceed, including increased
storage capacity.
. Research and development for spent nuclear fuel
management would be undertaken, including
stabilization technology.
Spent nuclear fuel processing might need to be
conducted. Other forms of stabilization might
occur to provide for safe storage and/or transport.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 1992/1993 Planning Basis alternative represents DOE's plans (in 1992
and 1993) for management of its spent nuclear fuel. Under this alternative,
DOE would transport and store newly generated spent nuclear fuel at the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory or the Savannah River Site (Figure
5). Most existing spent nuclear fuel located at major DOE sites would
remain at those sites.
Some existing spent nuclear fuel at other sites would be consolidated at
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory or Savannah River Site. The
Savannah River Site and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory would also
receive some test reactor fuel and some fuel from university and foreign
research reactors. The Hanford Site would receive only limited quantities
of fuel for research on storage and dispositioning technologies. DOE sites
would generally upgrade facilities and construct new facilities to manage
18 Summary
Figure (Summary 19)Figure 5. Spent nuclear fuel distribution for the 1992/1993 Planning Basis
alternative.
Summary 19
spent nuclear fuel. Activities related to spent nuclear fuel treatment
would include research and development and pilot programs to support future
decisions on the ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel.
Naval reactors would continue to be refueled and defueled as planned. Naval
spent nuclear fuel would be transported from naval sites to the Expended
Core Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for examination.
Following examination, fuel would remain in storage at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory pending ultimate disposition.
Under this alternative, other generator and storage locations would
continue to ship spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory and Savannah River Site. No additional storage facilities would
be constructed at these originating locations.
Regionalization and Preferred Alternative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 10)
Regionalization
Regionalization Alternative 4A - Preferred Alternative:
Distribute existing and projected spent nuclear fuel among DOE
sites primarily on the basis of fuel type.
. Naval fuel would be transported to, examined, and stored
at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
. Aluminum-clad fuel would be transported to the
Savannah River Site; TRIGA and non-aluminum fuel
would be transported to the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory; defense production fuel would be retained at
the Hanford Site.
. Spent nuclear fuel processing might need to be
conducted. Other forms of stabilization might occur to
provide for safe storage and/or transport.
. Facilities required to support spent nuclear fuel
management would be upgraded or built as necessary.
. Research and development for spent nuclear fuel
management would be undertaken, including stabilization
technology.
Regionalization Alternative 4B: Distribute existing and projected
spent nuclear fuel between an Eastern Regional Site (either Oak
Ridge Reservation or Savannah River Site) and a Western
Regional Site (either Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, or Nevada Test Site).
. The Eastern Regional Site would receive fuel from east
of the Mississippi River and the Western Regional Site
would receive fuel from west of the Mississippi River.
. Naval fuel would be transported to, examined, and stored
at either the Western Regional Site or the Eastern
Regional Site.
. Spent nuclear fuel processing might need to be
conducted. Other forms of stabilization might occur to
provide for safe storage and/or transport.
. Facilities required to support spent nuclear fuel
management would be upgraded or built as necessary.
. Research and development for spent nuclear fuel
management would be undertaken, including
stabilization technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This alternative would require a redistribution of spent nuclear fuel among
DOE sites, either on the basis of fuel type (Regionalization Alternative 4A
- Preferred Alternative) or on the basis of geography (Regionalization
Alternative 4B). Regionalization by fuel type (Alternative 4A- Preferred
Alternative) (Figure 6) would involve the use of the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory and Savannah River Site for storage of most newly
generated spent nuclear fuel. Existing defense production spent nuclear
fuel at the Hanford Site would remain there. Intersite transportation of
fuel would depend on the site's existing capabilities to manage specific
fuel types with respect to cladding material, physical and chemical
composition, fuel condition, and adequate facilities to handle increased
20 Summary
Figure (Summary 21)Figure 6. Spent nuclear fuel distribution for Regionalization Alternative
4A.
Summary 21
quantities of fuel. Naval fuel would be transported to the Expended Core
Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for examination.
Following examination, fuel would remain in storage at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Facility upgrades, replacements, and additions would
be undertaken to the extent required, including research and development
activities.
Regionalization by geography (Alternative 4B) (Figure 7) would involve
consolidation of spent nuclear fuel from the eastern United States at the
Eastern Regional Site (Oak Ridge Reservation or Savannah River Site) and
consolidation of fuel from the western United States at one of the Western
Regional Sites (Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, or
Nevada Test Site). Naval spent nuclear fuel would be transported to,
examined, and stored at either the Eastern or the Western Regional Site.
Regionalization Alternative 4B has 10 options, based on the combination of
sites selected as the Eastern and Western Regional Sites, and the placement
of the Expended Core Facility at either of the sites. There are three
potential Western and two potential Eastern Regional Sites that could be
paired, with either supporting the Expended Core Facility. However, neither
of the two possible combinations that include the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory as the Western Regional Site would consider moving
the Expended Core Facility to the eastern site because of the estimated $1
billion cost of construction. Facility upgrades, replacements, and
additions would be undertaken to the extent required, including research
and development.
Under this alternative, other generator and storage locations would
continue to transport spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory and the Savannah River Site. The exact destination of fuels
would vary, depending on the fuel type under Regionalization Alternative 4A
and on the generator/ storage location under Regionalization Alternative
4B.
Centralization Alternative
Under the Centralization alternative, all spent nuclear fuel that DOE is
obligated to manage would be transported to one DOE site (Figure 8).
Candidate sites include the Hanford Site (Option A), Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory (Option B), Savannah River Site (Option C), Oak
Ridge Reservation (Option D), and Nevada Test Site (Option E). New
facilities would be built at the Centralization site to accommodate the
increased inventories. Some spent nuclear fuel would require stabilization
before transport. All spent nuclear fuel facilities at the transporting
sites would then be closed. Activities related to stabilization of fuel,
including research and development and pilot programs, would also be
centralized at this same site.
Transport of naval spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory would continue only until storage and examination facilities are
constructed at the central site. For Centralization at sites other than the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, a new facility with capabilities
comparable to the Expended Core Facility at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory would be constructed.
All spent nuclear fuel from the other generator and storage sites would be
transported to the selected central DOE site.
--------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 11)
Centralization
Manage all existing and
projected spent nuclear fuel
inventories at one site until
ultimate disposition.
. Existing spent nuclear
fuel would be
transported to the
central site.
. Naval fuel would be
transported to,
examined at, and stored
at the central site.
. Projected spent nuclear
fuel receipts would be
transported to the
central site.
. Spent nuclear fuel
processing might need
to be conducted. Other
forms of stabilization
might occur to provide
for safe storage and/or
transport.
. Facility upgrade/
replacement and new
storage capacity would
be provided at the
central site; stabilization
facilities would be
provided at the
transporting sites.
. Research and
development would be
undertaken for spent
nuclear fuel
management, including
stabilization technology.
--------------------------------------
22 Summary
Figure (Summary 23)Figure 7. Spent nuclear fuel distribution for Regionalization Alternative
4B.
Summary 23
Figure (Summary 24)Figure 8. Spent nuclear fuel distribution for the Centralization
alternative.
24 Summary
Environmental Consequences
Estimates in the EIS of potential environmental consequences resulting from
programmatic (DOE- wide) alternatives are based on conservative assumptions
(that is, with a tendency to overestimate). Analytical approaches are
designed provide estimates of the maximum reasonably foreseeable
consequences.
As indicated in the EIS, the environmental consequences of the five spent
nuclear fuel management alternatives would be small. For example, analyses
of air quality, water quality, and land use for each alternative showed
little or no impact. The details of these examinations are discussed in
Chapter 5 of Volume 1 The comparison of alternatives in this Summary,
therefore, concentrates on (a) the areas in which the public has expressed
considerable interest and (b) programmatic factors important to DOE
decisionmaking. The following factors were selected for comparison:
. Number of shipments among sites
. Public and worker health effects
. Spent nuclear fuel-related employment
. Generation of radioactive waste
. Impact on DOE or Navy missions
. Cost of implementation
. Cumulative impacts.
Number of Shipments
Figure 9 shows the number of offsite shipments that would occur under each
alternative. It quantifies shipments of test specimens, as well as fuel
elements. Shipments of naval test specimens are included because of their
contribution to cumulative impacts of naval spent nuclear fuel
transportation. The No Action alternative would involve only a limited
number of naval spent nuclear fuel shipments (about 200).
The Decentralization alternative, 1992/1993 Planning Basis alternative, and
Regionalization Alternative 4A (Preferred Alternative) mostly involve
shipments from the smaller reactor and storage sites and the naval sites to
DOE sites. These shipments would range in number from approximately 2,000
shipments under Decentralization Options A or B to approximately 3,700
under Regionalization Alternative 4A (Preferred Alternative).
Decentralization Option C and the 1992/1993 Planning Basis alternative each
would involve approximately 2,900 shipments over the 40-year period.
For the Centralization alternative and Regionalization Alternative 4B (by
geography), spent nuclear fuel would be transported to one or two sites,
respectively. For these Alternatives, the number of shipments would range
from approximately 4,600 under the Regionalization Alternative 4B (with
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and Savannah River Site as the
western and eastern sites respectively) to about 7,400 shipments under the
Centralization Option E (Centralization at the Nevada Test Site).
Public and Worker Health Effects
Spent nuclear fuel management activities would result in radiation
exposures to the workers and the public from facility operations and
transportation activities. Additional radiation exposures could occur as a
result of transportation or facility accidents. Any radiation exposures
from spent nuclear fuel management activities would be in addition to
exposures that normally occur from
Summary 25
Figure (Summary 26)Figure 9. Number of spent nuclear fuel and test specimen shipments between
the years 1995 and 2035.
26 Summary
natural sources such as cosmic radiation (involuntary exposure) and from
artificial sources such as chest x- rays (voluntary exposure).
The effects of radiation exposure on humans (and the environment) depend on
(a) the kind of radiation received, (b)the total amount of radiation
received (the rate of exposure times the length of exposure), and (c) the
part(s) of the body exposed. Radiation can cause a variety of health
effects in people. The most significant health effect to describe the
consequences of public and worker radiation exposures is "latent cancer
fatality." It is referred to as "latent" because the cancer may take many
years to develop and for death to occur. Section 5.1.1 of Volume 1 of this
EIS discusses the scientific basis and methods used to estimate latent
cancer fatalities that could result from exposure to radiation.
Other health effects that can result from radiation exposure include non-
fatal cancers and genetic effects. This EIS focuses on latent cancer
fatalities as the primary health risk from radiation exposure and uses the
risk of latent cancer fatality as the basis for comparison of
radiation-induced impacts among alternatives. As stated in this EIS, the
total estimated health effects for the public (fatal cancers, non-fatal
cancers, and genetic effects) may be obtained by multiplying the estimates
of latent cancer fatalities by 1.46, based on risk estimates developed by
the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Under all alternatives (over a 40-year period), the estimated number of
latent cancer fatalities to the public from normal DOE spent nuclear fuel
management activities (facility operations plus transportation) would range
from approximately zero to about two latent cancer fatalities, or
--------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 12)
Latent cancer fatalities caused per rem for an
individual member of the general public:
Dose:
Radioactivity from all sources combined, including
natural background radiation and medical sources,
produces about a 0.3 rem dose to the average
individual per year
Probability:
The probability of receiving the above dose is
essentially one.
Average life span:
72 years is considered to be the average lifetime.
Latent Cancer Fatalities Caused Per Rem for
an Individual Member of the General Public
0.0005 cancers are estimated to be caused by
exposure to 1 rem.
Calculation:
Dose rate x life span x cancers caused per rem =
0.3 rem/year x 72 years x 0.0005 cancers per rem =
0.01 fatal cancers per individual lifetime.
Risk:
Probability x fatal latent cancers = 1 x 0.01 = 0.01
fatal cancer, which is a probability of about I in 100
of death from exposure to natural background
radiation and medical sources over a lifetime.
--------------------------------------------------------------
about 0.05 latent cancer fatalities per year (Figure 10). In general, the
greatest radiation exposure from normal spent nuclear fuel site activities
and incident-free transportation results when large quantities of spent
nuclear fuel are transported among sites, such as under Regionalization
Alternative 4B or the Centralization alternative. Under incident-free
transportation, the estimated total latent cancer fatalities are less than
two for all alternatives, with the highest estimates being those associated
with the Centralization options. This reflects the higher number of
shipments associated with these options. The risk of latent cancer
fatalities associated with facility accidents is
Summary 27
Figure (Summary 28)Figure 10. Maximum estimated latent cancer fatalities per year Th the
general population from normal spent nuclear fuel site operations and
total fatalities from incident-free transportation.
28 Summary
small across all the alternatives, as shown in Figure 11. The evaluated
facility accident scenario with the highest risk (breach of a fuel assembly
for the Centralization alternative at the Savannah River Site) would result
in an estimated risk of 0.0072 latent cancer fatality per year (one latent
fatal cancer in 140 years).
The risk associated with radiation from transportation accidents poses a
lower risk than facility accidents (Figure 12). The risks associated with
traffic fatalities (nonradiological) are greater than the risks associated
with cancer caused by radiation exposure, although both are very small
(Figure 12). The evaluated transportation accident scenario with the
largest consequences (spent nuclear fuel transportation accident in a
suburban area) would lead to 55 latent cancer fatalities; the probability
of this occurrence is about 1 in 10 million years.
In summary, for radiation-induced latent cancer fatalities to the public
over 40 years of spent nuclear fuel management under all the alternatives
evaluated, the most likely outcome is as follows:
. Essentially zero latent cancer
fatalities from normal facility
operations and facility accidents
. Essentially zero latent cancer
fatalities from transportation accidents
. Up to about one latent cancer fatality
from most incident- free transportation
under most alternatives; up to two
latent cancer fatalities under the
Centralization alternative.
Up to about two fatalities could result over the 40-year period from
nonradiological traffic accidents. By comparison about 40,000 people are
killed annually in U.S. traffic accidents.
Although the anticipated potential for radiation exposures would be small,
DOE would use the "as low as reasonably achievable" principle for
controlling exposures to workers and the public. For example, practices
would be implemented to avoid or reduce production of potentially harmful
substances and waste minimization would be practiced to reduce the toxicity
and volume of secondary wastes to be managed. Furthermore, all sites would
update their current worker training, emergency planning, emergency
preparedness, and emergency response programs to address new spent nuclear
fuel management activities.
Spent Nuclear Fuel-Related Employment
Under various alternatives, the total labor force involved in spent nuclear
fuel management could decrease by 180 jobs or increase by more than 2,1 Of)
jobs, averaged over the period 1995 to 2005, as compared with the 1995
baseline (Figure 13). The peak employment is difficult to estimate because
it depends on implementation timing and funding profiles; however,
Regionalization Alternative 4B (by geography) with the Nevada Test Site as
the western site and Oak Ridge Reservation as the eastern site would result
in the highest employment peak. The peak, estimated to be approximately
4,600 jobs in the year 2000, includes employment at sites preparing spent
nuclear fuel for shipment to the selected sites.
Under the No Action alternative, employment would not increase
substantially for any site, and the closure of the Expended Core Facility
at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory would result in a net loss of
just over 500 spent nuclear fuel management-related jobs.
Summary 29
Figure (Summary 30)Figure 11. Estimate of risk of latent cancer fatalities In general
population from facility accidents for spent nuclear fuel management
activities.
30 Summary
Figure (Summary 31)Figure 12. Estimate of average annual risk(b) from transportation accidents
for spent nuclear fuel management activities.
Summary 31
Figure (Summary 32)Figure 13. Change in the number of jobs averaged over the years 1995 to
2005 for spent nuclear fuel management activities.
32 Summary
Relocating large amounts of spent nuclear fuel, such as under
Regionalization Alternative 4B (by geography) and the Centralization
alternative, would eventually result in the closure of spent nuclear fuel
management facilities at major DOE sites and, thus, long-term job loss at
the closed facilities. However, some of the job losses at closed facilities
would be accompanied by job gains at the sites receiving the shipped fuels.
For all three Decentralization options, the 1992/1993 Planning Basis
alternative and Regionalization Alternative 4A (Preferred Alternative), no
more than an average additional 11,150 jobs would be required over the
period 1995 to 2005 for implementation. Some of the more significant spent
nuclear fuel employment requirements (particularly those involving the
Hanford Site) would result from the development and operation of processing
facilities needed to stabilize stored spent nuclear fuel. In addition,
relocating the Expended Core Facility to sites other than the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory would result in an increase I of about 500
jobs in the support of naval spent nuclear fuel examinations at those
sites, and would result in a corresponding loss of approximately 500 jobs
at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
Thus, minor employment-related impacts are anticipated. To mitigate these
impacts, DOE would coordinate its planning efforts with local communities
and county planning agencies to address changes in community services,
housing, infrastructure, utilities, and transportation. Such coordination
with local planning agencies is intended to avoid placing undue burdens on
local agency resources.
Generation of Radioactive Wastes
When spent nuclear fuel is stored onsite, very little high-level,
transuranic, or mixed waste is generated (see Figure 14). These small
quantities of radioactive wastes would usually be generated during
stabilization activities. As a result, under the No Action alternative
fewer than 20 cubic meters (26 cubic yards) per year of transuranic wastes
would be generated from spent nuclear fuel management nationwide because
spent nuclear fuel would not be stabilized. Under all other alternatives,
where stabilization activities would occur, between 20 and 190 cubic meters
(26 and 250 cubic yards) of high-level waste and between 20 and 90 cubic
meters (26 and 120 cubic yards) of transuranic waste would be generated
each year The lower generation rates would occur in the Decentralization
alternative, where small amounts of spent nuclear fuel would be transported
among major DOE sites (and stabilization for transport would not be
necessary).
For all other alternatives, greater amounts of spent nuclear fuel would be
transported among sites; therefore, more spent nuclear fuel would require
stabilization before transport and more waste would be generated.
Low-level waste also is generated as a result of spent nuclear fuel
management. Figure 15 indicates an estimated range of annual volumes for
each of the alternatives. The higher values are principally the result of
processing for stabilization.
To control the volume of waste generated and reduce impacts on the
environment, pollution prevention practices would be implemented.
Summary 33
Figure (Summary 34)Figure 14. Average volume of high-level, transuranic, and mixed waste
generated per year over the years 1995 to 2005 for spent nuclear fuel
management activities.
34 Summary
Figure (Summary 35)Figure 15. Average volume of low-level wastes generated per year over the
years 1995 to 2005 for spent nuclear fuel management activities.
Summary 35
DOE is responding to Executive Order 12856, "Federal Compliance with Right
to Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements," and associated DOE
orders and guidelines by reducing the use of toxic chemicals; improving
emergency planning, response, and accident notification; and encouraging
the development and use of clean technologies and testing of innovative
pollution prevention technologies. Pollution prevention programs have
already been implemented at DOE sites. Program components include waste
minimization, source reduction and recycling, and procurement practices
that preferentially procure products made from recycled materials.
Impact on DOE and Navy Missions
The mission concerns of DOE and the Navy relate to storing spent nuclear
fuel safely, meeting obligations, preparing spent nuclear fuel for ultimate
disposition, and examining naval fuel. Under the 1992/1993 Planning Basis,
Regionalization, and Centralization alternatives, the missions of DOE and
the Navy would be met. However, under the No Action and Decentralization
alternatives, some parts of their current missions would not be achieved.
DOE's mission is most severely impacted under the No Action alternative. In
this alternative, only the minimal actions necessary would be undertaken to
store spent nuclear fuel. This means that there would be no facility
upgrades or replacements (except those needed for safe storage of spent
nuclear fuel) and research and development activities would be limited to
activities already approved. The consequences of pursuing this alternative
could include any or all of the following:
. Loss of margin in storage capacity
. More frequent and possibly more costly
repairs to equipment and facilities as
the frequency of breakdowns increases
. Eventual loss of the use of existing
storage facilities because equipment or
facilities are beyond repair or because
there is no flexibility in storage
capacity to permit repair work
. Limited development of improved storage
technologies and facilities, reducing
DOE's ability to meet future needs and
implement future decisions regarding
ultimate disposition of spent nuclear
fuel.
The Navy's mission would be hindered if the full examination of fuels at an
Expended Core Facility were not possible. No or limited examination would
occur under the No Action alternative and Decentralization alternative
(Options A, no examination, and B, limited examination). The examinations
are an important aspect of the Navy's ongoing advanced fuel research and
development program. The information derived from the examinations provides
engineering data to support the design of new reactors, continued safety of
existing reactors, and improvements in nuclear fuel performance and reactor
operation by providing confirmation of their proper design and allowing
maximum use of their fuel.
The No Action alternative would also impact ongoing nuclear research and
training activities at universities that have little or no storage capacity
for spent nuclear fuel. Such activities would cease once storage capacity
is exhausted.
36 Summary
Cost of Implementation
Since publication of the draft EIS, DOE has completed an evaluation of
potential costs associated with management of its spent nuclear fuel for an
interim period (up to 40 years), and through ultimate disposition. For each
alternative, the cost evaluation considered capital cost for upgrades to
existing facilities and new facilities, operation and maintenance costs for
existing and new facilities, decontamination and decommissioning costs for
new facilities, and spent nuclear fuel transportation costs. Because each
alternative would manage various amounts of spent nuclear fuel and the
potential use of existing facilities would vary among alternatives, two
cost ranges were considered-a minimum (lower) cost range that considered
maximum use of existing facilities and a maximum (upper) cost range that
minimized use of existing facilities in favor of additional new management
facilities (Figure 16).
The cost analysis found that when use of existing facilities was maximized,
it would be least costly to manage spent nuclear fuel under alternatives
that involve sites with existing capabilities (e.g., Decentralization,
1992/1993 Planning Basis, and Regionalization), as opposed to the
Centralization alternative that would require the construction of storage
facilities (Figure 16).
When minimum use of existing facilities is considered, economies of scale
would be realized as it is more cost effective to build and operate one
larger facility than to build and operate several smaller facilities with
the same combined capacity. Thus, for example, Regionalization 4A (by fuel
type), in which all spent nuclear fuel would be transported to sites that
have existing fuel management infrastructures, is less costly than the
1992/1993 Planning Basis and Decentralization alternatives (Figure 16).
Cumulative Impacts
A cumulative impact results from the incremental impact associated with
implementing an alternative plus the impacts of other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions. "Other" actions include DOE projects
at the potentially affected sites not related to spent nuclear fuel
management, as well as projects of other Government agencies, private
businesses, or individuals.
On a nationwide basis, the implementation of any of the spent nuclear fuel
management alternatives would not significantly contribute to cumulative
impacts. Although impacts to the natural environment (for example, water,
air, ecology, and land use) were analyzed, the cumulative impacts are very
small, especially if impact avoidance and mitigation measures are taken.
In general, the contribution to cumulative impacts from activities required
for spent nuclear fuel management would be very small at sites where fuel
is stored, in comparison to other ongoing and reasonably expected
nonfuel-related projects. Even for those alternatives (Regionalization or
Centralization) where the use of nonrenewable resources would be relatively
large, increases in the impacts at the selected site(s) would be offset by
changes at nonselected sites-resulting in a very small net change.
On a site-specific basis, the implementation of any of the alternatives
would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts. Generally, the
contribution to cumulative impacts from spent nuclear fuel management
activities at a specific site is minor, relative to other DOE and non-DOE
projects. Radiological emissions from normal operations and from
transportation of
Summary 37
Figure (Summary 38)Figure 16. Management costs for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel
through the year 2035.
38 Summary
spent nuclear fuel would be well within regulatory requirements. The
volumes of waste produced from fuel management activities would be a small
addition to waste volumes generated by other ongoing and expected projects.
Depending on the economic status and outlook for an area, spent nuclear
fuel activities coupled with other actions could have the potential to
strain or overburden the socioeconomic resources of certain areas,
particularly if either the Regionalization or Centralization alternatives
were implemented with the Expended Core Facility placed at the site.
Although each site is anticipating an overall decline in site employment
over the next few years, the in-migration of construction workers
associated with proposed spent nuclear fuel management alternatives
combined with other reasonably foreseeable activities could have small
impacts on communities surrounding the Hanford Site, the Nevada Test Site,
and the Oak Ridge Reservation. Such socioeconomic impacts would not be
expected to occur at the other sites.
Environmental Justice
In February 1994, Executive Order 12898 entitled, "Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income
Populations" was issued to federal agencies. This order requires federal
agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities
on minority populations and low-income populations. Mitigation measures are
to be identified, if necessary, and federal agencies are to increase
communications with these communities, in order to promote increased
awareness of Federal activities and involvement in Federal decisionmaking.
In accordance with the Executive Order, an interagency Federal Working
Group on Environmental Justice has been convened to provide guidance to
agencies on implementation of environmental justice. Draft Guidance for
Federal Agencies on Terms in Executive Order 12898 provide draft
definitions of certain terms in the Executive Order. The definitions
adopted for this Final EIS are consistent with the draft guidance.
Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects are defined to
occur when the risk or rate for a minority or low-income population from
exposure to an environmental hazard significantly exceeds the risk or rate
to the general population and, where available, to another appropriate
comparison group. Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects
are defined to be any deleterious environmental impact affecting minority
populations or low income populations that significantly exceed those on
general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.
The programmatic management of DOE spent nuclear fuel and associated
transportation was reviewed under each alternative. This review included
potential impacts that would arise for each of the environmental
disciplines, under normal operating conditions and under potential accident
conditions, to minority and low- income communities with in 50 miles (80
kilometers) of each potential site. Demographic information was gathered
from the U.S. Census Bureau to identify minority populations and low-income
communities in the zone of potential impact [(50 mile (80 kilometer)j
surrounding each of the sites under consideration. Analysis of
environmental justice concerns was based on a qualitative assessment of
Summary 39
the human health and environmental impacts of each alternative. The
analysis found that the impacts of the programmatic management of spent
nuclear fuel under all alternatives would not constitute a
disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority or low-income
communities and, thus, do not present an environmental justice concern.
40 Summary
Consultations and Environmental Requirements
DOE is committed to operating its spent nuclear fuel management program in
compliance with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, executive
orders, DOE orders, and permits and compliance agreements with regulatory
agencies. The DOE regulations that implement the National Environmental
Policy Act require consultation with other agencies, when appropriate, to
incorporate any relevant requirements as early as possible in the process.
These consultation and coordination requirements will commence and be
completed as site-specific spent nuclear fuel management projects and
decisions are proposed. To the extent that this EIS supports existing site-
specific proposals, those consultations and coordination efforts are
contained within Volume 1 Section 7.2 and Volume 2 Appendix B-3. DOE has
reviewed all comments received on the draft EIS. To more fully understand,
evaluate, and consider certain agency comments, consultations have taken
place among agency, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and Navy
officials on the EIS.
Summary 41
Relationship Between Volumes 1 and 2
DOE is currently in the process of making two important sets of decisions.
The first involves programmatic (DOE-wide) decisions regarding DOE's future
spent nuclear fuel management (addressed in Volume 1 of the EIS). The
second involves site- specific decisions regarding the future direction of
environmental restoration and waste management programs, which include
spent nuclear fuel, at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (addressed
in Volume 2 of this EIS).
DOE's programmatic decisions regarding spent nuclear fuel affect the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory- specific decisions about spent nuclear
fuel. Therefore, the spent nuclear fuel
---------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 13)
Volume 1-Programmatic Spent
Nuclear Fuel Management
Alternatives - Summary
No Action
Take minimum actions required for safe
and secure management of spent nuclear
fuel at, or close to, the generation site or
current storage location.
Decentralization
Store most spent nuclear fuel at or close
to the generation site or current storage
location, with limited shipments to DOE
facilities.
1992/1993 Planning Basis
Transport and store newly generated
spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory or Savannah
River Site. Consolidate some existing
fuels at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or the Savannah River Site.
Regionalization
Distribute existing and projected spent
nuclear fuel among DOE sites, based
primarily on fuel type (Preferred
Alternative) or on geography
Centralization
Manage all existing and projected spent
nuclear fuel inventories from DOE and
the Navy at one site until ultimate
disposition.
---------------------------------------------------------
components of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory-specific
alternatives have been constructed to bear a relationship to those of
Volume 1.
---------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 14)
Volume 2-Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Spent
Nuclear Fuel Management
Alternatives - Summary
No Action
. Phase out inspection of naval spent
nuclear fuel. Close Expended Core
Facility.
. Receive no non-naval spent nuclear
fuel.
. Phase out Idaho Chemical
Processing Plant-603 storage pools.
Ten-Year Plan and Preferred
Alternative (for spent nuclear fuel)
. Examine and store naval spent
nuclear fuel.
. Receive additional offsite spent
nuclear fuel.
. Transfer aluminum-clad spent nuclear
fuel to Savannah River Site.
. Phase out Idaho Chemical
Processing Plant-603 storage pools.
. Expand storage capacity in existing
Idaho Chemical Processing Plant-666
pools.
. Phase in dry storage.
. Demonstrate electrometallurgical
process.
Minimum Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal
. Phase out inspection of naval spent
nuclear fuel. Close Expended Core
Facility.
. Transport all spent nuclear fuel to
another DOE site.
. Phase out spent nuclear fuel handling
facilities.
. Demonstrate electrometallurgical
process.
Maximum Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal
. Examine and store naval spent
nuclear fuel.
. Receive DOE-wide spent nuclear fuel.
. Phase out Idaho Chemical
Processing Plant-603 storage pools.
. Expand storage capacity in existing
Idaho Chemical Processing Plant-666
pools.
. Phase in expanded dry storage.
. Demonstrate electrometallurgical
process.
. Phase in spent nuclear fuel
stabilization.
---------------------------------------------------------
Summary 43
Volume 2 - INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Overview
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory`s mission is to develop,
demonstrate, and deploy advanced engineering technologies and systems to
improve national competitiveness and security, to make the production and
use of energy more efficient, and to improve the quality of life and the
environment. The environmental restoration program includes activities to
assess and clean up inactive Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
operations, including waste sites where there are known or suspected
releases of harmful substances into the environment, and to safely manage
contaminated surplus nuclear facilities. Waste management program
activities are designed to protect Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
employees, the public, and the environment in the design, construction,
maintenance, and operation of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
in a cost- effective, environmentally sound, regulatory compliant, and
publicly acceptable manner.
Figure (Summary 45)The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory is located in southeastern Idaho.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 15)
What Are Environmental Restoration and Waste Management?
Environmental Restoration: The cleanup and restoration of sites and
decontamination and decommissioning of facilities contaminated with radioactive and/
or hazardous substances during past production, accidental releases, or disposal
activities.
Waste Management: The planning, coordination, and direction of those functions
related to generation, minimization, handling, treatment, storage, transportation, and
disposal of waste, as well as associated surveillance and maintenance activities.
Spent nuclear fuel management at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
includes (a) accepting and examining shipments from generators or from other
storage sites, (b) setting standards and approving methods for storing spent nuclear
fuel and preparing (stabilizing) it for such storage, (c) constructing and operating
facilities for stabilization, plus interim storage, (d) consolidating storage and retiring
outdated storage facilities, and (e) developing criteria and technologies for ultimate
disposition of spent nuclear fuel (or its components). DOE is developing spent
nuclear fuel management plans for a 40-year timeframe that are anticipated to be
sufficient to cover the period during which ultimate disposition will be established and
implemented for DOE's spent nuclear fuel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary 45
Waste Management, Environmental Restoration, Spent Nuclear Fuel, and
Technology Development at the INEL
Waste Management
Waste management includes minimization, characterization, treatment,
storage, and disposal of waste generated from ongoing Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory activities and from the Environmental Restoration
Program at nine major facility areas. The Waste Management Program ensures
that current and future waste management practices minimize any additional
adverse environmental impacts. This is accomplished through such practices
as waste reduction and recycling and such treatment technologies as volume
reduction and waste separation techniques. Table 1 summarizes the primary
functions of each facility area.
Figure (Summary 47)Calcination is one form of waste management
Environmental Restoration
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration Program
addresses contamination resulting from the past 50 years of operations. The
goals of the Environmental Restoration Program are to clean up past
environmental contamination and to decontaminate and decommission
facilities that are no longer needed (surplus). The cleanup program is
conducted under a Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, entered
into by the DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of
Idaho, in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
Since 1986, about 500 suspected release sites have been identified for
investigation. Potential release sites were grouped together for efficiency
into 10 areas called Waste Area Groups. Nine of the groups are roughly
equivalent to the major facility areas at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. Waste Area Group 10 includes a site- wide area associated with
the Snake River Plain Aquifer and surface and subsurface areas that are not
addressed by the other nine Waste Area Groups. Of the approximately 500
sites, over 270 have been proposed or designated as requiring no further
action.
Sources of contamination include spills, abandoned tanks, septic systems,
percolation ponds, landfills, and injection wells. Contaminated sites range
in size from large facilities such as the pits and trenches at the
Radioactive Waste Management Complex to small areas where minor spills have
occurred.
Environmental restoration also involves safely managing contaminated
surplus nuclear facilities until they are decontaminated for reuse or are
decommissioned.
Summary 47
Table 1. Functions of major facility areas at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
Major facility area Function performed
======================================================================================
Test Area North Handle and evaluate irradiated materials; support
energy and defense programs; demonstrate dry cask storage
of spent nuclear fuel; store spent nuclear fuel.
Test Reactor Area Study effects of radiation on materials, fuels, and
equipment; manage seven reactors (two operating, two in
standby, three deactivated); perform chemistry and
physics experiments.
Idaho Chemical Receive and store spent nuclear fuel; prepare high-level liquid
Processing Plant and solid waste for disposition; develop and apply technologies
for eventual disposition of spent nuclear fuel, disposition of
sodium-bearing and high-level waste, and management of
radioactive and hazardous wastes.
Central Facilities Provide technical and support services for the Idaho
Area National Engineering Laboratory, including
environmental monitoring and calibration laboratories,
communication systems, security, fire protection,
medical services, warehouse, cafeteria, vehicle and
equipment pools, and bus operations; operate
Hazardous Waste Storage Facility and Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Landfill Complex.
Power Burst Facility/ Support waste management-related research
Auxiliary Reactor (volume reduction and waste immobilization); develop
Area decontamination, waste storage and treatment technologies.
Experimental National Historic Landmark
Breeder Reactor- I/
Boiling Water
Reactor Experiment
Radioactive Waste Store and dispose of wastes; support research and
Management development for interim storage of transuranic waste,
Complex low-level waste disposal, buried waste remediation
technologies, and environmental cleanup technologies.
Naval Reactors Receive and conduct examination of spent nuclear fuel to
Facility (Expended support fuel development and performance analyses.
Core Facility)
Argonne National Develop and test breeder reactor technology; store
Laboratory-West transuranic waste; support research and
development of spent nuclear fuel treatment technologies.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Since the 1950s, spent nuclear fuel removed from nuclear-powered naval
vessels and naval reactor prototypes has been transported to the Naval
Reactors Facility located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Spent nuclear fuel has also been received from university commercial,
industrial, DOE, and other U.S Government and foreign reactors.
Spent nuclear fuel continues to be generated at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory by reactor
48 Summary
operations. Naval spent nuclear fuel, currently examined at the Naval
Reactors Facility, is transferred to the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant
for storage at a rate of about 1 metric ton of heavy metal per year. Spent
nuclear fuel is stored at a number of site areas in various dry and wet
storage facilities awaiting ultimate disposition.
Figure (Summary 49)Major facility areas located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Summary 49
Technology Development
Figure (Summary 50)Dry storage of spent nuclear fuel
Technology development supports the Environmental Restoration, Waste
Management, and Spent Nuclear Fuel Programs by designing and testing
potential technical solutions to specific problems. Broad program areas
include research, development, demonstration, testing, and evaluation;
technology integration; development of safe and efficient packaging
systems; emergency response management; education; and laboratory analysis.
Types of current technology development activities include minimizing
waste; testing cleanup technologies; evaluating and testing methods to
treat calcined, sodium-bearing, and high-level `wastes; and designing
sensors and other environmental monitoring equipment and systems. An
example of research activity includes investigating treatment technologies
to prepare fuel for ultimate disposition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 16)
Waste at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Alpha Low-Level Waste: Waste that was previously classified as transuranic waste but has a
transuranic concentration lower than the currently established limit for transuranic waste. Alpha low-level
waste requires additional controls and special handling (relative to low-level waste). This waste stream
cannot be accepted for onsite disposal under the current waste acceptance criteria; therefore, it is special-
case waste.
Greater-Than-Class-C Waste: Low-level radioactive waste that is generated by the commercial sector
and that exceeds U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission concentration limits for Class C low-level waste
as specified in Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61. DOE is responsible for the disposal of
Greater-Than-Class-C wastes from DOE non-defense programs.
Hazardous Waste: Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a solid waste, or combination
of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious
characteristics may (a) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (b) pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or
otherwise managed. Source, special nuclear material, and byproduct material, as defined by the Atomic
Energy Act, are specifically excluded from the definition of solid waste.
High-Level Waste: The highly radioactive waste material that results from the reprocessing of spent
nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly from reprocessing and any solid waste derived from
the liquid that contains a combination of transuranic and fission product nuclides in quantities that require
permanent isolation. High-level waste may include other highly radioactive material that the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation.
Low-Level Waste: Waste that contains radioactivity and is not classified as high-level waste, transuranic
waste, or spent nuclear fuel. Test specimens of fissionable material irradiated for research and
development only, and not for the production of power or plutonium, may be classified as low-level waste,
provided the concentration of transuranic elements is less than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste.
Mixed Waste: Waste that contains both hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and source, special nuclear, or byproduct material subject to the Atomic Energy Act.
Special-Case Waste: Waste that is owned or generated by DOE that does not fit into typical
management plans developed for the major radioactive waste types.
Transuranic Waste: Waste containing more than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes,
per gram of waste, with half-lives greater than 20 years, except for (a) high-level radioactive waste,
(b) waste that the DOE has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, does not need the degree of isolation required by Title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 191, and (c) waste that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved
for disposal on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 Summary
Purpose and Need for Future Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
DOE is responsible by law for spent nuclear fuel management, waste
management, and environmental restoration at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory in southeastern Idaho. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, DOE
is also responsible for managing certain spent nuclear fuels. DOE also is
responsible for managing wastes and controlling hazardous substances in a
manner that protects human health and the environment under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, as amended; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976; the
Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992; and other laws. DOE is committed
to comply with these and all other applicable federal and state laws and
regulations, DOE orders, and interagency agreements governing spent nuclear
fuel, environmental restoration, and waste management.
Over the past 50 years, DOE activities have resulted in the accumulation of
spent nuclear fuel; waste requiring treatment, storage, and disposal; and
sites requiring cleanup. To better fulfill its responsibilities, DOE needs
to develop and implement a program for spent nuclear fuel management,
environmental restoration, and waste management at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory. To establish an effective program for the
foreseeable future (focused on the next 10 years), DOE needs to make
site-specific decisions that would accomplish three major goals: (a)
support research and development missions at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory; (b) comply with legal requirements governing spent nuclear fuel
management, environmental restoration, and waste management, and (c) manage
spent nuclear fuel; treat, store, and dispose of waste; and conduct
environmental restoration activities at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory in an environmentally sound manner.
To achieve these goals, DOE needs to develop appropriate facilities and
technologies for managing waste and spent nuclear fuel expected during the
next 10 years; to more fully integrate all environmental restoration and
waste management activities at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory to
achieve cost and operational efficiencies, including pollution prevention
and waste minimization; and to responsibly manage environmental impacts
from environmental restoration and waste management activities.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 17)
What Are the INEL Decisions to Be Made Based on This EIS?
Spent Nuclear Fuel: What is the appropriate strategy of the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory to implement DOE's national spent nuclear fuel decisions regarding
transportation, receipt, processing, and storage of spent nuclear fuel? What is the
appropriate storage capacity for spent nuclear fuel?
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management: What is the appropriate strategy of
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory to implement DOE's national environmental
restoration and waste management decisions?
What are the appropriate cleanup activities under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and the Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order of 1991?
What are the necessary capabilities, facilities, research and development, and technologies
for treating, storing, and disposing of each waste type?
What treatment technologies should be used for sodium-bearing and high-level wastes and
other radioactive and mixed waste?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary 51
Alternatives
DOE has chosen alternatives that represent a range of possible actions: No
Action (A); Ten-Year Plan (B); Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
(C); and Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (D). The Preferred
Alternative is an enhanced Alternative B (see adjacent text box).
Alternatives C and D were defined to provide the extremes of minimum and
maximum impacts at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory during the
1995 to 2005 time period. The impacts of Alternatives C and D would bound
any reasonably foreseeable alternatives that would be selected as a result
of this EIS.
Each alternative includes components for cleanup, decontamination and
decommissioning, waste management, and spent nuclear fuel management.
Infrastructure, technology development, and transportation were also
considered. The alternatives, which reflect the public scoping process,
take the following factors into account:
. The sources of waste and spent nuclear
fuel that (a) exist at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory as of
June 1995, (b) would be generated
between 1995 and 2005, and (c) might be
transported to the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory from other sites.
. The practical waste and spent nuclear
fuel management options, including
characterization, storage, and disposal,
or stabilization (spent nuclear fuel)
and treatment (waste).
. The locations at which the waste and
spent nuclear fuel management could
reasonably be undertaken, either on or
off the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory site.
Given this, DOE determined the projects and actions needed to manage
--------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 18)
Alternatives
A (No Action)
Complete all near-term actions
identified and continue operating
most existing facilities. Serves
as benchmark for comparing
potential effects from the other
three alternatives.
B (Ten-Year Plan)
Complete identified projects and
initiate new projects to enhance
cleanup, manage the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory
waste streams and spent nuclear
fuel, prepare waste for final
disposal, and develop
technologies for spent nuclear
fuel ultimate disposition.
C (Minimum Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal)
Minimize treatment, storage, and
disposal activities at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory
to the extent possible (including
receipt of spent nuclear fuel).
Conduct minimum cleanup and
decontamination and
decommissioning prescribed by
regulation. Transfer spent
nuclear fuel and waste from
environmental restoration
activities to another site.
D (Maximum Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal)
Maximize treatment, storage, and
disposal functions at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory
to accommodate waste and
spent nuclear fuel from DOE
facilities. Conduct maximum
cleanup and decontamination
and decommissioning.
Preferred Alternative
Complete activities as in
Alternative B (Ten-year Plan),
plus accept offsite transuranic
and mixed low-level waste for
treatment and return treated
waste to the source generator or
to approved disposal facilities.
Plan for a high-level waste
treatment facility that minimizes
resulting high-activity waste.
Transfer aluminum-clad spent
nuclear fuel to Savannah River
Site.
--------------------------------------------
Summaly 53
the waste and spent nuclear fuel associated with each alternative. This EIS
provides the analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act
for certain projects that DOE proposes as part of the spent nuclear fuel,
environmental restoration, and waste management program at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 19)
Projects Related to Alternatives
In addition to current operations and activities at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, there are 49 projects that form the basis for analysis of reasonably
foreseeable future impacts in Volume 2. These 49 projects fall under the various
Alternatives A, B, C, D, and the Preferred Alternative. The 49 projects include 12 projects
whose National Environmental Policy Act documentation is already completed or was
proposed to be completed before the Record of Decision. An objective of Volume 2 and
5 appendices is to provide sufficient analysis for another 12 projects (listed below) to
allow timely deployment if needed for the project. DOE would evaluate the remaining 25
projects on a case-by-case basis to determine if any additional National Environmental
Policy Act review or further evaluation is needed before implementing the project.
Alternative (a)
. Expended Core Facility Dry Cell Project B, D, P
. Increased Rack Capacity for Building 666 at
the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant B, D, P
. Dry Fuel Storage Facility; Fuel Receiving,
Canning/Characterization, and Shipping B, C, D(b), P
. Fort St. Vrain Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipment
and Storage B, D, P
. Tank Farm Heel Removal Project B, C, D, P
. High-Level Tank Farm New Tanks C, D
. Shipping/Transfer Station C
. Waste Experimental Reduction Facility Incineration B, D, P
. Nonincinerable Mixed Waste Treatment B, D(b), P
. Sodium Processing Project B, D, P
. Gravel Pit Expansions B, D(b), P
. Calcine Transfer Project B, D, P
a. Alternative A = No Action, Alternative B = Ten-Year Plan, Alternative C = Minimum Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal, Alternative D = Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal,
Alternative P = Preferred Alternative.
b. These projects would be expanded for Alternative D (Maximum Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative A (No Action)
Under Alternative A (No Action), existing environmental restoration and
waste management operations and projects would continue. Research and
development and infrastructure facilities and projects that support the
environmental restoration and waste management program at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory would also continue. There would be no
shipments of spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, with the exception of shipments of naval fuel during an
approximately three- year transition period. Existing inventories of spent
nuclear fuel would remain in storage onsite. Activities and projects would
include those that may be initiated after June 1995 but that were proposed
to have been evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act by that
date. New activities would be limited to those required to maintain safe
operation. Implementation of Alternative A (No Action) would not fully meet
all negotiated agreements and commitments under the Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order and obligations to receive spent nuclear fuel
from universities and Fort St. Vrain.
Alternative A (No Action) represents a baseline against which the potential
environmental impacts of the other alternatives can be compared.
54 Summary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 20)
Alternative A (No Action)
Spent Nuclear Fuel: Phase out examination of naval spent nuclear fuel after
an approximate three-year transition period; no other fuels would be received;
phase out storage pools at Building 603 of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant.
Environmental Restoration: Conduct no activities other than already
approved projects; decontaminate and decommission Auxiliary Reactor Area
(ARA)-ll and Boiling Water Reactor Experiment (BORAX)-V; clean up
groundwater and vadose zone contamination; retrieve and treat Pit 9 waste.
High-Level Waste: Convert liquid to solid calcine.
Transuranic Waste: Retrieve/move transuranic and alpha low-level waste to
new storage; transport transuranic waste offsite for disposal; accept offsite waste
for storage on case-by-case basis.
Low-Level Waste: Treat onsite and offsite; dispose of onsite in existing facility.
Mixed Low-Level Waste: Treat onsite (nonincineration).
Greater-than-Class-C Waste: Continue management programs.
Hazardous Waste: Transport offsite for treatment, storage, and disposal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative B (Ten-Year Plan)
Under Alternative B (Ten-Year Plan), existing environmental restoration and
waste management facilities and projects would continue to be managed. In
addition to current facilities and projects, those proposed for 1995
through 2005 would be implemented to meet the current Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory mission and to comply with negotiated agreements and
commitments.
Under this alternative, spent nuclear fuel, environmental restoration, and
waste management activities would be continued and enhanced to meet
expanded spent nuclear fuel and waste handling needs. These enhanced
activities would be needed to comply with regulations and agreements and
would result from acceptance of additional offsite materials and waste.
Waste generation from onsite sources would increase because of increased
decontamination and decommissioning and environmental restoration
activities. Spent nuclear fuel and selected waste would be received from
other DOE sites and aluminum-clad spent nuclear spent fuel would be
transferred to the Savannah River Site. Onsite management would emphasize
greater treatment and disposal capabilities, compared with Alternative A
(No Action). Additional cleanup and decommissioning and decontamination
projects would be conducted under this alternative.
Alternative C (Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal)
Under Alternative C (Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal), ongoing
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory spent nuclear fuel and waste
management activities, along with materials and waste, would be transferred
to other locations to the extent possible. Possible locations include DOE
facilities, other Government sites, or private sector locations. Minimal
treatment, storage, and disposal activities would be located at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory. Waste and spent nuclear fuel would not be
received from offsite sources for management by the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory. Whenever feasible, wastes generated from onsite
environmental
Summary 55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 21)
Alternative B (Ten-Year Plan)
Spent Nuclear Fuel: Receive additional offsite spent nuclear fuel; transfer aluminum-
clad spent nuclear fuel to Savannah River Site; examine and store naval spent nuclear
fuel; complete Expended Core Facility Dry Cell Project and expand storage capacity in
pools at Building 666 of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant; phase out pools at
Building 603 of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant; phase in new dry storage;
demonstrate electrometallurgical process at Argonne National Laboratory-West.
Environmental Restoration: Conduct all planned projects in all Waste Area Groups;
decontaminate and decommission Auxiliary Reactor Area (ARA)-ll, Boiling Water
Reactor Experiment (BORAX)-V, Engineering Test Reactor, Materials Test Reactor, Fuel
Processing Complex, Fuel Receipt/Storage Facility, Headend Processing Plant, Waste
Calcine Facility, and Central Liquid Waste Processing Facility; clean up groundwater
contamination and vadose zone; retrieve and treat Pit 9 wastes.
High-Level Waste: Convert liquid to calcine (solid); construct a facility to immobilize
both liquid and solid calcine.
Transuranic Waste: Retrieve/move transuranic and alpha low-level waste to new
storage; treat offsite and onsite transuranic and alpha low-level waste; transport
transuranic waste offsite for disposal; accept transuranic waste from offsite for
treatment.
Low-Level Waste: Treat onsite and offsite; construct and operate additional treatment
and disposal facilities onsite.
Mixed Low-Level Waste: Treat onsite by incineration and nonincineration; construct
and operate facilities to treat waste by incineration and nonincineration; construct and
operate disposal facility; transport waste offsite for treatment and disposal.
Greater-than-Class-C Waste: Receive sealed sources for recycle or storage;
construct dedicated storage facility.
Hazardous Waste: Transport offsite for treatment, storage, and disposal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 22)
Alternative C (Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal)
Spent Nuclear Fuel: Transport Idaho National Engineering Laboratory spent nuclear fuel inventory to another
DOE site; continue to examine and store naval spent nuclear fuel during approximate three-year transition
period; phase out spent nuclear fuel handling facilities; demonstrate electrometallurgical process at Argonne
National Laboratory-West.
Environmental Restoration: Conduct all planned projects for all Waste Area Groups; decontaminate and
decommission Auxiliary Reactor Area (ARA)-ll, and Boiling Water Reactor Experiment (BORAX)-V; focus on
institutional controls to the extent possible for cleanup projects; clean up groundwater and vadose zone; and
treat Pit 9 wastes.
High-Level Waste: Select technology and plan immobilization facility; develop treatment to minimize volume of
high-activity waste; construct replacement liquid storage tanks.
Transuranic Waste: Retrieve/move transuranic and alpha low-level waste to new storage; transport transuranic
waste offsite for disposal; transport waste to offsite DOE facility for storage.
Low-Level Waste: Transport to other DOE facilities for treatment, storage, and disposal.
Mixed Low-Level Waste: Transport offsite for treatment, storage, and disposal.
Greater-than-Class-C Waste: Discontinue management programs.
Hazardous Waste: Transport offsite for treatment, storage, and disposal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56 Summary
restoration activities would be minimized by emphasizing institutional
controls over treatment options. Only current cleanup and decommissioning
and decontamination projects would be conducted under this alternative.
Existing onsite spent nuclear fuel and waste management capability would be
expanded to the extent needed to comply with regulations and agreements.
Alternative D (Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 23)
Alternative D (Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal)
Spent Nuclear Fuel: Examine and store naval spent nuclear fuel; receive DOE spent nuclear fuel; expand
storage capacity in pools at Building 666 of the Idaho Chemical Plant; phase in expanded dry storage; phase
out storage pools at Building 603 of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant; phase in spent nuclear fuel
stabilization; demonstrate electrometallurgical process.
Environmental Restoration: Conduct planned projects for all Waste Area Groups; decontaminate and
decommission Auxiliary Reactor Area (ARA)-ll, Boiling Water Reactor Experiment (BORAX)-V, Engineering
Test Reactor, Materials Test Reactor, Fuel Processing Complex, Fuel Receipt/Storage Facility, Headend
Processing Plant, Waste Calcine Facility, and Central Liquid Waste Processing Facility; focus on residential
future land use to the extent possible for cleanup projects; clean up groundwater and vadose zone; retrieve
and treat Pit 9 wastes.
High-Level Waste: Convert liquid to calcine; select technology and plan immobilization facility; develop
treatment to minimize high-activity waste; construct replacement liquid storage tanks.
Transuranic Waste: Retrieve/move transuranic and alpha low-level waste to new storage; transport
transuranic waste offsite for disposal; accept offsite transuranic waste; treat offsite and onsite transuranic
waste and alpha low-level waste; dispose of alpha low-level waste at new onsite facility.
Low-Level Waste: Receive offsite waste; treat waste onsite; construct and operate additional treatment and
disposal facilities onsite.
Mixed Low-Level Waste: Receive offsite waste; treat waste onsite by incineration and nonincineration;
construct facilities for onsite incineration and nonincineration treatment; construct and operate new disposal
facility; transport waste offsite for treatment and disposal.
Greater-than-Class-C Waste: Receive sealed sources for recycle or storage; construct dedicated storage
facility.
Hazardous Waste: Transport waste offsite for treatment, storage, and disposal; possibly construct onsite
treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Alternative D (Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal), spent
nuclear fuel and waste would be transferred from other DOE facilities to
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for management to the extent
possible. Environmental restoration activities would emphasize residential
use as the preferred end land use, which potentially would result in
maximum waste generation. Implementation of this alternative would require
additional projects not yet defined or the expansion of identified projects
[compared with Alternative B (Ten-Year Plan)].
Acceptance of waste and spent nuclear fuel from other sites would be
maximized. Wastes generated from environmental restoration and waste
management activities onsite would be increased over that of the other
alternatives. Spent nuclear fuel and environmental restoration and waste
management activities at the
Summary 57
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory would be continued and enhanced to
meet current and expanded spent nuclear fuel and waste handling needs.
These enhancements would be needed to comply with regulations and
agreements and to allow for acceptance of additional offsite- generated
materials and waste. Onsite management would emphasize greater treatment
and disposal capabilities compared with Alternative B (Ten-Year Plan). For
decontamination and decommissioning projects, complete dismantlement and
restoration would be emphasized where possible and, therefore, the volume
of wastes generated would be significantly greater than under Alternative B
(Ten- Year Plan).
Figure (Summary 58)(1) Low-level waste burial pit
Figure (Summary 58)(2) The Waste Experimental Reduction Facility
Figure (Summary 58)(3) One mode of transporting waste
Figure (Summary 58)(4) Air support weather shield at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex.
58 Summary
Preferred Alternative
Under the Preferred Alternative, similar to the activities described under
Alternative B (Ten-Year Plan), existing environmental restoration and waste
management facilities and projects would continue to be operated. In
addition to existing facilities and projects, projects proposed under
Alternative B for 1995 through 2005 would be implemented to meet the
current Idaho National Engineering Laboratory mission and to comply with
negotiated agreements and commitments (see Projects Related to Alternatives
on page 54).
Ongoing spent nuclear fuel management, environmental restoration, and waste
management activities would be continued and enhanced to meet current and
expanded spent nuclear fuel and waste handling needs. These enhanced
activities would be needed to comply with regulations and agreements and
would result from acceptance of additional offsite- genera ted materials
and waste. Waste generation from onsite sources would increase (reflecting
regulatory requirements and increased environmental restoration
activities). Spent nuclear fuel, transuranic, and mixed low level waste
would be received from other sites. INEL would receive waste depending on
decisions based on Site Treatment Plans negotiated under the Federal
Facility Compliance Act and the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement. The transuranic waste and mixed low-level waste received
from other DOE sites would be treated, and the residue returned to the
original DOE site (generator) or transported to an approved offsite
disposal facility, as negotiated under the Federal Facility Compliance Act
with the State of Idaho and the Environmental Protection
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(Side_bar #: 24)
Preferred Alternative
Spent Nuclear Fuel: Receive additional non-aluminum-clad
offsite spent nuclear fuel; transfer aluminum-clad spent
nuclear fuel to Savannah River Site; examine and store naval
spent nuclear fuel; complete Expended Core Facility Dry Cell
Project and expand storage capacity in pools at Building 666
of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant; phase out pools at
Building 603 of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant; phase
in new dry storage; demonstrate electrometallurgical process
at Argonne National Laboratory-West.
Environmental Restoration: Conduct all planned projects
in all Waste Area Groups; decontaminate and decommission
Auxiliary Reactor Area (ARA)-ll, Boiling Water Reactor
Experiment (BORAX)-V, Engineering Test Reactor, Materials
Test Reactor, Fuel Processing Complex, Fuel Receipt/
Storage Facility, Headend Processing Plant, Waste Calcine
Facility, and Central Liquid Waste Processing Facility; clean
up groundwater contamination and vadose zone; retrieve
and treat Pit 9 wastes.
High-Level Waste: Convert liquid to calcine; develop
treatment that minimizes high-activity waste; plan a facility to
immobilize both liquid and solid calcine.
Transuranic Waste: Retrieve/move onsite transuranic and
alpha low-level waste to new storage; treat offsite and onsite
transuranic and alpha low-level waste; transport transuranic
waste offsite for disposal; accept transuranic waste from
offsite for treatment; return treated offsite waste to the
generator or an approved offsite disposal site.
Low-Level Waste: Treat onsite and offsite; construct and
operate additional treatment and disposal facilities onsite.
Mixed Low-Level Waste: Treat onsite by incineration and
nonincineration; construct and operate facilities to treat
waste by incineration and nonincineration; construct and
operate disposal facility; transport waste offsite for treatment
and disposal; accept offsite mixed low-level waste for
treatment; return treated offsite waste to the generator or an
approved offsite disposal site.
Greater-than-Class-C Waste: Receive sealed sources for
recycle or storage; construct dedicated storage facility (may
or may not be located at Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory).
Hazardous Waste: Transport offsite for treatment, storage,
and disposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary 59
Agency, and with other affected States. Ongoing remediation and
decommissioning and decontamination projects would be continued and
additional projects would be conducted.
60 Summary
Affected Environment at the INEL
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory is located on 890 square miles
(230,000 hectares) west of the City of Idaho Falls in southeast Idaho. The
site sits on the Eastern Snake River Plain and is bordered by the
Bitterroot, Lemhi, and Lost River mountain ranges. Local rivers and streams
drain the mountain watersheds, but most surface water is diverted for
irrigation before it reaches the site boundaries. Site activities do not
directly affect surface water quality outside the site because current
discharges from facilities go to seepage and evaporation basins or storm
water injection wells.
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory overlies the Snake River Plain
Aquifer, the largest aquifer in Idaho. Subsurface water quality near the
site is affected by natural water chemistry and contaminants originating at
the site. Previous waste discharges to unlined ponds and deep wells have
introduced radionuclides, nonradioactive metals, inorganic salts, and
organic compounds into the subsurface. Because of improved waste management
practices, these discharges no longer occur and groundwater quality
continues to improve. Only extremely low concentrations of radioactive
iodine (iodine-i 29) and tritium have ever migrated beyond the site
boundary; tritium no longer migrates offsite and iodine-i 29 concentrations
are well below maximum contaminant levels (upper allowable limit in
drinking water) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory activities result in radiological air
emissions; however, these are very low (less than background radiation) and
well within standards. Nonetheless, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
workers may be exposed to radiation through their work. Those who may
receive more than 0.1 rem per year (DOE's administrative limit is 2.0 rem)
are monitored. About 32 percent of workers monitored between 1987 and 1991
received measurable radiation doses.
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory primarily consists of open,
undeveloped land covered predominantly by sagebrush and grasslands with
animal communities typical of these vegetation types. Two Federal
endangered and nine candidate animal species have the potential for
occurring, and nine animal species of special concern (State listing) occur
at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Eight plant species
identified as sensitive, rare, or unique by other Federal agencies and the
Idaho Native Plant Society also occur at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. Radionuclides have been found above background levels in
individual plants and animals adjacent to facilities, but have not been
observed at the population, community, or ecosystem levels.
Many land areas and plants on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory are
important to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Certain plants are used as
medicines, food, tools, fuel and in traditional practices. Land areas of
importance to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Figure (Summary 61)View of the Snake River Plain.
Summary 61
include the buttes, wetlands, sinks, grasslands, juniper woodlands, Birch
Creek, and the Big Lost River.
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory site has a varied inventory of
cultural resources. These include fossil localities, prehistoric
archaeological sites, historic sites, and facilities associated with the
development of nuclear science in the United States. Similarly, because
Native American people hold the land sacred, in their terms the entire
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory is culturally important.
Most land within the site boundaries is used for grazing or is general open
space. Only about 2 percent of the 890 square miles (230,000 hectares) is
used for facilities and operations, with another 6 percent devoted to
public roads and utility rights-of-way Over 97 percent of Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory employees live in the seven counties surrounding the
site. The regional economy relies on fanning, ranching, and mining. The
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory accounts for approximately 10 percent
of the total regional employment.
62 Summary
Environmental Consequences
The environmental consequences of the site-specific alternatives have been
assessed for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and the surrounding
region. The environmental impact analyses are based on conservative
assumptions (that is, with a tendency to overestimate). Analytical
approaches were designed to provide a reasonable projection of the maximum
reasonably foreseeable consequences. The potential effects of each
alternative were estimated by evaluating each individual project proposed
for the alternative, summing the projects' collective effects under each
alternative, and including interactions among the individual projects that
compose each alternative. Cumulative impacts were determined by evaluating
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions of DOE and non-DOE
projects or activities, in combination with the alternatives.
Although the impact to each environmental discipline (for example, land use
or employment) is assessed in greater detail in Volume 2, this Summary
focuses on potential adverse impacts that DOE has found to be of greater
interest to the public, as demonstrated through the scoping process,
comments on the Draft EIS, and other public involvement programs at the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
In addition, the impacts presented in this Summary reflect the Preferred
Alternative, which is essentially the Ten- Year Plan (Alternative B)
modified to include elements of other alternatives. Impacts under the
Preferred Alternative would be similar to those of the Ten- Year Plan and
less than those of Alternative D (Maximum Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal).
Air Quality
The operation of specific projects associated with the alternatives would
result in airborne emissions of radionuclides, criteria pollutants (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide, particulate matter), and toxic air pollutants (e.g.,
benzene, mercury). The effects of these emissions have been analyzed and
compared with standards and criteria which are appropriate for comparison.
The results indicate that, although some degradation of air quality could
occur, all impacts would be below applicable standards established for
public health and welfare. Measures such as administrative controls and
best available control technology would be used as needed to minimize these
impacts.
Atmospheric visibility has been specifically designated as an air-
quality-related value under the 1977 Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Amendments to the Clean Air Act. Conservative,
screening-level analyses have been applied to estimate potential impacts
related to visibility degradation at Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area
[about 12 miles (20 kilometers) southwest of the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory]. The results indicate that for all alternatives, including the
Preferred Alternative, there would be no perceptible changes in contrast,
but potential impacts related to color shift could result. If the
application of refined modeling confirms the findings of the
screening-level analyses, measures such as the use of emissions controls or
relocation of projects would be required to prevent these impacts.
The visual setting, particularly in the Middle Butte area of the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory, is considered by the Shoshone- Bannock
Tribes to be an important Native American resource. The Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes would be consulted before any projects were developed that could
have impacts
Summary 63
to resources of importance to the tribes. For all alternatives, including
the Preferred Alternative, radiation doses to offsite individuals and site
workers would be below applicable limits, Similarly, projected ambient air
levels of toxic air pollutants would be below applicable standards for all
alternatives.
Concentrations of criteria pollutants from operation of existing and
proposed projects at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory were also
found to be below State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration limits for all alternatives.
Criteria pollutant levels associated with the alternatives represent only
minor increases over existing baseline levels. As a result, the cumulative
(alternatives plus baseline) levels would not differ much between
alternatives.
Construction and remediation activities would result in short-term,
elevated levels of particulate matter in localized areas. Under all
alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, construction activities
would result in maximum 24-hour concentrations of particulate matter at
locations along public roads that exceed the State and Federal standards.
Particulate levels at the site boundary would not exceed these standards.
Standard construction practices such as watering would be used to minimize
dust generation during the activities.
The air quality was evaluated in light of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, including DOE projects not associated with the
spent nuclear fuel, environmental restoration, and waste management
programs, plus offsite projects conducted by Government agences businesses,
or individuals. This impact analysis found that the contribution to
cumulative impacts from operation of projects associated with the
alternatives would be low relative to other projects, and within limits
prescribed by applicable standards.
Cultural Resources
Methods to identify, evaluate, and mitigate impacts to cultural resources
have been established through the National Historic Preservation Act, as
amended; the Archaeological Resource Protection Act; the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; and the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act. Potential impacts to cultural resources were assessed by
identifying project activities that could affect known or expected
significant resources and determining whether a project activity would have
an effect on significant resources. A project would affect a significant
resource if it would alter the resource's characteristics.
Geographically, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory site is included
within a large territory once inhabited by and still of importance to the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. However, the site lies outside the land boundaries
established by the Fort Bridger Treaty and is occupied by the DOE.
Because some projects are not yet fully defined, the impacts to cultural
resources cannot be completely identified. The impacts to cultural
resources would depend on the (a) amount of surface disturbance [ranges
from about 40 acres (16 hectares) under Alternative A (No Action) to about
1,340 acres (542 hectares) under Alternative D (Maximum Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal)j; (b) degree to which these areas have been surveyed for
resources and the number of potentially affected structures [6 for
Alternative A (No
64 Summary
Action) and 11 for Alternative C (Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal)
bb for the Preferred Alternative and 70 for Alternatives B (Ten-year Plan)
and D (Maximum Treatment Storage, and Disposal)]; and (c) number of known
cultural resource sites (22 for Alternatives B and D and the Preferred
Alternative). For any alternative, DOE would conduct detailed
preconstruction surveys and would consult with the State Historic
preservation Office and Native American Groups, before any undertaking, to
determine the appropriate measures to minimize impacts to significant
resources.
In general, Alternatives A and C would have a lesser effect on cultural
resources than the Preferred Alternative, and Alternatives B and D.
Ecology
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory primarily consists of open,
undeveloped land covered predominantly by sagebrush and grasslands with
animal communities typical of these vegetation types. Radionuclides have
been found above background levels in individual plants and animals
adjacent to facilities, but I effects have not been observed at the
population, community, or ecosystem levels.
Under Alternatives A (No Action) and C (Minimum Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal), limited environmental restoration activities would be
undertaken, resulting in the long-term presence of radioactive and
hazardous wastes in the environment. Plants and animals would continue to
be exposed to these wastes. The Preferred Alternative and Alternatives B
(Ten-Year Plan) and D (Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal) would
result in a decrease in radioactive uptake over the long-term as
environmental restoration activities proceed.
Implementation of any alternative would result in the loss of habitat from
facility modification and construction. Alternative D would have the
greatest estimated consequences, followed by Alternative B, the Preferred
Alternative, Alternative C and Alternative A. Implementation of Alternative
D (Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal) would claim about 1,340 acres
(542 hectares), of which 232 acres (94 hectares) would be revegetated,
resulting in a net loss of about 1,108 acres (448 hectares). Alternative B
and the Preferred Alternative would have similar impacts, with the latter
claiming about 783 acres (317 hectares), of which 232 acres (94 hectares)
would be revegetated, resulting in a long- term net loss of 551 acres (223
hectares). Alternative C would disturb about 355 acres (144 hectares)
including 232 acres (94 hectares) that would be revegetated. Alternative A
(No Action) would have the least relative impact, disturbing only about 40
acres (16 hectares) of habitat.
Estimated habitat loss from each alternative was assessed in light of other
DOE and non-DOE projects. When these projects were considered together, it
was estimated that Alternative A (No Action) would disturb 260 acres (105
hectares), followed by Alternatives C (Minimum Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal) [576 acres (233 hectares)], B (Ten-Year Plan) [823 acres (333
hectares)], and D (Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal) [1,560 acres
(631 hectares)]. For the Preferred Alternative this cumulative habitat loss
would be similar to Alternative B and less than Alternative D. To minimize
habitat loss, DOE conducts surveys and consults with appropriate Federal
and State agencies before facility construction or modification. If
Summary 65
necessary, current project planning would be modified to minimize surface
disturbances.
Groundwater Quality
Previous operations have introduced radionuclides, nonradioactive metals,
inorganic salts, and organic compounds into the subsurface. Radionuclide
concentrations in the Snake River Plain Aquifer beneath the site have
generally decreased since the mid 1 980s because of changes in disposal
practices, radioactive decay, adsorption of radionuclides to rocks and
minerals, and dilution by natural surface water and groundwater entering
the aquifer. Extremely low concentrations of iodine-i 29 and tritium (both
below maximum contaminant levels) have migrated outside of site boundaries.
Although nonradioactive metals, inorganic salts, and organic compounds have
been detected in the aquifer none have migrated beyond site boundaries.
Modeling to estimate radionuclide (and other constituent) migration was
performed. Tritium, iodine-i 29, and strontium-90 are discussed because
they appear to have had the most impact on groundwater quality.
Drinking water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory site may
contain small concentrations of tritium, strontium-90, and iodine-i 29.
Over a 50-year working period, this radioactivity could result in a maximum
of about a 22-millirem dose to an individual worker. This radiation dose is
well within regulatory limits and is small compared to other sources of
occupational radiation exposure.
Normal Operations Impacts
Potential impacts from any alternative would occur to workers and the
public from exposures to radiation during routine operations of facilities
and during routine transportation of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive
waste.
Facilities
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory facilities release small amounts of
radionuclides to the air in levels that are within regulatory standards.
Estimates of latent cancer fatalities are based on exposures to 10 years of
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory operations under each alternative.
The likelihood of the maximally exposed worker contracting a fatal cancer
ranges from 1 in about 500,000 [Alternatives B (Ten-Year Plan) and D
(Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal) and Preferred Alternative] to 1
in about 770,000 [Alternatives A (No Action) and C (Minimum Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal)]. For the maximally exposed member of the public
living offsite, the likelihood ranges from 1 in about 240,000 [Alternative
D (Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal)] and from 1 in about 320,000
(Alternatives B and Preferred) to 1 in about 1,000,000 (Alternatives A and
C). In the nearby population, it is estimated that less than one latent
cancer fatality would occur in the 10- year period for all alternatives.
Figure (Summary 66)Relationship of Snake River Plain to the INEL
66 Summary
Workers
Impacts to workers at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory from
routine occupational hazards were also assessed. It is estimated that
routine exposure to radiation would result in less than one latent cancer
fatality for any alternative over 10 years of Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory operations in the worker population.
Based on historical data, these same populations of workers would also
report between 2,500 and 3,000 occupationally-related injuries and
illnesses over 10 years of Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
operations. Work place hazards would be reduced by the worker and safety
programs and regulatory standards currently in place.
Transportation
During the incident-free transportation of waste and spent nuclear fuel,
the general population living and traveling along the transport route would
be exposed to radiation from the passing shipments. Transportation workers
would also be exposed. The total number of fatalities for the shipments
would be the sum of the estimated number of radiation-related latent cancer
fatalities for transportation workers and the general population and the
estimated number of nonradiological fatalities from vehicular emissions.
Over the 10-year period 1995 through 2005, for all alteratives, if waste
shipments were made by truck, the estimated number of total fatalities
would range from 0.10 to 1.4. If waste shipments were made by rail, the
estimated number of total fatalities would range from 0.02 to 0.3. Over the
40-year period 1995 through 2035, if spent nuclear fuel shipments were made
by truck, the estimated number of total fatalities would range from 0.1 to
1.7. If spent nuclear fuel shipments were made by rail, the estimated
number of total fatalities would range from 0.1 to 0.26.
Accidents
A potential exists for accidents at facilities associated with the
treatment, storage, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous materials.
Accidents can be categorized into events that are abnormal (for example,
minor spills), events that a facility was designed to withstand, and events
that a facility was not designed to withstand (but whose impacts may be
offset or mitigated). A range of accidents was considered for all
alternatives and consequences were estimated for a member of the public at
the nearest site boundary, for the population within 50 miles (80
kilometers), and for the workers. In addition, accident analyses were
performed for the transport of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
Facilities
The maximum reasonably foreseeable accident for facility operations is the
same among all alternatives and involves spent nuclear fuel. A severe
earthquake damages the Hot Fuel Examination Facility and causes spent
nuclear fuel to melt, resulting in a radiological release. Although such an
event is unlikely (once every 100,000 years), the maximally exposed
individual at the site boundary would incur an estimated risk of increased
latent cancer fatalities of one in about 40 million. In the surrounding
population, this postulated accident could result in, at most, seven
additional latent cancer fatalities.
Workers
The maximum reasonably foreseeable radiological accident for workers
results from an earthquake
Summary 67
causing the main stack at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant to collapse.
This event has a likelihood of occurring once in 3,300 years. As many as 50
workers could be subjected to potentially fatal prompt exposures. Workers
that survive the initial event could see increased risk of developing a
latent fatal cancer of 1 in 90. The maximum reasonably foreseeable
hazardous material accident results from an accidental release of the
entire inventory of chlorine gas (a hazardous material) from a facility.
The event may occur once in 100,000 years and could cause fatalities to as
many as 100 workers. Such a release also would be the maximum reasonably
foreseeable hazardous material accident for public consequences, but no
fatalities would be expected.
Transportation
During the transport of waste and spent nuclear fuel, radiological
accidents and traffic accidents could occur. To determine the accident risk
from transporting waste and spent nuclear fuel, a complete spectrum of
accidents was evaluated.
The estimated cumulative risk of a latent cancer fatality from radiological
accidents would range among all alternatives from 1 in 1,300 to 1 in 340
for the period 1995 through 2005 if waste shipments were made by truck. The
estimated cumulative accident risk from traffic accidents would range from
0.30 to 3.4 fatalities for the period 1995 through 2005. The risk of latent
cancer fatality as a result of radiological accidents, although small, is
considered to be an involuntary risk incurred by the public.
The estimated cumulative risk of a latent cancer fatality from a
radiological accidents would range from one in 17,000 to one in 2,900 for
the period 1995 through 2005 if waste shipments were made by train. The
estimated cumulative accident risk from traffic accidents would range from
0.003 to 0.04 fatalities for the period 1995 through 2005.
The estimated cumulative risk of a latent cancer fatality from radiological
accidents would range from 1 in 240,000 to 1 in 200 for the period 1995
through 2035 if spent nuclear fuel shipments were made by truck. The
estimated cumulative accident risk due to traffic accidents would range
from 0.05 to 1.4 fatalities for the period 1995 through 2035.
The estimated cumulative risk of a latent cancer fatality from radiological
accidents would range from 1 in 240,000 to 1 in 700 for the period 1995
through 2035 if spent nuclear fuel shipments were made by train. The
estimated cumulative accident risk from traffic accidents would range from
0.05 to 1.2 fatalities for the period 1995 through 2035.
The consequences for various maximum reasonably foreseeable accidents also
were evaluated for spent nuclear fuel and waste. The maximum reasonably
foreseeable accident for spent nuclear fuel or waste shipments was for a
rail shipping cask, containing special-case commercial spent nuclear fuel,
to undergo any number of combinations of fire and impact to cause a
release. This hypothetical accident, which was estimated to have a
probability of occurring about once in 10 million years, was estimated to
result in 55 radiation-related latent cancer fatalities.
Environmental Justice
In February 1994, Executive Order 12898 entitled, "Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in
68 Summary
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations" was released to Federal
agencies. In accordance with the Executive Order, an interagency Federal
Working Group on Environmental Justive has been convened to provide
guidance to agencies on implementation of environmental justice.
For this final EIS, proposed projects, facilities, and transportation
associated with the proposed alternatives were reviewed. This review
included potential impacts that might occur for each of the environmental
disciplines, under normal operating conditions and under potential accident
conditions, to minority and low-income communities within 50 miles (80
kilometers) of an existing major facility area at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory. In addition, exposure pathways were evaluated with
respect to subsistence consumption of fish, game, and native plants. The
analysis found that the impacts from proposed environmental restoration and
waste management programs and managing spent nuclear fuel, under all
alternatives, would not constitute a disproportionately high and adverse
impact on minority or low- income communities and, thus, do not present an
environmental justice concern.
a.The location of the facility was selected to include the maximum minority
and low- income populations within the 80-kilometer radius. Of the 172,400
people residing in this area (based on the 1990 census), about 7 percent
are classified by the US. Bureau of Census as minority and about 14 percent
as low-income.
Summary 69
Consultations and Environmental Requirements
DOE is committed to operating the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in
compliance with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, executive
orders, DOE orders, and permits and compliance agreements with regulatory
agencies. To ensure compliance with permits and other applicable legal
requirements, regulatory agencies conduct inspections at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory. In addition, DOE has a comprehensive program for
conducting internal audits or inspections and self- assessments, including
periodic reviews conducted by interdisciplinary teams of experts. DOE has
prepared and issued a site-specific environmental compliance planning
manual. This manual contains step-by-step methods to maintain compliance
with the various requirements of Federal and State agencies that regulate
operations at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The DOE
regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act require
consultation with other agencies, when appropriate, to incorporate any
relevant requirements as early as possible in the process. During
preparation of the EIS, DOE initiated consultation with Federal and State
agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Historic
Preservation Office have responded to DOE's request for consultation. The
information provided has been considered in the analyses of the EIS.
The DOE and the Navy have reviewed all comments received on the draft EIS.
To more fully understand, evaluate, and consider certain agency comments,
consultations have taken place among agency, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, and Navy officials.
Summary 71
Attachment - Reading Rooms and Information Locations
U.S. Department of Energy
Reading Rooms
Public Reading Room for U.S. Department
of Energy Headquarters
Room 1 E-1 90, Forrestal Building
Freedom of Information Reading Room
1000 Independence Avenue. SW
Washington, DC 10585
(202) 586-6020
Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Public Reading Room for U.S.
Department of Energy
Oakland Operations Office
Environmental Information Center
1301 Clay Street, Room 700 N
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 637-1762
Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Public Reading Room for U.S.
Department of Energy
Rocky Flats Operations Office
Front Range Community College Library
3645 W. 112th Ave.
Level B, Center or the Building
Westminister, CO 80030
(303) 469-4435
Monday and Tuesday 10:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.,
Wednesday 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Public Reading Room for U.S.
Department of Energy
Idaho Operations Office
Public Reading Room
1776 Science Center Drive
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
(208) 526-9162
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Public Reading Room for U.S.
Department of Energy
University of Illinois at Chicago Library
Government Documents Section
801 South Morgan Street
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 996-2738
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. Saturday 10:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Public Reading Room for U.S.
Department of Energy
National Atomic Museum
20358 Wyoming Boulevard, SE
Albuquerque, NM 87185
(505) 845-4378
Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Public Reading Room for U.S.
Department of Energy
Nevada Operations Office
Coordination and Information Center
3084 South Highland Drive
P.O. Box 98521
Las Vegas,NV 89106
(702) 295-0731
Monday-Friday 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Public Information Room for U.S.
Department of Energy
Fernald Operations Office
Public Environmental Center
JANTER Building 10845
Hamilton-Cleves Highway
Harrison, OH 445030
(513) 738-0164
Monday and Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Saturday 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Public Reading Room for U.S.
Department of Energy
Savannah River Operations Office
Public Reading Room
Road 1A, Building 703A, D232
Aiken, SC 29802
(803) 641-3320
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Public Reading Room for U.S.
Department of Energy
Oak Ridge Operations Office
Public Reading Room
55 Jefferson Avenue
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(615) 576-1216
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and
12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Summary 73
Public Reading Room for U.S.
Department of Energy
Richland Operations Office
Washington State University Tri-Cities
100 Sprout Road, Room 130 West
Richland, WA 99352
(509) 376-8583
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and
1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Navy Information Locations
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
Chesapeake Central Library
298 Cedar Rd.
Chesapeake, VA 23320-5512
(804) 436-8300
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 pm to 5:00 p.m.
Newport News Public Library
Grissom Branch
366 Deshazor Dr.
Newport News, VA 23602
(804) 886-7896
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 5:00p.m.
Kiln Library
301 East City Hall Ave.
Norfolk, VA 23510
(804) 441-2429
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Hampton Public Library
4207 Victoria Boulevard
Hampton, VA 23669
(804) 727-1154
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 5:00p.m.
Portsmouth Public Library
Main Branch
601 Court St.
Portsmouth, VA 23704
(804) 393-8501
Monday.Thursday 9:00 a.m to 9:00 p.m,
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m.
Virginia Beach Central Library
4100 Virginia Beach Blvd.
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
(804) 431-3001
Monday-Thursday 10:00 a.m..to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 5:00p.m.
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Kitsap Regional Library
1301 Sylvan Way
Bremerton,WA 98310
(206) 377-7601
Monday-Thursday 9:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Sunday 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Kitsap Regional Library
Downtown Branch
612 5th Ave.
Bremerton, WA 98310
(206) 377-3955
Monday-Friday 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Suzallo Library SM25
University of Washington Libraries
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98185
(206) 543-9158
Monday-Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Rice Public Library
8 Wentworth Street
Kittery, ME 03904
(207) 439-1553
Monday-Wednesday, Friday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Portsmouth Public Library
8 Islington Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
(603) 427-1540
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard
Aiea Public Library
99-143 Monalua Rd.
Aiea, HI 96701
(808) 488-2654
Monday and Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Hawaii State Library
478 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 586-3535
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday,
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Tuesday and Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pearl City Public Library
1138 Waimano Home Rd.
Pearl City, HI 96782
(808) 455-4134
Monday.Wednesday 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Thursday and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Friday and Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pearl Harbor Naval Base Library
Code 90L
1614 Makalapa Dr.
Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-5350
(808) 471-8238
Tuesday.Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 5:00p.m.
Kesselring Site
Albany Public Library
Reference and Adult Services
161 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12210
(518) 449-3380
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday 9:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Saratoga Springs Public Library
320 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
(518) 584-7860
Monday.Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
74 Summary
Schenectady County Library
99 Clinton Street
Schenectady, NY 12305
(518)388-4511
Monday-Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 5:00p.m.
Other Locations
Main Library
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
(602) 621-6421
Monday-Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.,
Friday 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 11:00 am. to 1:00a.m.
Main Library
University of California at Irvine
Government Publications Receiving Dock
Irvine, CA 92717
(714) 824-6836
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 12:00 noon to 1:00 a.m.
Summer Hours:
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday and Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pleasanton Public Library - Reference Desk
400 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
(510) 462-3535
Monday and Tuesday 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Wednesday 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Closed Friday
Saturday and Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
San Diego Public Library
820 "E" Street
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 236-5867
Monday-Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Denver Public Library
1357 Broadway
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 640-8845
Monday-Wednesday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Thursday-Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
George A. Smathers Libraries, Library West
University ot Florida Library, Room 241
P.O. Box 117001
Gainesville, FL 32611-7001
(904) 392-0367
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 2:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Atlanta Public Library
1 Margaret Mitchell Square
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 730-1700
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Reese Library
Augusta College
2500 Walton Way
Augusta, GA 30904-2200
(706) 737-1744
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:45 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.,
Friday 7:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Summer Hours:
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Chatham-Effingham-Liberty
Regional Library
2002 Bull Street
Savannah, GA 31401
(912) 652-3600
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Parks Library
Iowa State University
Government Publications Department
Ames, IA 50011-2140
(515) 294-3642
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Sunday 12:30 p.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Summer Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Friday 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 12:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Boise Public Library
715 South Capitol Boulevard
Boise, ID 83702
(208) 384-4023
Monday and Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Tuesday-Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday and Sunday 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m.
Idaho State Library
325 West State Street
Boise, ID 83702
(208) 334-2152
Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Shoshone-Bannock Library
Bannock and Pima Streets, HRDC Building
Fort Hall, ID 83203
(208) 238-3882
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Idaho Falls Public Library
457 Broadway
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
(208) 529-1462
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m,
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Sunday 1:30p.m. to 5:30p.m.
University of Idaho Library
Rayburn Street
Moscow, ID 83844-2353
(208) 885-6344
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight
Pocatello Public Library
812 East Clark Street
Pocatello, ID 83201
(208) 232-1263
Monday-Thursday 9:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m,
Friday and Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Twin Falls Public Library
434 Second Street East
Twin Falls, ID 83301
(208) 733-2964
Monday, Friday, and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Tuesday-Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Summary 75
Main Library, Third Floor
University of Illinois
801 South Morgan, Mail Code 234
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 413-2594
Monday-Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Friday 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 9:00p.m.
Documents Library, 200-D
University of Illinois
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801
(217) 244-2060
School Hours:
Monday.Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 pm. to 12:00 midnight
Summer Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Engineering Library
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
(317) 494-2871
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Summer Hours:
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Manhattan Public Library
Julliette and Poyntz
Manhattan, KS 66502
(913) 776-4741
Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Science Library
160 Memorial Drive Building 14
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-5685
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Sunday 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight
O'Leary Library
University of Massachusetts
1 University Ave
Lowell, MA 01854
(508) 934-3205
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 pm. to 12 midnight
Summer Hours:
Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Sunday 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Worcester Public Library
3 Salem Square
Worchester, MA 01608
(508) 799-1655
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Bethesda Public Library
7400 Arlington Road
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301) 986-4300
Monday-Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.,
Friday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Gaithersburg Regional Library
18330 Montgomery Village Avenue
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
(301) 840-2515
Monday-Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.,
Friday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Hyattsville Public Library
6530 Adelphi Road
Hyattsville, MD 20782
(301) 779-9330
Monday.Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Ann Arbor Public Library
343 South 5th Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
(313) 994-2335
Monday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Tuesday.Friday 9:00 a.m.4o 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Zanhow Library
Saginaw Valley State University
7400 Bay Road
University Center, MI 48710
(517) 790-4240
School Hours:
Monday.Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Summer Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Ellis Library
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65201
(314) 882-0748
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Sunday 12:00 noon to 1:00a.m.
Summer Hours:
Monday and Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m.
Curtis Laws Wilson Library
University of Missouri Library
Rolla, MO 65401-0249
(314) 341-4227
School Hours:
Monday.Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.,
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 2:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Summer Hours:
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
D.H. Hill Library
North Carolina State University
PO. Box 7111
Raleigh, NC 27695-7111
(919) 515-3364
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.,
Friday 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.,
Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
Summer Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Friday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
76 Summary
Omaha Public Library
215 S 15th Street
Omaha. NE 68102
(402)444-4800
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 5:00p.m.
General Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-1466
(505) 277-5441
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday and Sunday 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m.,
Summer Hours:
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
U.S. DOE Community Reading Room
1450 Central Avenue, Suite 101
MS C314
Los Alamos, NM 87544
(505) 665-2127
Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Lockwood Library
State University of New York-Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-2200
(716) 645-2816
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 10:45 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 pm. to 9:00p.m.,
Summer Hours:
Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Tuesday 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Engineering Library
Cornell University
Carpenter Hall, Main Floor
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-5762
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 12:00 noon to 11:00 p.m.,
Summer Hours:
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m.
Cardinal Hayes Library
Manhattan College
4531 Manhattan College Parkway
Riverdale, NY 10471
(718) 920-0100
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Summer Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Brookhaven National Laboratory
25 Brookhaven Avenue, Building 477 A
PO. Box 5000
Upton, NY 11973-5000
(516) 282-3489
Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday and Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Columbus Metropolitan Library
96 South Grant Avenue
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 645-2710
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Kerr Library
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331-4905
(503) 737-0123
Monday-Friday 7:45 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Saturday and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 mid-
night,
Summer Hours:
Monday- Friday 7:45 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 10:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Brantford Price Millar Library
Portland State University
934 S.W. Harrison
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 725-4617
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Sunday 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight
Pattee Library
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16801
(814)865-2112
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Summer Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:45 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Friday 7:45 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 10:00p.m.
Narragansett Public Library
35 Kingston Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
(401) 789-9507
Monday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Tuesday-Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
(Saturday hours September to May only)
Charleston County Main Library
404 King Street
Charleston, SC 29403
(803) 723-1645
Monday-Thursday 9:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday-Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
South Carolina State Library
1500 Senate Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-8666
Monday-Friday 8:15 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Clinton Public Library
118 South Hicks Street
Clinton, TN 37716
(615) 457-0519
Monday and Thursday 10:00a.m. to 8:00p.m.,
Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Harriman Public Library
601 Walden Street
Harriman, TN 37748
(615) 882-3195
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday 9:00a.m. to 1:00p.m.
Summary 77
Kingston Public Library
1000 Bradford Way Building #3
Kingston, TN 37763
(615) 376-9905
Monday and Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.,
Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Friday 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Lawson McGhee Public Library
500 West Church Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37902
(615) 544-5750
Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.,
Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Saturday and Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Oak Ridge Public Library
Civic Center
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
(615) 482-8455
Monday-Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Oliver Springs Public Library
607 Easterbrook Avenue
Oliver Springs, TN 37840
(615) 435-2509
Tuesday-Thursday 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight
Rockwood Public Library
117 North Front Avenue
Rockwood, TN 37854
(615) 354-1281
Monday, Wednesday, Friday. and
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Tuesday and Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
General Library
University of Texas
PCL 2.402X
Austin, TX 78713
(512) 495-4262
School Hours:
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Sunday 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight,
Summer Hours:
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Sunday 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m.
Evans Library
Texas A&M University, MS 5000
College Station, TX 77843-5000
(409) 845-8850
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00p.m. to 11:00p.m.,
Summer Hours:
Monday.Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 11:00p.m.
Marriott Library
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 581-8394
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Friday 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Sunday 11:00a.m. to 11:00p.m.
Summers Hours:
Monday-Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Alderman Library
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903-2498
(804) 924-3133
School Hours:
Monday.Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight,
Summer Hours:
Monday.Thursday 8:00a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sunday 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Owen Science & Engineering Library
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-3200
(509) 335-4181
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday 12:00 noon to 9:00 p.m.,
Sunday 12:00 noon to l1:00p.m.,
Summer Hours:
Monday and Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Friday 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday and Sunday 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m.
Foley Center
Gonzaga University
East 502 Boone Avenue
Spokane, WA 99258
(509) 328-4220, extension 3125
School Hours:
Monday-Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Friday and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Sunday 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight,
Summer Hours:
Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Madison Public Library
201 W. Mifflin Street
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 266-6350
Monday-Wednesday 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Thursday and Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Teton County Public Library
320 South King Street
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-2164
Monday, Wednesday
and Friday 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Tuesday and Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
78 Summary
DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement (User's Guide and Summary)
A USER'S GUIDE TO THE SNF & INEL-EIS
* U.S. Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction
This User's Guide is intended to help you find information in the SNF
& INEL EIS (that's short for U.S. Department of Energy
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement). The
first section of this Guide gives you a brief overview of the SNF &
INEL EIS. The second section is organized to help you find specific
information in the Environmental Impact Statement-whether you're
interested in a management alternative, a particular site (such as
Hanford), or a discipline (such as land use or water quality).
Section 1: Overview
Elements of this Environmental Impact Statement
DOE is in the process of making important
decisions regarding spent nuclear fuel,
environmental restoration, and waste
management programs. To address these
issues, DOE has prepared an Environmental
Impact Statement: SNF & INEL EIS.
The SNF & INEL EIS is a three-volume
document:
Volume 1-Programmatic (DOE-wide)
Spent Nuclear Fuel Management: Analyzes
the potential environmental consequences
over the next 40 years of alternatives
related to the transportation, receipt,
processing, and storage of DOE's spent
nuclear fuel.
Volume 2-INEL Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management (ER &
WM) Programs: Analyzes the site-specific
consequences of INEL actions anticipated
over the next 10 years for waste and spent
nuclear fuel management and
environmental restoration.
Volume 3-Comment Summaries and
Responses: Summarizes public comments
on the draft Environmental Impact
Statement, and provides DOE responses.
The SNF & INEL EIS has a Summary for
the entire Environmental Impact Statement,
and summaries specific to Volume 1 and
Volume 2. Volumes 1 and 2 each have a
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
section.
The Alternatives section in Volumes 1 and
2 summarizes and briefly compares the
features of each alternative being
considered. As required by the National
Environmental Policy Act, volumes 1 and 2
each include a "No-Action" alternative.
The Affected Environment section in
Volumes 1 and 2 describes current
conditions that might be affected by the
alternatives under consideration: ecology,
air, water, geology, cultural resources, land
use, aesthetics, noise, health and safety,
socioeconomics, transportation, and energy
and utilities.
The Environmental Consequences section
in Volumes 1 and 2 provides an evaluation
of potential impacts of the alternatives.
These include total (cumulative) impacts,
impacts that can't he avoided, short-term
use of the environment compared to long-
term productivity resources that would be
committed, and means to reduce or avoid
(mitigate) adverse environmental impacts.
Volume 1 (Programmatic Spent Nuclear
Fuel Management) contains several site-
specific appendices, providing detailed
information on the above subjects at each
site being considered for spent nuclear fuel
management:
Appendix A - Hanford Site
Appendix B - INEL
Appendix C - Savannah River Site
Appendix D - Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel
Management
Appendix E - Other Generator/Storage
Locations
Appendix F - Nevada Test Site and Oak
Ridge Reservation
The remaining Volume 1 appendices
contain supplemental information:
Appendix G - Acronyms/ Abbreviations -
Appendix H - Glossary
Appendix I - Offsite Transportation of
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Appendix J - Spent Nuclear Fuel
Management
Appendix K - Environmental
Consequences Data
Appendix L - Environmental Justice
Appendix M - FEIS Distribution
Volume 2 (INEL Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management
Programs) contains six appendices:
Appendix A - Primer on Radioactivity
and Toxicology
Appendix B - Consultation Letters
Appendix C - Information Supponing
the Alternatives
Appendix D - Acronyms/ Abbreviations
Appendix F - Glossary
Appendix F - Technical Methodologies
and Key Data
Volume 3 summarizes comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement that
were received during the public comment
period, and provides DOE responses to
those comments. The Introduction to
Volume 3 also includes discussions of:
- How public comments influenced
selection of the preferred alternatives
- The extent to which public comments
resulted in changes to the
Environmental Impact Statement
- How to find specific comment
summaries and responses in Volume 3.
In Volume 3, individual public comments
are summarized, grouped with others that
are similar, and organized into nine topical
sections, called response sections. The
response sections are:
1.Preference for Alternatives
2.NEPA-Related Comments
3.Policy
4.Proposed Action and Alternatives
5.Technical Issues
6.Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
Specific
7.INEL ER&WM Programs Specific
8.Naval Program Specific
9.Miscellaneous
Also in Volume 3 are three appendices to
help the reader locate specific comment
summaries and responses. If you made a
comment, you can find DOE's response in
Volume 3 with the help of these appendices.
How do I find a response to my comment on the
Draft EIS?
1. Turn to Appendix A in Volume 3 and find
your name (or organization or agency),
and note the comment document number
assigned to your comment.
2. In the same entry, find the response
section number where the response to the
comment is located.
3. Turn to the Table of Contents in Volume
3 under the heading Comment
Summaries and Responses, where
response section numbers are listed in
numerical order, to find the page on
which the response section number that
applies to the comment appears.
4. Turn to the appropriate page to find a
response to a summary of the comment.
Example:
1. The first alphabetical entrant, Dinah
Abbott, has been assigned comment
document number 615.
2. Ms. Abbott's first entry is for response
number 01.01.01.01-(005); four other
response numbers are applicable to her
comments.
3. That first entry is in Section 1.1.1.1,
entitled "Action alternatives" under
Specific Preferences for SNF
Management Alternatives.
4. Section 1.1.1.1 begins on page 1-1.
The selected entry for Ms. Abbott is
Response 005 in that section and is
located on page 1-2.
Information
A complete copy of the SNF & INEL EIS and a list of reference
documents are available in public reading room and information
locations. Their addresses are included in the Summary. For
further information on the SNF & INEL EIS or to request
additional copies, call or contact:
Office of Communications
Bradley P. Bugger
DOE Idaho Operations Office
850 Energy Drive, MS 1214
Idaho Falls, ID 83403-3189
(208) 526-0833
Section 2: Finding Answers to
Your Questions
The SNF & INEL EIS has various tools that
are intended to make the reader's job easier.
Volumes 1 and 2 of the SNF & INEL EIS
each have a table of contents, an index to
topics (section 8 of each volume), and a
glossary that defines terms (Appendix H in
Volume 1, and Appendix E in Volume 2).
The SNF & INEL EIS also has a separate
Summary for the entire Environmental
Impact Statement, and summaries specific
to Volume 1 and Volume 2. Volume 3 has a
table of contents and an introduction.
The following pages provide information
on major topics (such as sites evaluated,
health and safety, and jobs), including
directions for finding these topics in the
SNF & INEL EIS.
How is the SNF & INEL EIS structured for
detail?
DOE has structured the SNF & INEL EIS in
a way that enables readers to study the
results in varying levels of detail. Readers
interested in the broad picture will probably
have their needs met by the Summary.
Readers interested in the details of how
analyses were performed will find that
infonnation in the various appendices. The
main sections of Volumes 1 and 2 contain
an intermediate level of detail.
Figure INEL structure
Where do 1 find more information on how spent
nuclear fuel is currently managed?
DOE is currently responsible for spent
nuclear fuel at various sites across the
country. Most of this fuel is currently stored
at three locations: Hanford Site, the INEL,
and the Savannah River Site. The sites are
discussed in Volume 1 and its appendices.
Five sites are considered for management
of naval spent nuclear fuel only (as detailed
in Appendix D of Volume 1).
DOE manages over 100 different types of
spent nuclear fuel. The SNF & INEL EIS
examines ways to safely manage spent
nuclear fuel, given certain "programmatic
considerations" such as current facilities,
technologies, transportation modes, safety
and security measures, and state and
Federal agreements.
The following table indicates where
information on spent nuclar fuel
management is found in Volume of the
SNF & INEL EIS. Volume 2 discusses
2.2.
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management - Volume I
For Information About... See...
Spent Fuel Management Section 1.1.2; Section 2.3 of
Program (inventory, types, Appendices A,B, C, and F;
storage) Section 2 of Appendices E & J
DOE
Technologies for Section 1.1.3; Sections 3 and 4
Management ot Spent of Appendix J
Fuel
Traffic and Transportation Appendix I; Sections 4.11 and
5.11 of Appendices A,B,C, and F
Spent Fuel Management Section 2.4 of Appendix D;
Naval Nuclear Attachment D of Appendix D
Propulsion Program
Traffic and Transportation Section 4 of Appendix D;
Attachment A of Appendix D
Where do I find more information on applicable
laws and regulations?
Laws and regulations applicable to the SNF
& INEL EIS include Federal laws,
Executive Orders, and DOE regulations, as
well as the state and local laws applying to
each site. These laws address a range of
issues, from radioactive and hazardous
waste management to endangered species,
transportation, and health and safety.
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management - Volume I
For Information About... See...
Federal Laws and Regulations Sections 3.3.7 and 7.1.1
Executive Orders Section 7.1.2
DOE Regulations and Orders Sections 7.1.3
Transportation Regulations Section 7.1.4; Section 2 of Appendix I
Hanford Site Section 2.2 of Appendix A
INEL Section 2.2 of Appendix B
Savannah River Site Section 2.2 of Appendix C
Nevada Test Site . Section 2.2 of Appendix F
Oak Ridge Reservation Section 2.2 of Appendix F
Naval Sites Section 2.3 of Appendix D
INEL ER & WM Programs - Volume 2
For More Information About... See Section...
ER & WM Regulatorv Framework 2.2.11
Federal Laws and Regulations 7.2.1
Executive Orders 7.2.2
DOE Orders and Regulations 7.2.3
Idaho Laws and Regulations 7.2.4
INEL Compliance/Permits 7.2.5 and 7.3
Where do I find more information on the major
issues addressed in the EIS?
See sections 1 and 2 of Volumes I and 2 of
the SNF & INEL EIS.
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management - Volume 1
For Information About... See Section...
Overview of DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel Management 1.1
Related National Environmental Policy Act Documents 1.2
Scope of Volume 1 1.3
Purpose and Need for Agency Action 2
INEL ER & WM - Volume 2
For Information About See Section...
Content and Scope of Volume 2 2.1.1 and 2.1.2
Related National Environmental Policy Act Documents 2.1.3
INEL 2.2.1 and 2.2.2
History and Current Mission 2.2.3
Major Facility Areas 2.2.4
Spent Nuclear Fuel 2.2.5
Environmental Restoration 2.2.6
Waste Management 2.2.7
Technology Development 2.2.9
Where do I find information on the sites being
considered for spent nuclear fuel management?
The SNF & INEL EIS considers ten
potential sites for management of spent
nuclear fuel: five DOE sites and (for
management of naval spent nuclear fuel
only) five naval sites. There are about 50
other sites where spent nuclear fuel is
generated or stored (for example, university
research reactors).
The following tables show you where to
find information on proposed alternatives;
site conditions; potential impacts of the
proposed alternatives, including potential
accidents and natural hazards; and proposed
methods for reducing the impacts.
Where do I find information on Volume 1
alternatives?
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel
Management-Volume 1
Five alternatives are considered for spent
nuclear fuel management:
1. No Action
2. Decentralization
3. 1992/93 Planning Basis
4. Regionalization
5. Centralization
The following five tables show where to
locate information in Volume 1 about each
of these alternatives. Each table shows
where you can find information about the
effects of an alternative on sites being
considered for spent fuel management.
For a discussion of alternatives that were
eliminated from further evaluation, see
Section 3.2 and Appendix
D-Section 3.6.
No Action- Under this alternative, DOE would take minimum actions
required for safe and secure management of spent nuclear fuel at,
or close to, the generation site or current storage locations.
Figure No ActionDecentralization- Under this alternative, DOE would manage all existing
and projected spent nuclear fuel inventories at one DOE site until ultimate
disposition.
Figure Decentralization1992/93 Planning Basis- Under this alternative, DOE would transport
and store newly generated spent fuel at INEL or Savannah River Site.
DOE would consolidate some existing fuels at INEL.
Figure 1992/93 Planning BasisRegionalization- Under Regionalization 4A, the preferred alternative,
DOE would distribute spent nuclear fuel among DOE sites primarily
on the basis of fuel type. Under Regionalization 4B, DOE would distribute spent
nuclear fuel among DOE sites primarily on the basis of location; sites west
of the Mississippi River would ship to a western regional site, and sites east
of the Mississippi would ship to an eastern regional site. All naval spent
nuclear fuel would be examined and stored at either the western or eastern
regional site.
Figure RegionalizationCentralization- Under this alternative, DOE would manage all existing
and projected spen nuclear fuel inventories at one DOE site until ultimate
disposition.
Figure Centralization
What is the preferred alternative for Volume 1?
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act, DOE has
identified its preferred alternatives in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The preferred alternative for Volume 1 is
Regionalization 4A. See the beginning of
Chapter 3 of Volume 1 for an explanation
of how this altetnative was chosen.
Where do I find information on Volume 2
alternatives?
INEL ER & WM Programs-
Volume 2
Four alternatives are evaluated in
Volume 2:
1. No Action-Complete all near-tetrm
actions identified and continue operating
most existing facilities.
2. Ten-Year Plan-Complete identified
projects and initiate new projects to
enhance cleanup, manage INEL waste
and spent nuclear fuel, prepare waste for
disposal, and develop technologies for
the ultimate disposition of spent nuclear
fuel.
3. Minimum Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal (TSD)-Minimize TSD
activities at the INEL. Conduct
minimum cleanup and decontamination
and decommissioning prescribed by
regulation. Transfer spent nuclear fuel
and waste from environmental restoration
activities to another site.
4. Maximum TSD-Expand TSD activities
at the INEL to accommodate waste and
spent nuclear fuel from DOE facilities.
Conduct maximum cleanup and
decontamination and decommissioning.
Appendix C contains infoimation
supporting the alternatives, including
project summaries. Alternatives eliminated
from further evaluation are discussed in
Section 3.2.
The following table shows where to find
information in Volume 2 about the four
alternatives, including their impacts.
Alternatives evaluated in Volume 2
Alternative Description Comparison Impacts*
of Impacts
5.1 5.7 5.13.2
5.2.2 5.8.2 5.14.3
5.3.2 5.9.2 5.15
2.1.1 3.3
5.4.2 5.10 5.16
No Action 3.1 Table 3.3-1 5.5.2 5.11.2
5.6.2 5.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1 5.7 5.13.3
2.1.1 3.3 5.2.3 5.8.3 5.14.4
5.3.3 5.9.3 5.15
Ten-Year Plan 3.1 Table3.3-1 5.4.3 5.10 5.16
5.5.3 5.11.2
5.6.2 5.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1 5.7 5.13.4
5.2.4 5.8.4 5.14.5
2.1.1 3.3
5.3.4 5.9.4 5.15
Minimum TSD 3.1 Table 3.3-1 5.4.4 5.10 5.16
5.5.4 5.11.2
5.6.2 5.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1 5.7 5.13.5
52.5 5.8.5 5.14.6
2.1.1 3.3
53.5 5.9.5 5.15
Maximum TSD 3.1 Table 3.3-1 5.4.5 5.10 5.16
5.5.5 5.11.2
5.6.2 5.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Indexed according to sections and tables.
*Subjects addressed in this column, for each alternative are: introduction, land use, jobs and
housing, cultural resources, scenic resources, geology, air, water, ecology, noise, t raffic and
transportation, health and safety, services, accidents, cumulative impacts, and unavo idable
environmental effects.
What is the preferred alternative for Volume 2?
The preferred alternative for Volume 2 is
essentially the same as the Ten-Year Plan
alternative, but includes elements of other
alternatives for some waste types.
Section 3.4 of Volume 2 discusses this
preferred alternative, including how it was
chosen, plans, and potential impacts.
Under Preferred Alternative - Volume 2
For information About... See Section...
Preferred Alternative Decision Process 3.4.1
Conclusions 3.4.2
Spent Nuclear Fuel Management 3.4.3
Environmental Restoration 3.4.4
Waste Management 3.4.5
Environmental Consequences 3.4.6
Cumulative Impacts from Connected or Similar Actions 3.4.7
Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 3.4.8
Short-Term Use of Environment and Maintenance of 3.4.9
Long-Term Productivity
Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 3.4.10
Potential Mitigation 3.4.11
Environmental Justice 3.4.12
Where do I find information on the affected
environment?
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management (Volume I) -
Affected Environment
For Information About... See...
Hanford Site Section 4.1 and Appendix A
INEL Section 4.2 and Appendix B
Savannah River Site Section 4.3 and Appendix C
Nevada Test Site Section 4.4 and Appendix F
Oak Ridge Reservation Section 4.5 and Appendix F
Naval Sites Section 4.6 and Appendix D
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Section 4.6.1 and Appendix D
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Section 4.6.2 and Appendix D
Portsmouth Naval shipyard Section 4.6.3 and Appendix D
Pearl Harbor Naval shipyard Section 4.6.4 and Appendix D
Kesselring Site Section 4.6.5 and Appendix D
Other Generator/Storage Locations Section 4.7 and Appendix E
Where can I get more information on the
potential impacts of the alternatives?
The impacts, or environmental
consequences, are examined in several
ways in Volumes 1 and 2 of the SNF &
INEL EIS:
What are the direct impacts under
normal, day-to-day conditions?
What are the total (cumulative)
impacts, when the impacts of the
alternatives are added together with
the impacts of other, past and
reasonably foreseeable projects?
Among the identified impacts,
which will happen no matter what
actions are taken to reduce the
unavoidable adverse
impacts)?
What are the impacts of short-term
use weighed against long-term
gains?
Are there any resources to be used
that will not be replaced
(irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources)?
Information regarding impacts is in
Appendices A-F of Volume 1 and in the
sections of Volume I listed in the following
table. For Volume I, results of the analysis
of impacts are compiled in Appendix K.
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management (Volume I) -
1992/93
Decentral- Planning Regional- Central-
No Action ization Basis ization ization
3.3.2 3.3.2 3.3.2 3.3.2 3.3.2
Health and Safety 5.1.2.4 5.1.3.4 5.1.4.2 5.1.5.4 5.1.6.4
5.1.2.5 5.1.3.5 5.1.4.4 5.1.5.S 5.1.6.5
5.3.2.6 5.3.2.6 5.3.2.6 5.3.2.6 5.3.2.6
5.1.2.6 5.1.3.6 5.1.4.6 5.1.5.6 5.1.6.6
Transportation 5.3.2.7 5.3.2.7 6.3.2.7 5.3.2.7 5.3.2.7
App. I-4.2.1 App. I-4.2.2 App. I-4.2.3 App. I-4.2.4 App. I-4.2.5
App. I-5.3.1 App. I-5.3.2 App. I-5.3.3 App. I-5.3.4 App. I-5.3.5
3.3.4 3.3.4 3.3.4 3.3.4 3.3.4
Waste Management 5.1.2.3 5.1.3.3 5.1.4.3 5.1.5.3 5.1.6.3
5.3.2.9 5.3.2.9 5.3.2.9 5.3.2.9 5.3.2.9
5.1.2.2 5.1.3.2 5.1.4.2 5.1.5.2 5.1.6.2
Energy and Utilities 5.3.2.8 5.3.2.8 5.3.2.8 5.3.2.8 5.3.2.3
3.3.3 3.3.3 3.3.3 3.3.3 3.3.3
Jobs and Housing 5.1.2.1 5.1.3.1 5.1.4.1 5.1.5.1 5.1.6.1
5.3.2.2 5.3.2.2 5.3.2.2 5.3.2.2 5.3.2.2
Radiological 5.1.2.4 5.1.3.4 5.1.4.4 5.1.5.4 5.1.6.4
Nonradiological 5.1.2.5 5.1.3.5 5.1.4.5 5.1.5.5 5.1.6.5
(Chemical)
Note: Indexed according to sections and appendices.
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management (Volume 1) -
Impacts
For Information About.. See...
Environment
Water Sections 5.2.6 and 5.3.2.4 and Appendices A-D, F
Air Sections 5.2.5 and 5.3.2.3 and Appendices A-D, F
Ecology Sections 5.2.7 and 5.3.2.5 and Appendices A-D, F
Geology Section 5.2.4 and Appendices A-D, F
Noise Section 5.2.8 and Appendices A-D. F
Scenic Section 5.2.3 and Appendices A-D. F
Cultural Resources Section 5.2.2 and Appendices A-D, F
Land Use Sections 5.2.1 and 5.3.2.1 and Appendices A-D, F
Energy and Utlities Sections 5.1.1.2.5.2.9. and 5.3.2.8 and
Appendices A-D, F
Missions
DOE 3.3.5.1
Navy 3.3.5.2
What steps could be taken to reduce the
impacts?
Volumes 1 and 2 of the SNF & INEL EIS
include information on possible methods to
reduce, or minimize, the impacts of the
alternatives; this information is called
possible mitigation measures.
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management (Volume I) -
Reduction of Impacts
For Information About... See...
Health and Safety Section 5.7.10 and Appendices A,C,D
Traffic and Transportation Section 5.7.9 and Appendices A-C
Cultural Resources Section 5.7.3 and Appendices A-C
Accidents Section 5.7.12 and Appendices A-D
Jobs and Housing Section 5.7.2 and Appendices A,C
Site Utilities/Support Services Section 5.7.11 and Appendices A-D, F
Environment
Water Section 5.7.6 and Appendices A,C
Air Section 5.7.5 and Appendices A,C
Ecology Section 5.7.7 and Appendices A,C
Soils/Geology Section 5.7.4 and Appendices A,C
Pollution Prevention Section 5.7.1 and Appendices A-D
Noise Section 5.7.8 and Appendices A-D
What about the affected environment, potential
impacts, and mitigation measures at INEL?
The following table shows where (in Volume 2)
you can find information on these subjects with
regard to INEL's ER & WM Programs.
Technical methodologies and key data used in
analyses for Volume 2 are in Appendix K
INEL ER & WM Programs (Volume 2)
Affected Environment Impacts Reduction of
Impacts
Health and Safety 4.12: F-4 3.3.11,5.12,5.15.8; F-4 5.19.8
Traffic and 4.11 3.3.10,5.11,5.15.7 5.19.7
Transportation
Cultural Resources 4.4 3.3.3,5.4,5.15.3,5.16.1 5.19.1
Land Use 4.2 3.3.1,5.2,5.15.1 not identified
Jobs and Housing 4.3; F-1 3.3.2,5.3,5.15.2; F-1 not identitied
Accident not identified 3.3.13,5.14; F-5 5.19.10
Environment
Water 4.8; F-2 3.3.7,5.8,5.15.5,5.16.4;F-2 5.19.5
Air 4.7; F-3 3.3.6,5.7,5.15.4,5.16.3;F-3 5.19.4
Ecology 4.9 3.3.8,5.9,5.15.6,5.16.5 5.19.6
Geology 4.6; F-2 3.3.5,5.6; F-2 5.19.3
Noise 4.10 3.3.9,5.10 not identified
Scenic 4.5 3.3.4,5.5,5.16.2 5.19.2
Facilities/Services
INEL Services 4.13 3.3.12,5.13 5.19.9
Energy and 4.13 5.13 5.19.9
Note: Indexed according to sections and appendices.
Where do I find information on environmental
justice?
In accordance with Executive Order 12898, DOE assessed the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse consequences on minority
populations and low-income populations under the alternatives being
considered in Volumes 1 and 2 of the SNF & INEL EIS. DOE
concluded that none of the alternatives being considered in either
volume would have such adverse consequences for any segment of the
population, minorities or low-income communities included.
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management (Volume 1)
For Information About... See...
Environmental Justice Section 5.8 and Appendix L
Public Comment Section L-2 of Appendix L
Community Characteristics Section L-3 of Appendix L
Assessment Section L-4 of Appendix L
Conclusions Section L-5 of Appendix L
INEL ER & WM Programs (Volume 2)
For Information About... See Section...
Environmental Justice 5.20
Public Comment 5.20.1
Community Characteristics 5.20.2
Assessment 5.20.3
Issues Raised by Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 5.20.4
Conclusion 5.20.5
For further information on the SNF & INEL EIS or to request
additional copies, call or contact:
Office of Communications
Bradley P. Bugger
DOE Idaho Operations Office
850 Energy Drive, MS 1214
Idaho Falls, ID 83403-3189
(208) 526-0833
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Overview of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management in the DOE Complex 1-4
1.1.1 What is Spent Nuclear Fuel 1-4
1.1.2 Generation and Storage Sites for Spent Nuclear Fuel 1-5
1.1.3 Technologies for Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel 1-16
1.2 Relationship to Other National Environmental Policy Act Documents 1-18
1.2.1 Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 1-18
1.2.2 Reconfiguration of Weapons Complex Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement 1-20
1.2.3 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Management
and Disposition of Excess Nuclear Materials 1-20
1.2.4 Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning
Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel 1-20
1.3 Scope of this Volume 1-21
1.3.1 Scoping Process 1-21
1.3.2 Scope 1-22
Figures
1-1. Representative reactor fuel assembly and element. 1-5
1-2. Locations of principal spent nuclear fuel generators and storage sites 1-7
Tables
1-1. Spent nuclear fuel inventory 1-8
1-2. Category 1 and 2 domestic non-DOE research reactors 1-12
1-3. Special case nuclear power plant spent nuclear fuel 1-15
1-4. Major National Environmental Policy Act reviews related to Volume 1 of
this EIS as of June 1994 1-19