[Federal Register: December 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 75165-75172]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19de05-52]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Environmental Management; Record of Decision for the
Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental
Impact Statement
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE is making decisions pursuant to the Idaho High-Level Waste
and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final
EIS) (DOE/EIS-287), issued in October 2002. The Final EIS presents the
analysis of a proposed action containing two sets of alternatives:
(1) Waste processing alternatives for treating, storing and
disposing of liquid mixed (radioactive and hazardous) transuranic (TRU)
waste/sodium-bearing waste (SBW) \1\ and newly-generated liquid
radioactive waste (NGLW) stored in below-grade tanks and solid high-
level radioactive waste (HLW) calcine stored in bin sets at the Idaho
Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) on the Idaho National
Laboratory (INL) Site, previously named the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Final EIS refers to SBW as mixed transuranic waste/SBW.
However a determination that SBW is transuranic waste has not been
made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Facility disposition alternatives for final disposition of
facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC after their
missions are complete, including any new facilities necessary to
implement the waste processing alternatives.
DOE plans a phased decision making process. DOE considered the
information in the Final EIS, a related Supplement Analysis (DOE/EIS-
0287-SA-01) (SA), and comments received on the Federal Register Notice
(70 FR 44598; August 3, 2005) that announced DOE's preferred treatment
technology for SBW when making the decisions in this ROD. This first
ROD addresses SBW treatment, facilities disposition, excluding the
INTEC Tank Farm Facility (Tank Farm) and bin sets closure, and DOE's
strategy for HLW calcine.
DOE has decided to treat SBW using the steam reforming technology.
The Department's preferred disposal path for this waste is disposal as
TRU waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New
Mexico. Until such time as the regulatory approvals are obtained and a
determination that the waste is TRU is made, the Department will manage
the waste to allow disposal at WIPP or at a geologic repository for
spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and HLW.
For facilities disposition, DOE has decided to conduct performance-
based closure (to contamination levels below those that would impact
the human health and the environment as established by applicable
regulations and DOE Orders as determined on a case-by-case basis
depending on risk) of existing facilities directly related to the HLW
Program at INTEC once their missions are complete. Newly constructed
waste processing facilities needed to implement the decisions in this
ROD, such as the steam reforming facility for SBW treatment, will be
designed consistent with clean closure methods and planned to be clean
closed when their missions are complete, regardless of the
classification of the waste they treat. All INTEC facilities directly
related to the HLW Program will be closed in accordance with applicable
regulations and DOE Orders.
Further, consistent with DOE's Environmental Management Performance
Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at the INEEL (July 2002),
DOE's strategy for HLW calcine is to retrieve the calcine for disposal
outside the State of Idaho. Accordingly, DOE will develop calcine
retrieval demonstration processes and conduct risk-based analyses,
including disposal options, focused on the calcine stored at the INTEC.
After the Final EIS was issued, the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA), Pub. L. 108-375,
was enacted. Section 3116 of the NDAA provides that certain waste
resulting from reprocessing of SNF is not high-level waste if the
Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), makes certain determinations. Therefore, DOE plans to
issue an amended ROD in 2006 specifically addressing closure of the
Tank Farm Facility, which stored certain wastes resulting from
reprocessing, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy's
determination, in consultation with the NRC, under Section 3116.
In a future ROD, DOE will decide the final strategy for HLW calcine
retrieval, including determining whether and how to further treat, if
applicable, package, and store calcine pending disposal. DOE expects to
issue the amended ROD for HLW calcine disposition and bin set closure
in 2009.
The State of Idaho participated as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition
Environmental Impact Statement. The State provided the following input
to DOE's decisions for waste processing and facility disposition.
Waste Processing: The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's selection
of steam reforming as the technology for solidifying remaining INTEC
Tank Farm liquids, provided DOE obtains required permits for its
treatment facility and post-treatment storage, and produces a waste
form acceptable for disposal at a repository outside Idaho.
Facility Disposition: The State concurs with the performance-based
closure of existing facilities directly related to the high-level waste
program at INTEC, once their missions are complete, subject to the
State's separate approval of individual closure plans under the Idaho
Hazardous Waste Management Act and compliance with section 3116 of the
NDAA. The State also concurs with DOE's decision to clean close newly
constructed waste processing facilities.
Remaining Decisions: The State will provide additional input on
DOE's remaining decisions for HLW facility disposition and calcine
treatment, which DOE must make by December 31, 2009, in accordance with
our 1995 Settlement Agreement. The State will continue to coordinate
with DOE and the NRC as appropriate regarding the classification of
tank residuals under Section 3116 of the NDAA, as well as the
classification of other wastes.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the ROD and
the Idaho Cleanup Project, contact Joel Case, Team Lead, U.S.
Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-
1222, Idaho Falls, ID 83415, Telephone: (208) 526-6795.
For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of
NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: (202) 586-
4600 or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.
[[Page 75166]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
From 1952 to 1991, DOE and its predecessor agencies reprocessed SNF
at INTEC, prior to 1998 known as the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant,
on the INL Site. Reprocessing operations used solvent extraction
systems to remove mostly uranium-235 from SNF. The waste product from
the first extraction cycle of the reprocessing operation was liquid HLW
mixed with hazardous materials. Subsequent extraction cycles, treatment
processes, and follow-on decontamination activities generated
additional liquids that were combined to form liquid SBW, which is
generally much less radioactive than HLW generated from the first
extraction cycle. These liquid wastes were stored in eleven 300,000-
gallon below-grade storage tanks. The last campaign of SNF reprocessing
at INTEC was in 1991 and HLW is no longer generated at INTEC. From 1963
to 1998, DOE processed HLW and some SBW through calcination that
converted the liquid waste into a dry powder calcine. Additional SBW
was processed by calcination from 1998 to 2000. At present,
approximately 4,400 cubic meters of HLW calcine remain stored in six
bin sets (a series of reinforced concrete vaults, each containing three
to seven stainless steel storage bins), and approximately one million
gallons of SBW remain in three 300,000 gallon below-grade tanks. Liquid
SBW and newly generated liquid waste (NGLW) has continued to accumulate
in the tanks from the calcination process, decontamination, and other
activities. NGLW continued to be collected in the tank farm tanks from
a number of sources at INTEC (e.g., laboratory drains, snow melt,
sumps, and evaporator operations) until September 2005 and is now being
stored in other permitted storage tanks.
As a result of litigation, DOE and the State of Idaho reached an
agreement in 1995 referred to as the Idaho Settlement Agreement/Consent
Order (Settlement Agreement) that, among other things, provides for DOE
to complete calcination of SBW liquid wastes by a target date of
December 31, 2012. Although the agreement requires treatment of SBW by
calcination, it also provides for modifying this requirement if
supported by analysis and decisions under NEPA. The agreement also sets
a target date of December 31, 2035, for treating all HLW and SBW to be
``road-ready'' for shipment out of Idaho.
In 1997, DOE issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS to
evaluate the environmental impacts of the range of reasonable
alternatives for treating Idaho HLW calcine, SBW, associated
radioactive waste such as NGLW, and for the disposition of related HLW
Program facilities at INTEC. The State of Idaho participated as a
cooperating agency in the development of the EIS to support the
Settlement Agreement and to facilitate the EIS review process.
In January 2000, DOE issued the Draft Idaho High-Level Waste and
Facilities Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) (DOE/
EIS-0287D) for public review and comment. Subsequently, DOE and the
State of Idaho received approximately 1,000 comments on the Draft EIS
and considered those comments while revising the EIS.
DOE issued the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition
Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) (DOE/EIS-0287) in
October 2002. The Final EIS presents the analysis of a proposed action
containing two sets of alternatives: (1) Waste processing alternatives
for treating, storing and disposing of liquid SBW and NGLW stored in
below-grade tanks and solid HLW calcine stored in bin sets at the INTEC
on the INL Site; and (2) facility disposition alternatives for final
disposition of facilities directly related to the HLW Program after
their missions are complete, including any new facilities necessary to
implement the waste processing alternatives.
After the Final EIS was issued, DOE conducted four workshops to
inform the public about the five technologies that the DOE was
considering for treatment of the SBW with the preferred disposition at
WIPP. The five technologies were Direct Vitrification, Cesium Ion
Exchange with a grout waste form, Calcination with Maximum Achievable
Control Technology upgrades, Direct Evaporation, and Steam Reforming.
Workshops were held from March 13 to April 28, 2003, in Jackson,
Wyoming, and Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, and Fort Hall, Idaho. In
addition, briefings were held with individual stakeholders through June
2003. The public was given the opportunity to provide comments on all
technologies presented through August 31, 2003, via e-mail or regular
mail.
During the workshops and briefings, DOE informed the public that
the DOE strategy was to select one of the five technologies for
treatment of the SBW. Subsequently, DOE modified this strategy by
incorporating the requirement for a contractor to propose a treatment
technology for SBW in a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Idaho
Cleanup Project (ICP) contract. At public meetings of the Idaho
Environmental Management Citizens Advisory Board (CAB), public meetings
conducted by the National Academy of Sciences in Idaho, and other
meetings with local stakeholders, DOE informed the public that the DOE
would identify a preferred treatment technology for SBW after the
contract was awarded. At these meetings, DOE also informed the public
that they would have an opportunity to provide comments on the draft
RFP.
DOE issued the draft RFP for the ICP contract for comment in
February 2004. The draft RFP required bidders to propose technologies
for treating SBW for disposal at WIPP and an alternative technical
approach to prepare this waste for disposal as HLW in a geologic
repository for SNF/HLW if this waste could not be disposed of at WIPP.
The RFP also included the DOE strategy to meet the settlement agreement
milestones for HLW calcine, facilities disposition, and segregating the
NGLW from the Tank Farm Facility to other storage by September 30,
2005. DOE responded to comments received on the draft RFP and issued
the final RFP in July 2004.
On October 28, 2004, the NDAA was enacted. Among other provisions
of the Act, section 3116 of this NDAA provides that certain wastes from
reprocessing is not HLW if the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary), in
consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), determines
that the criteria in 3116 have been met. Section 3116 provides that
with respect to materials stored at a DOE site in Idaho, which
activities are regulated by Idaho pursuant to closure plans or permits
issued by the State, the term ``high-level radioactive waste'' does not
include radioactive waste resulting from the reprocessing of SNF if the
Secretary, in consultation with the NRC, makes certain determinations.
Section 3116 is related to the requirements for the INTEC Tank Farm
closure; therefore, tank closure will be addressed in an amended ROD in
coordination with the Secretary's determination.
In July 2005, DOE issued a SA (DOE/EIS-0287-SA-01) that documented
DOE's review of changes in the proposed action and new information
obtained (e.g., updated waste inventory) since the 2002 Final EIS was
issued. Based on the analysis in the SA, DOE determined that there were
no substantial changes in the proposed action and no significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearing
on the proposed action or its impacts, and that a supplemental EIS was
not required.
[[Page 75167]]
DOE then issued a Federal Register Notice (70 FR 44598, August 3, 2005)
that announced steam reforming as DOE's preferred treatment technology
for SBW.
II. Waste Processing Alternatives Considered
The Final EIS analyzed six waste processing alternatives for HLW
calcine, SBW, and NGLW: No Action; Continued Current Operations;
Separations with three treatment options; Non-Separations with four
treatment options; Minimum INEEL Processing; and Direct Vitrification
with two treatment options. These alternatives are briefly described as
follows:
No Action Alternative
Under this alternative, the New Waste Calcining Facility (NWCF)
calciner would remain in standby, the SBW would remain in the Tank
Farm, and the calcine would remain in the bin sets indefinitely.
Continued Current Operations Alternative
This alternative involves calcining the SBW and adding it to the
bin sets, where it would be stored indefinitely with calcined HLW.
Under this alternative, the NWCF calciner would remain in standby
pending receipt of a RCRA permit from the State of Idaho and upgrades
to air emission controls required by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
Separations Alternative
This alternative comprises three treatment options, each of which
would use a chemical separations process, such as solvent extraction,
to divide the SBW and calcine into fractions suitable for disposal in
either a geologic repository or a low-level waste disposal facility,
depending on waste characteristics. Separating the radionuclides in the
waste into fractions would decrease the amount of waste that would have
to be shipped to a geologic repository, saving repository space and
reducing disposal costs. The three waste treatment options under the
Separations Alternative are described below.
1. Full Separations Option
This option would separate the radioisotopes in the SBW and the HLW
calcine into high-level and low-level waste fractions. The HLW fraction
would be vitrified in a new facility at INTEC, placed in stainless
steel canisters, and stored onsite until shipped to a storage facility
or geologic repository. DOE would dispose of the low-level waste
fraction on site, or at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste
disposal facility.
2. Planning Basis Option
This option reflects previously announced DOE decisions and
agreements with the State of Idaho regarding the management of HLW and
SBW. The NWCF calciner would remain in standby, pending receipt of a
RCRA permit from the State and upgrades to air emission controls
required by EPA. It is similar to the Full Separations Option, except
that, prior to separation, the SBW would be calcined and stored in the
bin sets along with the HLW calcine. After separations, the HLW
fraction would be vitrified in a new facility at INTEC, placed in
stainless steel canisters, and stored onsite until shipped to a storage
facility or geologic repository. DOE would dispose of the low-level
waste fraction at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste disposal
facility.
3. Transuranic Separations Option
This option would consist of separating the HLW and SBW into two
fractions. The resulting fractions would be managed as TRU and low-
level waste. There would be no HLW after separations under this option.
The TRU fraction would be solidified, packaged, and shipped to WIPP for
disposal. DOE would dispose of the low-level waste fraction on site or
at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste disposal facility.
Non-Separations Alternative
This alternative includes four treatment options for solidifying
HLW calcine and SBW. In the Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Option and
Direct Cement Waste Option, SBW would be removed from the Tank Farm
and, after receipt of a RCRA permit from the State and upgrades to air
emission controls required by the EPA, treated in the NWCF calciner. In
the Early Vitrification Option and Steam Reforming Option, SBW would be
retrieved from the Tank Farm and sent directly to a treatment facility.
The four treatment options are briefly described as follows:
1. Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Option
Under this option, SBW would be calcined and added to the 4,400
cubic meters of HLW calcine currently stored in the bin sets. HLW and
SBW calcine would then be treated in a high pressure, high temperature
process that would convert the calcine into a glass-ceramic waste form.
The final product would be packaged for storage and subsequent disposal
in a geologic repository.
2. Direct Cement Waste Option
Under this option the remaining SBW would be calcined and placed in
the bin sets. HLW and SBW calcine would then be retrieved, mixed with
cement, poured into stainless-steel canisters, and cured at elevated
temperature and pressure. The canisters would be placed in storage for
subsequent disposal in a geologic repository. Some secondary waste
(e.g., tank farm heels) would be treated and sent to WIPP.
3. Early Vitrification Option
This option would involve vitrifying both the HLW calcine and the
SBW into a glass-like solid. The vitrified SBW would be sent to WIPP
for disposal and the vitrified HLW would be placed in interim storage
pending disposal in a geologic repository.
4. Steam Reforming Option
This option would involve treatment of SBW by steam reforming. The
central feature of the steam reforming process is the reformer, a
fluidized bed reactor in which steam is used as the fluidizing gas. A
solid, remote-handled waste form consisting of primarily inorganic
salts is produced that is similar in form to HLW calcine. This option
also includes packaging of HLW calcine without additional treatment for
shipment to a geologic repository.
Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative
This alternative would minimize the amount of waste treatment at
the INEEL by using the vitrification facility planned for the DOE
Hanford Site in the State of Washington. The HLW calcine would be
placed into shipping containers and sent to the Hanford Site where it
would be vitrified. The SBW would be treated at INTEC where it would be
separated into fractions in an ion exchange column to remove cesium.
The HLW fraction would be packaged and sent to the Hanford Site for
treatment with the calcine. The remaining TRU fraction would be grouted
and disposed of at WIPP.
Direct Vitrification Alternative
This alternative includes two treatment options: Vitrification
without Calcine Separations and Vitrification with Calcine Separations.
The option to vitrify SBW and calcine without separations would be
similar to the Early Vitrification Option. The option to vitrify SBW
and the HLW fraction from calcine separations would be similar to the
Full Separations Option. Under either option, SBW would be retrieved
[[Page 75168]]
from the Tank Farm, vitrified, and disposed of in an appropriate
disposal facility. Under the Vitrification with Calcine Separations
Option, calcine would be retrieved from the bin sets, chemically
separated into a HLW fraction to be vitrified and a low-level waste
(LLW) fraction to be grouted. Under the Vitrification without Calcine
Separations Option, calcine would be directly vitrified. Under either
option, vitrified HLW would be stored pending disposal in a geologic
repository.
Under either option, DOE would segregate NGLW from the SBW. The
post-2005 NGLW could be vitrified in the same facility as the SBW or
DOE could construct a separate facility to grout the NGLW. The
vitrified or grouted waste would be packaged and disposed of as low-
level or TRU waste, depending on its characteristics.
Preferred Waste Processing Alternatives
From the range of waste processing alternatives/options analyzed,
two Preferred Alternatives were identified in the Final EIS, one by DOE
and one by the State of Idaho. The Preferred Alternatives were
identified after consideration of public comment and the following
factors: Technical maturity, environment, safety and health (ES&H),
cost, schedule, and programmatic risk.
The DOE Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS for waste
processing was to implement the proposed action by selecting from among
the action alternatives, options, and technologies analyzed in the
Final EIS. The selection of any one of, or combination of, technologies
or options used to implement the proposed action would be based on the
performance criteria of technical maturity, ES&H, consideration of
public comment, cost, schedule and programmatic risk. Options excluded
from DOE's preferred alternative were storage of calcine in bin sets
for an indefinite period of time (analyzed under the Continued Current
Operations Alternative), shipment of calcine to the Hanford Site for
treatment (analyzed under the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative),
and disposal of mixed-LLW at INEEL (analyzed under multiple
alternatives). On August 3, 2005, after the Final EIS was issued, DOE
published a Federal Register Notice (70 FR 44598) identifying steam
reforming as its preferred treatment technology for SBW. Steam
Reforming is one of the options under the Non-Separations Alternative
in the Final EIS.
The State of Idaho Preferred Alternative identified in the Final
EIS for waste processing was the Direct Vitrification Alternative. The
State of Idaho preferred vitrification based on the belief that it was
the treatment alternative with the lowest technical and regulatory
uncertainty for meeting waste removal goals and provided a clear
baseline for fulfilling the objectives of removal of waste from Idaho
within the timelines envisioned by the Settlement Agreement. The State
of Idaho was willing to consider other waste treatment options, if they
were comparable or better than the Direct Vitrification Alternative in
terms of environmental impact, schedule and/or cost.
III. Facility Disposition Alternatives Considered
The Final EIS analyzed six facility disposition alternatives: No
Action, Clean Closure, Performance-Based Closure, Closure to Landfill
Standards, Performance-Based Closure with Class A Grout Disposal, and
Performance-Based Closure with Class C Grout Disposal. These
alternatives reflect different ways to address the final risk component
of the proposed action and close facilities directly related to the HLW
Program at INTEC after their missions are complete. These alternatives
differ in the degree to which land is considered ``cleaned up'' and in
the type of use that could be made of the land as a result. These
alternatives are briefly described as follows:
No Action Alternative
Under this alternative, DOE would not close the facilities
identified in the Final EIS. Nevertheless, over the period of analysis
through 2035, many of the facilities could be placed in an industrially
safe condition (deactivated). Surveillance and maintenance of
facilities would be performed to ensure the safety and health of
workers and the public until 2095. For purposes of analysis, DOE
assumed that institutional controls to protect human health and the
environment would not be in effect after 2095.
Clean Closure Alternative
Under this alternative, hazardous wastes and radiological
contaminants, including contaminated equipment, would be removed from
the site or treated so the hazardous and radiological contaminants are
indistinguishable from background concentrations.
Performance-Based Closure Alternative
Under this alternative, contamination would remain that is below
the levels that would impact human health and the environment as
established by applicable regulations (e.g., RCRA, Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)), and
by DOE Orders. Once the performance-based levels are achieved, the
unit/facility is considered closed according to RCRA and/or DOE
requirements. The residual contaminants would no longer pose an
unacceptable risk to workers, the public, or the environment. Closure
methods would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Closure to Landfill Standards Alternative
Under this alternative, the facilities would be closed as
established by regulations such as RCRA or CERCLA, and by DOE Orders
for closure of landfills. Once the wastes within tanks, vaults, and
piping are removed to the extent practicable and the remaining
residuals are stabilized, protection of the public, workers, and the
environment would be ensured by installing an engineered cap,
installing a groundwater monitoring system, and providing post-closure
monitoring. Care of the waste containment system would be provided,
appropriate for the type of contaminants. Also, a landfill closure
would include post closure activities such as monitoring and plans for
appropriate response/corrective actions to be taken in the event of
migration of contaminants above health based action levels.
Performance-Based Closure With Class A Grout Disposal Alternative
This is one of two alternatives that would accommodate the
potential use of the Tank Farm and bin sets for disposal of the low-
level waste fraction. These facilities would be closed as described
above for the Performance-Based Closure Alternative. Following
completion of those activities, the Tank Farm or bin sets would be used
to dispose of low-level waste Class A-type grout (suitable for near
surface disposal and would have radioactive concentrations in the grout
that are less than Class A concentration limits specified in NRC
regulation 10 CFR 61.55).
Performance-Based Closure With Class C Grout Disposal Alternative
This alternative would also accommodate the potential use of the
Tank Farm and bin sets for disposal of the low-level waste fraction.
The facility would be closed as described above for the Performance-
Based Closure Alternative. Following completion of those activities,
the Tank Farm or bin sets would be used to dispose of low-level waste
Class C-type grout (suitable
[[Page 75169]]
for near surface disposal but would have higher radioactive
concentrations in the grout than Class A-type grout, but would not
exceed Class C concentration limits specified in 10 CFR 61.55).
Preferred Facility Disposition Alternative
In the Final EIS, both DOE and the State of Idaho identified
performance-based closure methods as the Preferred Alternative for
disposition of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program
at INTEC. These methods encompass three of the six facility disposition
alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS: Clean Closure, Performance-
Based Closure, and Closure to Landfill Standards. Performance-based
closure methods would be implemented in accordance with applicable
regulations and DOE Orders. Also, as analyzed in the Final EIS,
consistent with the objectives and requirements of DOE Order 430.1B,
Real Property Asset Management (previously DOE Order 430.1A, Life Cycle
Management), and DOE Order 435.1 and Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste
Management and its Manual, all newly constructed facilities necessary
to implement the waste processing alternatives would be designed and
constructed consistent with measures that facilitate clean closure.
Therefore, the preferred alternative for disposition of new facilities
is clean closure. DOE and the State of Idaho weighed several factors in
selecting the Preferred Alternative for facility disposition, including
size and complexity of facilities, volume of waste streams generated
during facility disposition, residual waste/contaminant risk reduction,
technical and economic feasibility, and protection of the workers,
public and environment.
IV. Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The Final EIS presents the environmental impacts for 14 areas of
interest for the waste processing alternatives and the facility
disposition alternatives. DOE considered those impacts in its
evaluation of the environmentally preferable alternatives as described
below.
Waste Processing
In 9 of the 14 areas of interest, the Final EIS indicates little or
no environmental impact would occur under all of the action
alternatives. In the remaining 5 areas analyzed (air, traffic and
transportation, health and safety, waste and materials, and facility
accidents), the results indicate short-term impacts from routine
exposures, but they are small and do not differ significantly among
action alternatives. Under normal operations, none of the waste
processing action alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS would result
in large short-term or long-term impacts to human health or the
environment. Also, none of the action alternatives would result in
appreciably different impacts on historic, cultural and natural
resources.
Under normal operations, the risk to workers and the public in
terms of anticipated latent cancer fatalities over the life cycle of
any waste treatment alternative (including No Action) would be less
than one. Under the No Action and Continued Current Operations waste
treatment alternatives, however, waste would remain in storage at INTEC
indefinitely and would result in continued long-term risks. Under the
No Action Alternative liquid SBW and solid HLW calcine would remain in
storage indefinitely, and under the Continued Current Operations
Alternative liquid SBW would be calcined, but the calcine would remain
stored in the bin sets indefinitely. Though much of the radioactivity
in the liquid SBW and solid HLW calcine would decay during the first
500 years, the material would continue to present a long-term risk to
human health and the environment from potential releases of both
radiological and hazardous waste.
Waste processing alternatives that result in indefinite waste
storage exhibit the longest window of vulnerability to accidental
releases and therefore the highest anticipated risk of environmental
impact. The Final EIS shows that, although unlikely, the estimated
probability of the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident for the No
Action and Continued Current Operations Alternatives is a factor of
nine more likely than the comparable accidents for the other waste
treatment alternatives that place waste in a road-ready form over a 35-
year period.
For these reasons, any of the waste treatment alternatives that
place SBW and calcine in a waste form suitable for disposal would be
environmentally preferable compared to the No Action and Continued
Current Operations Alternatives.
Facilities Disposition
The Final EIS also evaluates the impacts of the facilities
disposition alternatives. Under normal operations, the risk to workers
and the public in terms of anticipated latent cancer fatalities over
the life cycle of any facility disposition alternative would be less
than one. Clean closure of facilities would restore the land to a
condition that ``presents no risk to workers or the public'' and would
be environmentally preferable in the long-term, but such action also
would pose the highest short-term risk to workers because clean closure
would require the most activity and result in the most impacts.
Performance-based closure of facilities would also be protective of the
public and environment in the short- and long-term, but would balance
the risk to workers by tailoring activity to risk reduction.
Under the facilities disposition No Action alternative, it is
assumed for analytical purposes that institutional control would be
lost after 2095. After that date, access would be uncontrolled, natural
processes would degrade the facilities, and they could also be breached
and the contents dispersed by human and animal activity. The
deteriorating facilities would present some risk to the environment and
human health over a long, indefinite period of time. It is estimated
that 270 latent cancer fatalities could result from seismic induced
failure of a degraded calcine bin set after 500 years. Also, the
likelihood of an external event resulting in a release would increase
over time.
The maximum reasonably foreseeable impact from accidents during
implementation of the facility disposition action alternatives result
in an estimated two fatalities from non-radiological hazards, such as
trauma, fire, spills, or falls, during clean closure of the Tank Farm.
For these reasons, any of the facility disposition alternatives
that actively close facilities under environmentally based standards
would be environmentally preferable to the No Action Alternative.
V.A. Comments on the Final EIS
DOE received two letters commenting on the Final EIS.
By letter dated November 18, 2002, the EPA raised four issues:
(1) Reclassification of HLW and the nature and extent of
separations or decontamination necessary to meet the requirements of
DOE Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, which poses
programmatic risk due to ongoing litigation and regulatory uncertainty,
(2) the viability of the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative (option
of treating waste at Hanford), (3) DOE identifying a broad scoped
Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS, which the EPA said did not meet
the objectives of NEPA, and (4) the viability of the calciner as an
alternative, its cost, and use of the EIS to delay closure of the
calciner.
[[Page 75170]]
DOE provides the following responses to the EPA comments:
1. The Final EIS presents the analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of retrieving and treating HLW, SBW, NGLW, and
facilities disposition using various technologies and managing the
wastes as either HLW, TRU waste, or LLW. Moreover, the analysis is not
based on particular waste classification but is based on the estimated
volume and radioisotopic content of the HLW, SBW, NGLW, and waste from
facilities disposition. By preparing the analysis in a manner that is
not dependent on waste classification, DOE has mitigated the impact of
litigation and reduced the programmatic risks. Specifically, for SBW
some EIS alternatives included an evaluation of retrieved SBW as HLW to
be treated for disposal at a geologic repository for SNF/HLW; some
alternatives evaluate retrieved SBW as TRU to be treated and disposed
of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; and some alternatives evaluate
SBW to be separated into HLW, TRU waste and LLW fractions. Moreover,
DOE will manage the SBW to permit disposal at either WIPP or at a
geologic repository for SNF/HLW and will evaluate the waste form to
determine its suitability for disposal.
2. The Final EIS presents an alternative that would treat INL Site
waste at Hanford by taking advantage of a national investment in
significant waste treatment capabilities and facilities in the State of
Washington. Both the INL Site and Hanford are DOE facilities in the
Northwest region of the U.S. and have wastes derived from similar
sources. INL Site wastes could be treated using treatment processes
being developed at Hanford prior to being transported to WIPP or a
geologic repository for SNF/HLW for disposal. Therefore, DOE believes
this alternative is reasonable and analyzed the alternative as required
by NEPA. Further, DOE believes it is important to inform national and
state decision makers of this alternative for treating INL Site wastes
at Hanford, especially in view of the costs and risk involved in
developing the same capabilities at two sites about 550 miles apart.
The Final EIS presents associated risks, including transportation, and
considers issues associated with meeting Hanford's schedule for waste
treatment of Hanford waste.
3. Regarding EPA's concern with DOE's broad expression of its
preferred alternative in the Final EIS, DOE believes that the phased
decision making process under this EIS not only meets the objectives of
NEPA, but also includes meaningful public participation opportunities
that substantially exceed the applicable regulatory requirements.
DOE identified its preferred alternative in the Final EIS as
follows: ``DOE's preferred waste processing alternative is to implement
the proposed action by selecting from among the action alternatives,
options and technologies analyzed in this EIS. The selection of any one
of, or combination of, technologies or options used to implement the
proposed action would be based on performance criteria that include
risk, cost, time, and compliance factors.'' DOE did not identify a
preference for a specific SBW treatment technology in this expression
of preferred alternative. Rather, DOE first provided additional
opportunities for public participation as part of its evaluation of the
alternative technologies analyzed in the EIS, which included steam
reforming, the technology that DOE is selecting today.
Under this phased decision making strategy, after issuing the Final
EIS, DOE conducted four public workshops to inform the public about the
five technologies that DOE was considering. Further, DOE provided
additional public comment opportunities on the draft RFP for the Idaho
Cleanup Project, which required bidders to propose technologies for SBW
treatment. Finally, DOE announced its preference for a specific SBW
treatment technology, steam reforming, in a Federal Register Notice (70
FR 44598; August 3, 2005), and again provided the opportunity for the
public to comment. Section V.B. summarizes the comments received and
DOE's responses.
4. DOE has determined that the alternative of reconfiguring the
calciner in the New Waste Calcining Facility with Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) upgrades is reasonable because calcination is
a proven process for reliably placing liquid HLW and SBW into a powder
form. The Final EIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of
operating the calciner with MACT air emission upgrades. Compliance
requirements and potential conflicts with state and Federal law are
also considered. Prematurely taking irreversible closure actions on the
calciner would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives analyzed in
the Final EIS.
In a November 21, 2002 letter, the INEEL CAB raised some of the
same issues expressed by the EPA. In addition, the CAB recommended that
DOE re-issue the Final EIS or issue a supplemental EIS and that DOE
provide meaningful opportunities for the public to review and comment
on the selection of technologies.
DOE provides the following response to the INEEL CAB (Now the INL
EM CAB) comments:
As described in Section I of this ROD, DOE prepared a Supplement
Analysis to examine whether a supplemental EIS is required. Based on
the Supplement Analysis, DOE determined that there has been no change
in the proposed action or significant new information or circumstances
relevant to environmental concerns that would require DOE to re-issue
the Final EIS or prepare a supplemental EIS. If DOE were to re-issue
the Final EIS or prepare a supplemental EIS that identified a preferred
alternative focusing on a single technology, it would not enhance the
detail or precision of the environmental analysis. As part of continued
public involvement, DOE held workshops in 2003 to obtain public input
on the technologies being considered for treatment of the SBW.
Further, as described above, DOE provided meaningful opportunities
for the public to participate in identifying their concerns related to
the proposed technologies for treatment of the SBW in the DOE
technology selection process. The public also was provided an
opportunity to comment on the draft RFP. DOE believes that these public
participation opportunities, which exceed DOE's obligations under NEPA,
were responsive to the CAB's comment.
V.B. Comments in Response to the August 3, 2005, Federal Register
Notice of Preferred Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Technology (70 FR
44599), That Invited Public Comments on DOE's Preferred Treatment
Technology
DOE received comments from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, INL EM
Citizens Advisory Board, Coalition 21, Snake River Alliance, Mr. Barry
O'Brian, Mr. G.V. Wieg, and Mr. D. Siemer in response to the August 3,
2005, Notice. The comments in these documents did not raise any new
issues relevant to environmental concerns that were not addressed in
the Final EIS.
The commentors expressed five general areas of concern: (1) Several
commentors expressed concerns regarding the disposition uncertainty for
the treated SBW and recommended deferral of the SBW treatment decision
until a waste determination is made for the SBW and a disposal facility
is identified (i.e., WIPP or a geologic repository for SNF/HLW).
Commentors also stated if the Department does make a SBW treatment
technology selection, the selected treatment method should be neutral
with regard to repository
[[Page 75171]]
requirements; (2) Several commentors questioned whether DOE adequately
considered all the alternatives for the treatment of SBW and some
suggested that vitrification is the best technology for the treatment
of SBW; (3) There were several comments related to the type and
availability of shipping containers and the mode of transportation; (4)
Several commentors expressed concerns related to the design of the
steam reformer facility and the type of product created, and whether
that waste form can be properly disposed of; and (5) Some commentors
recommended that facilities disposition decisions should be addressed
in a future, separate, ROD.
DOE provides the following responses to the comments received:
1. DOE believes that delaying the SBW treatment technology decision
does not support both the Department's and the State of Idaho's
priority to reduce potential risk to the Snake River Plain Aquifer. In
addition, the product resulting from steam reforming is neutral
regarding repository requirements and can be integrated with the
calcine disposition path if it cannot be disposed of at WIPP.
2. During the NEPA process, DOE evaluated the environmental impacts
of the range of reasonable alternatives, including vitrification, in
the preparation of the Final EIS. DOE identified steam reforming as its
preferred treatment technology for SBW after consideration of public
comment and the following factors: Technical maturity, environment,
safety and health (ES&H), schedule, and programmatic risk, as presented
in the Final EIS. DOE also considered the cost of the various
alternatives. This technology supports the Settlement Agreement
milestone to treat SBW by December 31, 2012 (see Section VII of this
ROD, Basis for Decision).
3. DOE evaluated the environmental impacts of transportation in the
Final EIS, which shows that transportation risks would be small. It
should be noted that the Department of Transportation regulates the
shipment of the waste while the NRC regulates the packaging of the
material for shipment. DOE will ship all wastes in accordance with
applicable regulations regardless of the mode of shipment. There are no
known regulatory issues associated with the packaging and shipping of
the reformed product.
4. The steam reformer facility will be designed and constructed to
meet all applicable regulatory and safety requirements (e.g., emission
and radiological controls). DOE must also obtain the appropriate
permits to construct and operate the facility. Presently, DOE is
planning to create a carbonate waste product from the steam reformer
which is similar in form to the HLW calcine. DOE anticipates the solid
waste form will be acceptable for disposal at WIPP, or if not
acceptable at WIPP, would be integrated into the strategy for
management of HLW calcine.
5. The Department believes it is prudent to proceed with facilities
disposition decisions at INTEC to reduce the overall risk to the Snake
River Plain Aquifer and to support the cleanup at the INL Site.
VI. Decision
DOE plans a phased decision making process. This first ROD focuses
on SBW treatment, NGLW, facilities disposition excluding the Tank Farm
Facility and bin sets closure, and DOE's strategy for HLW calcine.
SBW Treatment: The existing INTEC Evaporators will continue to
operate to reduce SBW volume to enable DOE to cease use of the Tank
Farm tanks by December 31, 2012, pursuant to the Notice of
Noncompliance Consent Order between DOE and State of Idaho. DOE has
decided that SBW will be treated using the steam reforming technology.
The Department's preference for this treated waste is disposal as TRU
waste at WIPP near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Until such time as the
regulatory approvals are obtained and a determination the waste is TRU
is made, the Department will manage the waste to allow disposal at WIPP
or at a geologic repository for SNF and HLW.
The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's selection of steam reforming
as the technology for solidifying remaining INTEC Tank Farm liquids,
provided DOE obtains required permits for its treatment facility and
post-treatment storage, and produces a waste form acceptable for
disposal at a repository outside Idaho.
NGLW: NGLW is no longer being sent to the Tank Farm and is being
stored in other permitted storage tanks. This NGLW may be treated in
the same facility and with the same technology used to treat SBW, or
grouted in a facility constructed for that purpose, and disposed of as
either low-level or TRU waste, depending on its radioactive waste
characteristics, at an offsite DOE or commercial facility.
The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's decision to segregate newly
generated liquid waste at INTEC and manage it in compliance with the
Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act and other legal requirements.
Facilities Disposition: DOE has decided to conduct performance-
based closure of existing facilities directly related to the HLW
Program at INTEC, excluding the tank farm and bin sets, once their
missions are complete. Performance based closure activities will be
implemented in accordance with applicable regulations and DOE Orders.
The method of closure for specific facilities will be determined on a
case-by-case basis depending on risk, and may include closure to
landfill standards. Newly constructed waste processing facilities, such
as the steam reforming treatment facility, at INTEC necessary to
implement the decisions in this ROD will be designed consistent with
clean closure methods in accordance with the objectives and
requirements of DOE Order 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management
(previously DOE Order 430.1A, Life Cycle Management), and DOE Order
435.1 and Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management and its Manual
and closed when their missions are complete regardless of the
characteristics of the waste they treat. These closure activities are
analyzed in the Final EIS.
The State concurs with the performance-based closure of existing
facilities directly related to the high-level waste program at INTEC,
once their missions are complete, subject to the State's separate
approval of individual closure plans under the Idaho Hazardous Waste
Management Act and compliance with section 3116 of the NDAA, where
applicable. The State also concurs with DOE's decision to clean close
newly constructed waste processing facilities.
HLW Calcine: Consistent with DOE's Environmental Management
Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at INEEL, DOE's
strategy for HLW calcine is to retrieve the calcine for disposal
outside the State of Idaho. Accordingly, DOE will develop calcine
retrieval demonstration processes and conduct risk-based analyses,
including disposal options, focused on the calcine stored at the INTEC.
This strategy will culminate in the issuance of a future ROD, as
discussed below.
The State of Idaho will provide additional input on DOE's remaining
decisions for calcine treatment, which DOE must make by December 31,
2009 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
Future RODs
DOE will issue an amended ROD addressing closure of the Tank Farm
in coordination with the Secretary's determination, in consultation
with the NRC, as to whether or not the waste residuals in the tank
system, the tanks,
[[Page 75172]]
vaults, piping and associated ancillary equipment are HLW in accordance
with Section 3116 the NDAA. That determination and amended ROD are
expected to be issued in calendar year 2006. The State of Idaho has
stated that: The State will continue to coordinate with DOE and the NRC
as appropriate regarding the classification of tank residuals under
Section 3116 of the NDAA, as well as the classification of other
wastes.
DOE plans to issue another amended ROD in 2009 that will contain
DOE's decision on the final strategy for HLW calcine retrieval and the
technology for additional treatment, if necessary, packaging and safe
storage based on transportation and disposal requirements. Following
that amended ROD, DOE would begin to manage the HLW calcine so it is
ready to be moved out of Idaho for disposal by a target date of 2035,
in accordance with the 1995 Settlement Agreement. Additionally, it is
DOE's goal to complete calcine retrieval, packaging, additional
treatment (if required) and shipping to a geologic repository for SNF/
HLW by December 2035, as described in DOE's Environmental Management
Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at INEEL. In
addition, the amended ROD will address closure of the bin sets and
their associated facilities.
VII. Basis for Decision
Based on the analysis in the Final EIS, all of the waste processing
alternatives that treat the SBW and remove the calcine would have small
environmental impacts. The long-term impacts of the No Action and
Continued Current Operations alternatives (i.e., the uncertainty of
leaving the SBW and calcine in storage), however, are uncertain and
could be high. Implementing any of the action alternatives through the
technologies or options analyzed in the Final EIS and a related SA
(DOE/EIS-0287-SA-01) would eliminate the element of uncertainty and
provide the most certain long-term protection of the environment.
DOE's decision to use the steam reforming technology for the
treatment of SBW is based on DOE's consideration of environmental
impacts, programmatic needs, safety and health risks, technical
viability, ability to meet regulatory requirements and agreement
milestones, public comments, and cost. DOE believes steam reforming
provides the best value to the Government and meets its need for
treatment flexibility, acceptable cost, and probability of success.
DOE's decision to defer a final decision on calcine is based on the
need to continue detailed evaluation of repository performance
criteria, regulatory requirements, cost, schedule, and programmatic
risk.
DOE's decision to implement performance-based closure methods for
disposition of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program
at INTEC and plan to clean close newly constructed facilities, such as
the steam reforming facility for SBW treatment, was based on the
analysis of the potential environmental impacts identified in the Final
EIS as well as to meet regulatory requirements, such as RCRA, and
because each method of closure is determined on a case-by-case basis.
DOE's decision to defer a final decision for closure of the Tank
Farm was based on DOE's intent to coordinate this decision with the
Secretary's determination, in consultation with the NRC, under Section
3116 of the NDAA that will allow DOE to decide the appropriate
performance-based closure method.
No impact resulting from normal operations under any of the
alternatives or options analyzed would require specifically designed
mitigation measures. DOE will, however, adopt all practicable means to
avoid or minimize environmental harm when implementing the actions
described in this ROD. Those measures include employing engineering
design features to address flooding, emission controls to reduce or
eliminate releases of pollutants and meet regulatory requirements,
maintaining a rigorous health and safety program to protect workers
from radiological and chemical contaminates, and continuing efforts to
reduce the generation of wastes.
These decisions are also consistent with the objectives of the DOE
Environmental Management Performance Management Plan for Accelerating
Cleanup at INEEL.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 13th day of December 2005.
James A. Rispoli,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. E5-7497 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P