![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Interim Management of Nuclear Materials
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 26, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 7888-7890]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ja01-20]
[[Page 7888]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Interim Management of Nuclear Materials
AGENCY: Department of Energy
ACTION: Amended record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 12, 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
issued a Record of Decision (ROD) and Notice of Preferred Alternatives,
60 FR 65300 (December 19, 1995), for the final environmental impact
statement, Interim Management of Nuclear Materials (IMNM EIS) (DOE/EIS-
0220, October 20, 1995), at the Savannah River Site (SRS), Aiken, South
Carolina. As part of its decision, DOE decided to construct a new
facility, the Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility (APSF), to
prepare, package, and store plutonium oxide and metal in accordance
with DOE's plutonium storage standard, recently revised as
Stabilization, Packaging, and Storage of Plutonium-Bearing Materials
(DOE-STD-3013-2000). The APSF also was intended to provide space for
consolidated storage of plutonium and special actinide materials at the
SRS.
For several reasons, including project cost growth concerns, DOE is
canceling the APSF project and instead installing the stabilization and
packaging capability to meet the plutonium storage standard within
Building 235-F, an existing plutonium storage and processing facility
in F-Area at the SRS. DOE also will use existing SRS vault storage
space, including space in Building 235-F, to store plutonium (and other
nuclear material inventories) pending disposition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the interim
management of nuclear materials at the SRS, to receive a copy of the
final IMNM EIS, or a copy of the 1995 IMNM ROD, contact: Andrew R.
Grainger, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Operations Office, Building 703-47A, Room 122, Aiken, South
Carolina 29802 (800) 881-7292 Internet: drew.grainger@sr.srs.gov.
For further information on the DOE NEPA process, contact: Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42) U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC
20585, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.
Additionally, DOE NEPA information, including the IMNM Final EIS
and the 1995 IMNM ROD, can be found on the DOE NEPA web site at:
www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NEPA Review and Decisions
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared a final environmental
impact statement, Interim Management of Nuclear Materials (IMNM EIS)
(DOE/EIS-0220, October 20, 1995), in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA
implementing regulations, and DOE implementing procedures. The IMNM EIS
assessed the potential environmental impacts of actions necessary to
safely manage nuclear materials at the Savannah River Site (SRS),
Aiken, South Carolina, until decisions on their future use or ultimate
disposition are made and implemented. The IMNM EIS grouped the nuclear
materials at the SRS into three categories: Stable, Programmatic, and
Candidates for Stabilization. Some of the ``Programmatic'' and all of
the ``Candidates for Stabilization'' materials could have presented
environmental, safety and health vulnerabilities in their then-current
storage condition. For materials that could present environmental,
safety, or health vulnerabilities, the IMNM EIS evaluated processing
alternatives to meet the new plutonium storage standard to ensure safe
intermediate to long-term storage. The capability to meet the new
storage standard did not exist at the SRS at the time of the
preparation of the IMNM EIS, nor at any other DOE site. Subsequently,
DOE has been working to establish this capability at its non-pit \1\
surplus plutonium sites. Facilities providing this capability at the
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS, Golden, Colorado),
Hanford (Richland, Washington), and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (Livermore, California) are nearing completion and startup.
Stabilizing and packaging plutonium to the storage standard are
generally the last steps in completing the stabilization process. The
IMNM EIS considered two options for providing this stabilization and
packaging capability at the SRS: (1) The construction of a new
facility, APSF, and (2) the modification of Building 235-F in F-Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A ``pit'' is a nuclear weapon component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 12, 1995, DOE issued a Record of Decision (ROD) and
Notice of Preferred Alternatives, 60 FR 65300 (December 19, 1995), on
the interim management of several categories of nuclear materials at
the SRS. As part of its decision, DOE decided to construct a new
facility, the APSF, to enable plutonium oxides to be stabilized, and
plutonium oxide and metal to be repackaged in accordance with DOE's
plutonium storage standard, recently revised as Stabilization,
Packaging, and Storage of Plutonium-Bearing Materials (DOE-STD-3013-
2000). The APSF also was intended to provide space for consolidated
storage of plutonium and special actinide materials at the SRS.
Subsequently, DOE issued four supplemental RODs (61 FR 6633, 61 FR
48474, 62 FR 17790, and 62 FR 61099) to make additional decisions and/
or modify existing decisions concerning the management of nuclear
materials at the SRS. None of these subsequent decisions altered DOE's
decision to construct the APSF.
In December 1996, DOE issued the Storage and Disposition of
Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement (Storage and Disposition PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0229). The
Storage and Disposition PEIS, among other things, assesses the
potential environmental impacts of alternative approaches and locations
for storing weapons-usable fissile materials (plutonium and highly
enriched uranium). DOE decided in the Storage and Disposition ROD
(January 14, 1997, 62 FR 3014) to expand the storage capacity (from a
nominal 2,000 storage positions to 5,000 storage positions) of the
prospective APSF to accommodate at the SRS the storage of surplus non-
pit plutonium to be received from RFETS, pending disposition. DOE also
indicated in the Storage and Disposition ROD that DOE would pursue a
strategy for surplus plutonium disposition that allows for
immobilization of surplus weapons plutonium in glass or ceramic forms
and burning of the surplus plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX)\2\ fuel in
existing reactors. The immobilized plutonium and the spent MOX fuel
would be disposed of in a geologic repository.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A physical blend of uranium oxide and plutonium oxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, in order to support the early closure of RFETS, DOE
issued an amended Storage and Disposition ROD (August 6, 1998, 63 FR
43386) to allow the RFETS surplus non-pit plutonium to be sent to the
SRS before completion of the APSF. Based upon the amended Storage and
Disposition ROD, DOE undertook the K-Area Materials Storage (KAMS)
project to modify and prepare existing space within Building 105-K to
store surplus plutonium in shipping containers as received from RFETS,
pending disposition. The first shipment of surplus plutonium from RFETS
for
[[Page 7889]]
storage in KAMS is scheduled to arrive in early calendar year 2001.
In November 1999, DOE issued the Surplus Plutonium Disposition
Final Environmental Impact Statement (SPD EIS) (DOE/EIS-0283), which
analyzed alternatives for the siting, construction, and operation of
three surplus plutonium disposition facilities. These three facilities
would accomplish pit disassembly and conversion, plutonium conversion
and immobilization, and MOX fuel fabrication. DOE issued the Surplus
Plutonium Disposition ROD on January 4, 2000 (65 FR 1608), which
selected the SRS for all three of the new surplus plutonium disposition
facilities.
Plutonium Stabilization and Storage Evaluation
In light of APSF project cost growth concerns, SRS program and
overall DOE resource limitations, and an opportunity to increase the
integration of the surplus plutonium storage and surplus plutonium
disposition missions, DOE suspended the APSF project in January 1999,
and undertook a systematic review of SRS stabilization and storage
options. This review is documented in Evaluation of Savannah River
Plutonium Storage and Stabilization Options (July 2000). The evaluation
considered several options for managing DOE's surplus plutonium,
pending disposition, including: completion of the as-designed (5,000
storage position) APSF project, construction of a further-expanded
(10,000 storage position) APSF, and cancellation of the APSF project
with surplus plutonium managed through other means (e.g., processed to
allow consolidation to metal and/or stabilization and storage in
existing modified facilities).
The key recommendations of the evaluation are: (1) Cancel the APSF
project and (2) initiate a project to install stabilization and
packaging capability in Building 235-F at SRS. The evaluation also
recommends that DOE continue with the decision to transfer RFETS
stabilized plutonium (packaged in DOE-STD-3013 storage containers
within shipping containers) for storage in KAMS in unopened shipping
containers. The evaluation also recommends that DOE store SRS
stabilized materials in DOE-STD-3013 containers inside shipping
containers in existing vaults in Building 235-F, and KAMS as necessary,
pending disposition.
The evaluation determined that there would be basically no
difference between the APSF and Building 235-F options regarding the
completion dates of the capital improvements or the stabilization and
packaging activities, but the estimated costs are different,
particularly for the near-term. Over the 10-year evaluation period (FY
2001-2010), cost differences (in FY 2001 dollars) range from
approximately $5.5 million to $230 million. The least costly options
involve varying degrees of modification to Building 235-F. The capital
cost for the recommended Building 235-F option is estimated to be $100
million to $250 million, which is $30 million to $180 million less than
the lowest cost APSF option. The ``high'' capital cost estimate of $250
million for the recommended Building 235-F option was used in the
evaluation to compare costs between the stabilization and storage
options.
The evaluation considered options which could best meet the
Department's stabilization and storage needs, given various factors,
such as funding levels, de-inventory strategies, and surplus plutonium
disposition schedules. Surplus plutonium disposition schedules most
notably affected overall costs. Delays of approximately seven years or
more to DOE's surplus plutonium disposition program would favor the
more consolidated plutonium storage options (the APSF options) because
operating costs for a large single storage facility are less than for
multiple smaller facilities. Even though this ``payback'' would
eventually occur if there were substantial delays to the surplus
plutonium disposition mission, DOE believes there are more worthy
unfunded projects that would provide earlier investment returns in
carrying out DOE missions.
Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS
Alternatives
The IMNM EIS analyzed several alternatives, including the No Action
alternative, for the interim management of eleven (11) types of nuclear
materials at the SRS. All of the alternatives except the Continued
Storage (No Action) would support DOE's objective of removing nuclear
materials from vulnerable conditions and from vulnerable facilities in
preparation for decontamination and decommissioning. The IMNM RODs
include decisions to undertake stabilization and processing actions for
ten (10) SRS nuclear material types. (DOE decided to continue existing
actions for the ``Stable'' nuclear material types/category.) Six of
these nuclear materials types--(1) plutonium and uranium stored in
vaults, (2) Mark-31 targets, (3) aluminum-clad Taiwan Research Reactor
fuel and Experimental Breeder Reactor-II slugs, (4) plutonium-239
solutions, (5) plutonium-242 solutions, and (6) neptunium-237
solutions--require, or could require, a new capability to stabilize and
package the material to DOE's storage standard to complete
stabilization for safe interim management. The latter two materials,
plutonium-242 and neptunium-237, were categorized as programmatic
materials in the IMNM EIS but were analyzed for completeness of the
potential impacts from stabilization and packaging for long-term
storage. DOE has since stabilized the plutonium-242 to oxide, and
transferred it to the Los Alamos National Laboratory for programmatic
use without undergoing stabilization and packaging to the storage
standard. The neptunium-237 has yet to be stabilized, and a
determination on program need or requirements for packaging to the
storage standard has yet to be made. The need for neptunium-237 is
being addressed in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research
and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States,
Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (DOE/EIS-0310,
December 2000). A Record of Decision for that PEIS is expected to be
issued in January 2001.
The IMNM EIS considered two options [see IMNM EIS, Chapter 2.
Alternatives and Appendix C, pp. C-41 to C-45] for stabilizing,
packaging, and storing plutonium to DOE's storage standard--(1) the
construction of the new APSF, and (2) the modification of Building 235-
F. The storage standard is designed to help ensure the safe storage of
the materials for long periods (e.g., 50 years). Each option was
designed to provide the capability to heat plutonium oxide materials to
drive off residual and absorbed moisture; package stabilized material
(oxides and metal) in at least two corrosion-resistant containers (a
container within a container) without the use of plastics, hydrogenous
compounds, or organic material; weld-seal the outer container in an
inert atmosphere to ensure weld joint and container material integrity;
and store the stabilized material and sealed containers.
In addition, the IMNM EIS considered modifications to the FB-Line
in the F-Canyon building (Building 221-F) at the SRS to provide storage
standard stabilization and packaging capabilities. Under decisions
associated with the Final F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions Environmental
Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0219, December 1994) and ROD (February 22,
1995, 60 FR 9824), DOE added to the FB-Line a capability to package
plutonium metal within a
[[Page 7890]]
single, inert gas-filled, welded container, without the need for
plastic and other organic materials. However, DOE concluded that adding
the full stabilization and packaging mission to the FB-Line facility
would delay completion of the FB-Line's nuclear materials stabilization
activities and the planned shutdown of the FB-Line facility.
Potential Environmental Impacts
The IMNM EIS analyzed potential impacts of alternatives for
managing all SRS nuclear materials. Summaries of the potential impacts
from the alternatives are presented in the IMNM EIS, Table 2-2 through
Table 2-12 (pp. 2-48 through 2-58). The IMNM EIS analysis includes
potential impacts from heating and repackaging activities to package
plutonium to DOE's storage standard.
DOE has reviewed the IMNM EIS and determined that there are no
substantial changes in the proposed modification of Building 235-F nor
are there any significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental impacts that would result from modifying Building 235-F.
The analysis of potential environmental impacts and the description of
the Building 235-F option in the IMNM EIS have not changed since the
Final EIS was issued.
The IMNM EIS indicated that there would be minimal environmental
impacts from the implementation of any alternative (including the APSF
or Building 235-F options) in the areas of geologic, ecological,
cultural, aesthetic, and scenic resources, noise, and land use. Impacts
in these areas would be limited because facility modifications or
construction of new facilities would occur within existing buildings or
industrialized portions of the SRS. The existing SRS workforce would
support any construction projects and other activities required to
implement any of the alternatives, and thus negligible socioeconomic
impacts would be expected from implementing any of the alternatives.
Emissions of hazardous air pollutants and releases of hazardous
liquid effluents for any of the alternatives would be within applicable
standards and existing regulatory permits for the SRS facilities.
Similarly, for either the APSF or Building 235-F option for plutonium
stabilization and packaging, potential transuranic waste, mixed
hazardous waste, and low-level solid waste generated would be handled
by existing waste management facilities. All of the waste types and
volumes are within the capability of the existing SRS waste management
facilities for storage, treatment, or disposal.
While the IMNM EIS indicated that potential adverse impacts to the
environment, public, or workers would be small for the packaging and
storage alternatives, there would be minor differences between the APSF
``new construction'' and the Building 235-F modification. The
modification to Building 235-F would involve work in an existing and
radiologically contaminated facility, thereby potentially leading to a
small increase over the APSF option in radiological waste generation
and construction worker exposure. Through the use of site
administrative control limits, however, no worker would be expected to
receive a radiological dose beyond that allowed for radiological
workers from normal operations, or from facility modification work.
Likewise, the existing waste management facilities are capable of
handling the additional radiological waste that would result from the
Building 235-F modification.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The IMNM EIS indicated that potential adverse impacts to the
environment, public, or workers would be small for either the APSF or
Building 235-F options. While small increases in radiological waste and
worker radiological exposure could be expected from the Building 235-F
modification option over the APSF option, both options would involve
relatively small impacts, and thus neither could be deemed
environmentally preferable over the other.
Decision
DOE is amending its previous decision (60 FR 65300) on how to
provide a SRS capability for the stabilization and packaging of
plutonium to the storage standard (recently revised to DOE-STD-3013-
2000). Instead of constructing a new Actinide Packaging and Storage
Facility (APSF), DOE will modify existing space within Building 235-F
in F-Area. DOE will continue to use existing vault space in Building
235-F for interim storage pending disposition, and existing vault space
in FB-Line for interim storage during stabilization actions. [By way of
information, DOE previously had decided (63 FR 43386) to store RFETS
surplus non-pit plutonium in new vault space established in Building
105-K, instead of in the APSF, pending disposition.]
This decision will allow DOE to stabilize and repackage plutonium
to the storage standard within the same time-frame as would have a new
APSF (or possibly up to two years sooner). It also allows DOE to
accomplish plutonium stabilization and repackaging at a lower cost by
cost-effectively integrating surplus plutonium storage activities with
surplus plutonium disposition activities. The reduced capital
expenditure requirements are more consistent with current and projected
near-term budget resources.
Issued at Washington, DC, January 12th, 2001.
Carolyn L. Huntoon,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 01-2369 Filed 1-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P