Amended Record of Decision: Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement, 68811-68813 [E6-20109]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68811-68813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20109]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Amended Record of Decision: Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities 
Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Amended Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its Record of 
Decision (ROD) published December 19, 2005 (70 Federal Register [FR] 
75165), pursuant to the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities 
Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) (DOE/EIS-
0287, September 2002). The Final EIS analyzed two sets of alternatives 
for accomplishing DOE's proposed actions regarding the Idaho Nuclear 
Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC): (1) Waste processing 
alternatives and (2) facility disposition alternatives. As described in 
this Amended ROD, DOE has decided to conduct performance-based closure 
of the INTEC Tank Farm Facility (TFF). This decision to conduct 
performance-based closure of the TFF does not affect decisions made in 
the initial ROD concerning: performance-based closure of other existing 
facilities directly related to the HLW Program; planned clean closure 
of newly constructed waste processing facilities needed to implement 
the initial ROD; steam reforming treatment of sodium-bearing waste 
(SBW) to allow disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near 
Carlsbad, New Mexico (DOE's preferred disposal path) or at a geologic 
repository for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and HLW; management of newly 
generated liquid waste (NGLW); and DOE's strategy to retrieve HLW 
calcine for disposal outside the State of Idaho. Nor does this Amended 
ROD affect future decisions concerning the retrieval strategy for HLW 
calcine stored at INTEC, potential calcine treatment if necessary, and 
closure of the bin sets in which the calcine is stored.

ADDRESSES: Copies of this Amended ROD will be available on DOE's 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at: https://
www.eh.doe.gov/nepa under DOE NEPA Documents. Copies of the Section 
3116 Determination and associated documents are available on DOE's Web 
site at https://apps.em.doe.gov/idwd.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this 
Amended ROD and the Idaho Cleanup Project, contact Scott Van Camp, 
Assistant Manager, Facility and Materials Disposition Project, U.S. 
DOE, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-1222, Idaho 
Falls, ID 83415, Telephone: (208) 526-6503.
    For general information on DOE's NEPA process, please contact: 
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-
20), U.S. DOE, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0103, Telephone: (202) 586-4600 or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    From 1952 to 1991, DOE and its predecessor agencies reprocessed SNF 
at INTEC, known prior to 1998 as the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, 
on the Idaho National Laboratory (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, which was 
stored in belowgrade stainless steel tanks at the INTEC TFF. 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. After SNF reprocessing was curtailed 
in 1991, the first cycle reprocessing wastes were removed from the 
tanks in the TFF and the tanks were reused to store liquid SBW. The 
liquid SBW was stored in ten of the eleven 300,000-gallon belowgrade 
storage tanks in the TFF. The eleventh tank was maintained as a spare 
(but was contaminated with a small quantity of waste). The TFF also 
includes four 30,000-gallon belowgrade tanks that were used in 
reprocessing operations. 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 remains stored in six bin sets (a 
series of reinforced concrete vaults, each containing three to seven 
stainless steel storage bins). Over the past several years, TFF 
operations have included removing SBW from the tanks, consolidating the 
remaining approximately 900,000 gallons of SBW into three 300,000-
gallon belowgrade tanks, and cleaning the emptied tanks. Tank cleaning 
to remove the tank heels in the emptied tanks (the amount of liquid 
remaining in each tank after lowering the tank contents to the greatest 
extent possible by use of the existing transfer equipment) began in 
late 2002. Seven of the 300,000-gallon tanks, the four 30,000-gallon 
inactive tanks, and associated ancillary equipment have been cleaned, 
and DOE plans to clean and complete closure of the remaining tanks, 
piping, valve boxes, encasements, and vaults by December 31, 2012.
    The Final EIS, issued in October 2002, analyzed two sets of 
alternatives for accomplishing the proposed action: (1) Waste 
processing alternatives for treating, storing, and disposing of liquid 
SBW and NGLW stored in belowgrade 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 its missions are complete, including any new 
facilities necessary to implement the waste processing alternatives. 
This Amended ROD addresses only disposition of the TFF and not waste 
processing or other facilities addressed in the initial ROD.
    On October 28, 2004, the NDAA was enacted. Among other provisions 
of the Act, Section 3116 provides that certain wastes from reprocessing 
SNF are not HLW if the Secretary, in consultation with the NRC, 
determines that the criteria in Section 3116(a) have been met.
    In DOE's initial ROD, published December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75165), 
DOE decided, among other things, to pursue a phased decision-making 
process and stated its plan to issue an Amended ROD in 2006 
specifically addressing closure of the TFF, in coordination with the 
Secretary's Determination under Section 3116. As explained in the 
initial ROD, the State of Idaho, as a cooperating agency on the Draft 
and Final EIS, stated that it would continue to coordinate with DOE and 
NRC, as appropriate, regarding Section 3116 activities.
    DOE submitted a Draft Section 3116 Determination concerning the TFF 
to the NRC on September 7, 2005, and consulted with the NRC pursuant to 
Section 3116(a) of the NDAA. Although not required by Section 3116, DOE 
issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft Section 3116 Determination 
in the Federal Register on September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54374), for public 
review,

[[Page 68812]]

concurrent with DOE's consultation with the NRC.
    The NRC consultation process has been completed. On October 20, 
2006, the NRC issued its Technical Evaluation Report (TER) (NRC ADAMS 
 ML062490108) of the DOE Draft Section 3116 Determination. The 
TER presents the results of NRC's consultation with respect to whether 
DOE meets the applicable provisions of Section 3116(a) of the NDAA for 
the Secretary to determine that the stabilized residuals are not HLW. 
As noted in its executive summary, ``Based on the information provided 
by DOE, NRC staff has concluded in this TER that there is reasonable 
assurance that the applicable criteria of the NDAA can be met for 
residual waste associated with the TFF.''
    DOE considered the NRC's TER, as well as comments received from the 
State of Idaho and the INL Site Environmental Management Citizens 
Advisory Board (no additional public comments were received) on the 
Draft Section 3116 Determination, before issuing the Section 3116 
Determination. In the Section 3116 Determination for the TFF, the 
Secretary concluded that, for reasons set forth in the Basis for 
Section 3116 Determination for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and 
Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility (Basis Document), and based on 
DOE's consultation with the NRC, the criteria of Section 3116(a) have 
been met, and therefore the stabilized residuals may be disposed of in 
place. Disposal of the grouted TFF waste in place will meet the 
performance objectives set forth in 10 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) Part 61, Subpart C. DOE estimates that this action will result in 
an annual maximum exposure risk (total effective dose) to members of 
the public from all pathways of well below 25 mrem. A Federal Register 
Notice of Availability of the Secretary's Section 3116 Determination is 
being provided separately and concurrently with this ROD.

II. Comments on the Final EIS

    DOE received five letters and two emails on the Final EIS and 
responded to those comments in the initial ROD. However, because DOE 
deferred its decision regarding the TFF, it is appropriate to address 
one additional comment made by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) (letter on the Final EIS of November 18, 2002) in this Amended 
ROD. That is, the EPA noted that ``the Final EIS did not define, in the 
case of tank closures, the degree of retrieval and/or decontamination 
necessary to provide a defensible basis for reclassifying residuals''. 
The Basis Document addresses this comment.

III. Facility Disposition Alternatives Analyzed

    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.\1\ Under the No 
Action Alternative, the transuranic/SBW waste would remain in the Tank 
Farm, and eventually over thousands of years, this waste would migrate 
into the environment. Under the Clean Closure Alternative, facilities 
would have the hazardous and radiological contaminants, including 
contaminated equipment, removed from the site or treated so that these 
contaminants would be indistinguishable from background concentrations. 
Under the Performance-Based Closure Alternative, contamination would 
remain that is below the levels that would impact human health and the 
environment as established by regulations. Under the Closure to 
Landfill Standards Alternative, wastes would be removed to the extent 
practicable; however, quantities remaining would not meet clean closure 
or performance-based action levels. Under the Performance-Based Closure 
with Class A Grout Disposal and Performance-Based Closure with Class C 
Grout Disposal Alternatives, SBW and calcine would have been separated 
into high and low activity fractions, and the low-level waste fraction 
would be grouted to meet either Class A or Class C levels and disposed 
of in the tanks or bin sets. These six alternatives reflect different 
ways to address the risk associated with disposition of residuals 
remaining in facilities and closing facilities directly related to the 
HLW Program at INTEC after its missions are complete. These 
alternatives differ in the degree to which facilities are cleaned up 
and in the type of use that could be made of the land as a result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The names of the alternatives in the Final EIS use 
terminology that is similar to terminology used in the context of 
closure of hazardous waste management units under HWMA/RCRA. 
However, the terminology used in the names of the EIS alternatives 
and the HWMA/RCRA is not synonymous in all cases. For example, the 
Clean Closure Alternative included removal of the tanks, whereas 
clean closure of the tanks under HWMA/RCRA means cleaning the tanks 
to action levels established in the state approved closure plan. The 
INL TFF is subject to closure under HWMA/RCRA pursuant to closure 
plans approved by the State of Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preferred Facility Disposition Alternative

    In the Final EIS, DOE and the State of Idaho, as a cooperating 
agency, identified three of the six facility disposition alternatives 
as preferred: Performance-Based Closure, Clean Closure, and Closure to 
Landfill Standards. DOE and the State of Idaho weighed several factors 
in identifying the Preferred Alternatives for facility disposition, 
including size and complexity of facilities, volume of waste generated 
during facility disposition, residual waste/contaminant risk reduction, 
technical and economic feasibility, and protection of workers, the 
public, and the environment.
    Under the Performance-Based Closure Alternative evaluated in the 
EIS, radioactive contamination would remain below levels that would 
impact human health and the environment as established by regulations. 
These levels, referred to as action levels, are either risk-based 
(e.g., residual contaminant levels) or performance-based (e.g., 
corrosivity). Once these action levels and the action levels set forth 
in the HWMA/RCRA Closure Plan approved by the State of Idaho are 
achieved, the unit/facility is deemed closed according to the HWMA/RCRA 
and DOE requirements. Other activities may then occur at the unit/
facility such as decontamination and decommissioning or future 
operations (where nonhazardous waste can enter the unit/facility). Most 
abovegrade units/facilities would be demolished and most belowgrade 
facilities/units (tanks, vaults, and transfer piping) would be 
stabilized and left in place. The residual contaminants would no longer 
pose any unacceptable exposure (or risk) to workers, the public, and 
the environment. Pursuant to HWMA/RCRA regulations, if the action 
levels cannot be achieved, then the TFF and TFF system may need to be 
closed in accordance with closure and post-closure regulations that 
apply to landfills.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although not part of this Amended ROD, DOE also has proposed 
to cap the surface of the TFF to meet the remedial action objectives 
agreed to by DOE, the State of Idaho, and the EPA pursuant to the 
1991 Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA). DOE's Proposed Plan for Tank Farm Soil and INTEC 
Groundwater, Operable Unit 3-14 (RPT-223, 2004), which includes 
capping the surface of the TFF, has been issued for public comment. 
The CERCLA decision is planned for 2007. Capping would reduce water 
infiltration and provide worker protection where appropriate.

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

[[Page 68813]]

IV. Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The initial ROD, in identifying the environmentally preferred 
alternative, considered: potential risk to the public (e.g., latent 
cancer fatalities); potential environmental risks in the short- and 
long-term, including environmental risks after loss of institutional 
control; and potential short-term risk to workers. The initial ROD 
identified the facility disposition alternatives that actively closed 
the TFF facilities under environmentally-based standards as preferable 
to the No Action Alternative. Based on the analyses in the Final EIS, 
the Clean Closure Alternative is the environmentally preferred 
alternative over the long-term. However, the Performance-Based Closure 
Alternative would be protective of the public and environment in the 
short- and long-term while minimizing short-term risks to workers.

V. Decision

    DOE has decided to conduct performance-based closure of the TFF as 
set forth in the Final EIS. DOE has decided to close the TFF in phases 
to support continued INTEC operations, with final closure of the TFF 
planned by December 2012. DOE is making the decision in this Amended 
ROD following the Secretary's Determination, in consultation with the 
NRC, that the grouted residuals at disposal are not HLW because they 
meet the criteria in Section 3116(a) of the NDAA. By law, material 
covered by such a determination is not HLW.
    Performance-based closure of the TFF and TFF system pursuant to 
this Amended ROD includes removing waste to the maximum extent 
practical from the eleven 300,000-gallon tanks, the four 30,000-gallon 
tanks, associated piping, valve boxes, encasements, and vaults, and 
grouting and disposing of stabilized residuals in place.\3\ Closure of 
the TFF will be undertaken pursuant to closure plans approved by the 
State of Idaho under the HWMA. DOE intends for the TFF closure 
activities to remove or decontaminate waste residues to meet State of 
Idaho-approved action levels for hazardous constituents. If these 
action levels cannot be achieved, then the TFF may be closed in 
accordance with closure and post-closure regulations that apply to 
landfills. The closure of the TFF will also be in accordance with 
applicable DOE requirements, regulations, and Orders, which ensure that 
this action will result in an annual maximum exposure risk (total 
effective dose) to members of the public from all pathways of well 
below 25 mrem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under closure pursuant to this decision, a small amount 
(approximately 3/8 inch) of residual radioactive (non-HWMA/RCRA) 
waste that cannot be removed would remain after completing tank 
cleaning operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Idaho has commented and coordinated with DOE and NRC, 
as appropriate, concerning Section 3116 of the NDAA. The State has 
concurred with the performance-based closure of the TFF, subject to the 
State's separate approval of individual closure plans under the HWMA/
RCRA.
    This decision to conduct performance-based closure of the TFF does 
not affect the decisions made in the initial ROD concerning: 
performance-based closure for other existing facilities directly 
related to the HLW Program; planned clean closure of newly constructed 
waste processing facilities needed to implement the initial ROD; steam 
reforming treatment of SBW to allow disposal at the WIPP near Carlsbad, 
New Mexico (DOE's preferred disposal path) or at a geologic repository 
for SNF and HLW; management of NGLW; and DOE's strategy to retrieve HLW 
calcine for disposal outside the State of Idaho. Nor does this Amended 
ROD affect future decisions concerning the retrieval strategy for HLW 
calcine stored at the INTEC, potential calcine treatment if necessary, 
and the closure of the bin sets in which the calcine is stored.
    No impact resulting from operations under this decision would 
require specifically designed mitigation measures. DOE will, however, 
use all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm when 
implementing the actions described in this Amended ROD. Those measures 
include employing engineering design features to meet regulatory 
requirements, maintaining a rigorous health and safety program to 
protect workers from radiological and chemical contaminants, monitoring 
worker and environmental risk, and continuing efforts to reduce the 
generation of wastes. DOE will implement the comprehensive list of 
standards and requirements to protect workers, the public, and the 
environment specified in Chapter 6 of the Final EIS, as appropriate.

VI. Basis for Decision

    DOE's decision to implement performance-based closure methods for 
disposition of the TFF is based on the analysis of the potential 
environmental impacts identified in the Final EIS. The Performance-
Based Closure Alternative would minimize short-term risk to workers as 
compared to the Clean Closure Alternative, while also being protective 
of health and the environment in the long term. In addition, this 
Amended ROD is based on consideration of regulatory requirements such 
as the HWMA/RCRA, applicable DOE Orders, and cost. As part of its basis 
for decision, DOE also emphasizes that, on balance, performance-based 
closure would be protective of the public and environment in the short- 
and long-term, while limiting the risk to workers. This decision also 
takes into account the Secretary's Determination pursuant to Section 
3116(a) of the NDAA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 19, 2006.
James A. Rispoli,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. E6-20109 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P