N -

NUREG-1 773

Environmental Impact

Statement for the Proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the

Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory in

Butte County, Idaho

Final Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Washington, DC 20555-0001
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.pov/readin-rm.html.

Publicly released records Include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and nternal

memoranda; bulletins and nformation notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

www.ntis.gov

1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer,

Reproduction and Distribution

Services Section

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DlSTRIBUTION~nrc.gov

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications In the NUREG series that are

posted at NRC's Web site address

http://www.nrc.povlreadinp-rm/doc-collections/nureos

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed,

the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, oumal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner In the NRC regulatory process are

maintained atThe NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, fromAmerican National Standards Institute

11 West 42'd Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

212-642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, Including

technical specifications; or orders, not in

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series are

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREGICR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREGICP-XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from International agreements

(NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors'

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations

(NUREG-0750).
NUREG-1773

Environmental Impact

Statement for the Proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the

Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory in

Butte County, Idaho

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: January 2004

Date Published: January 2004

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
NUREG-1773, has been reproduced from

the best available copy.
ABSTRACT

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has contracted with Foster Wheeler Environmental

Corporation (FWENC) to design, construct, and operate the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Storage

Facility that would repackage and store spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive material

from the Peach Bottom Unit 1 High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor, the Shippingport Atomic

Power Station, and various Training, Research, and Isotope reactors built by General Atomics

(TRIGA reactors). The proposed facility would be located at the DOE Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The proposed facility is part of a

Settlement Agreement, dated October 17, 1995, between the DOE, the U.S. Navy, and the

State of Idaho regarding waste removal and environmental cleanup at the INEEL. Additionally,

the proposed facility would be licensed as an independent spent fuel storage installation in

accordance with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations found at

10 CFR Part 72.

This environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the NRC regulations for implementing NEPA, and the

guidance provided by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the

procedural provisions of NEPA. This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the

proposed action and its reasonable alternatives, describes the environment potentially affected

by the proposal, presents and compares the potential environmental impacts resulting from the

proposed action and its alternatives, and describes mitigation measures.

iii
CONTENTS

Section Page

ABSTRACT ...................... iii

FIGURES ...................... xi

TABLES ..................... xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................. xv

ACRONYMS............................................................. xxvii

1 INTRODUCTION .1-1

1.1 Background . . .1-1

1.2 The Proposed Action . . . 1-2

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .. 1-4

1.4 NRC Regulation of the Proposed Idaho"Spent Fuel Facility ... 1-5

1.5 Scope of This Environmental Analysis . . .1-5

1.5.1 Issues Studied in Detail ..... 1-6

1.5.2 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study . .1-7

1.5.3 Scoping Process .1-7

1.5.3.1 Scoping for the Draft EIS .1-7

1.5.3.2 Comments on the Draft EIS .1-8

1.6 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and

Regional Consultations .............. 1-9

1.6.1 Applicable Statutes, Regulations, and Permits .1-9

1.6.1.1 Federal Statutes and Regulatory Requirements . 1-9

1.6.1.2 State Licenses and Permits .1-13

1.6.2 Consultations .. 1-13

1.6.3 Cooperating Agencies .. 1-14

1.6.4 Organizations Involved in the Proposed Action . .1-14

1.7 References . . .1-15

2 ALTERNATIVES .2-1

2.1 Process Used to Formulate Alternatives .2-1

2.2 No-Action Alternative .. ................. 2-2

2.3 Applicant's Proposed Action Alternative .. 2-2

2.3.1 Facility Construction .2-4

2.3.2 Fuel-Handling Operations .2-4

2.3.3 Storage Operations .2-4

2.3.4 Monitoring and Emergency Response .2-7

2.3.5 Quality Assurance .2-8

2.4 Other Reasonable Alternatives .. 2-8

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ............ ................. 2-8

2.6 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts ....... ............ 2-9

2.7 Final Recommendation Regarding the Proposed Action ...... .......... 2-9

2.8 References .............................................. 2-16

v
CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........ ............... 3-1

3.1 Site and Facility Description ..................................... 3-1

3.1.1 The INEEL .................................... 3-1

3.1.2 The INTEC ..................................... 3-4

3.1.3 The Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility ..................... 3-4

3.2 Land Use ........................................... 3-6

3.2.1 INEEL Land Use ..................................... 3-6

3.2.2 Offsite Land Use .................................... 3-7

3.3 Transportation and Infrastructure .................................. 3-8

3.4 Geology and Soils .................................... 3-9

3.4.1 General Geology ................................... 3-10

3.4.2 Soils ....................... ............ 3-10

3.4.3 Geologic Natural Resources ............................. 3-17

3.4.4 Seismic Hazard ................................... 3-17

3.4.5 Volcanic Hazard ................................... 3-18

3.5 Water Resources ......... .. 3-18

3.5.1 Surface Water Resources ........................... 3-18

3.5.1.1 Regional Drainage ........................... 3-18

3.5.1.2 Local Drainage ........................... 3-19

3.5.1.3 Flood Plains ........................... 3-21

3.5.1.4 Surface Water Quality ........................ 3-23

3.5.2 Groundwater Resources ........................... 3-24

3.5.2.1 Local Hydrogeology .......................... 3-24

3.5.2.2 Vadose Zone Hydrology ...................... 3-26

3.5.2.3 Perched Water ........................... 3-27

3.5.2.4 Subsurface Water Quality ..................... 3-27

3.5.3 Water Use and Rights ........................... 3-33

3.6 Ecological Resources ........... ... 3-34

3.6.1 Plant Communities and Associations ......... ............. 3-34

3.6.2 Animal Communities ................................... 3-35

3.6.3 Aquatic Fauna ................................... 3-37

3.6.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ............ 3-38

3.6.5 Wetlands ................................... 3-38

3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality .......................... 3-40

3.7.1 Meteorology and Climatology .................... 3-40

3.7.2 Air Quality and Emissions ......... ........... 3-44

3.7.2.1 Introduction to Air Quality .................. 3-44

3.7.2.2 Nonradiological Conditions .................. 3-44

3.7.2.2.1 Sources of Nonradiological

Air Emissions . 3-46

3.7.2.2.2 Existing Nonradiological Conditions ... 3-47

3.7.2.2.3 Onsite Conditions ................. 3-47

3.7.2.2.4 Offsite Conditions ................. 3-49

3.7.2.2.5 Summary of Nonradiological

Air Quality ................... 3-53

vi
CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page

3.7.2.3 Radiological Air Quality ....................... 3-55

3.7.2.3.1 Sources of Radiation ...... ......... 3-56

3.7.2.3.2 Existing Radiological Conditions ...... 3-56

3.7.2.3.3 Summary of Radiological Conditions 3-60

3.8 Noise ..... 3-60

3.9 Cultural, Historical, Archaeological, Ethnographical, and

Paleontological Resources ..... 3-61

3.9.1 Cultural Resources . . . .3-61

3.9.2 Historical Resources . . . .3-62

3.9.3 Archaeological Resources . . . .3-62

3.9.4 Ethnographical Resources . . ............................. 3-63

3.9.4.1 Early Native American Cultures . .3-63

3.9.4.2 Native American and Euroamerican Interactions ... 3-64

3.9.4.3 Contemporary Cultural Practices and

Resource Management . . .3-64

3.9.5 Paleontological Resources . . . .3-65

3.10 Visual/Scenic Resources .......... .. . . 3-66

3.11 Socioeconomics ..... 3-66

3.11.1 Population and Housing . . .3-67

3.11.2 Employment and Income . . . .3-67

3.11.3 Community Services . . . .3-71

3.11.4 Public Finance . . . ............ 3-73

3.12 Environmental Justice.. ........... 3-74

3.12.1 Community Characteristics . . .3-74

3.12.2 Distribution of Minority and Low-Income Populations ... 3-74

3.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety . .. .. 3-75

3.13.1 Public Health ..... 3-75

3.13.2 Occupational Health and Safety . . . .3-81

3.14 Waste Management ..... 3-81

3.15 References ..... 3-84

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................... 4-1

4.1 Land Use Impacts .. 4-1

4.2 Transportation Impacts .. 4-2

4.2.1 SNF Transfer from Interim Storage to the Proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility .4-2

4.2.2 Shipment of SNF to a Proposed Geologic Repository .4-3

4.3 Geological and Soils Impacts .. 4-4

4.4 Water Resources Impacts ...................... 4-4

4.4.1 Water Quality Impacts .4-4

4.4.2 Water Use Impacts .4-5

4.5 Ecological Impacts .. 4-6

4.6 Air Quality Impacts .. 4-7

vii
CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page

4.6.1 Construction .................. ......... 4-7

4.6.1.1 Nonradiological Impacts ....................... 4-7

4.6.1.2 Radiological Impacts .......................... 4-8

4.6.2 Operations .................. ......... 4-9

4.6.2.1 Nonradiological Impacts ....................... 4-9

4.6.2.2 Radiological Impacts ......................... 4-10

4.7 Noise Impacts . ... 4-10

4.8 Cultural, Historical, Archaeological, Ethnographical, and

Paleontological Resources .. . . 4-11

4.8.1 Impacts to Historical Resources .. 4-12

4.8.2 Impacts to Archaeological Resources .. 4-12

4.8.3 Impacts to Ethnographical Resources .. 4-13

4.8.4 Impacts to Paleontological Resources .. 4-13

4.9 Visual/Scenic Impacts .. . . 4-14

4.10 Socioeconomical Impacts .. . . 4-14

4.11 Environmental Justice Impacts .. . . 4-16

4.12 Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts . . . . 4-18

4.12.1 Normal Operations ...... ... .... 4-19

4.12.1.1 Nonradiological Impacts ......... ............. 4-19

4.12.1.2 Normal Operations-Radiological Impacts ........ 4-20

4.12.1.2.1 Public Health and Safety Impacts ..... 4-20

4.12.1.2.2 Occupational Health and

Safety Impacts ........ ........... 4-22

4.12.2 Off-Normal Operations ........ ... ..... 4-24

4.12.3 Accident Analysis ........ ... ..... 4-28

4.12.4 External Events ........... ..... 4-32

4.12.4.1 Flooding Hazards ........................... 4-32

4.12.4.2 Aircraft Impact Hazards ....................... 4-35

4.12.4.3 Volcanic Hazards ............................ 4-36

4.12.4.4 Seismic Hazards ............................ 4-37

4.12.4.5 Extreme Wind and Wind-Generated Missiles ...... 4-39

4.12.4.6 Wildfires ................................. 4-41

4.13 Waste Management Impacts ................ .................... 4-41

4.14 Cumulative Impacts ........................................... 4-44

4.14.1 Incremental Impacts of the Proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility .......................................... 4-46

4.14.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .... 4-46

4.14.3 Magnitude and Significance of Cumulative Effects .... ........ 4-48

4.15 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative .................. ............. 4-57

4.16 Decontamination and Decommissioning .......... .. ................ 4-57

4.17 References .................................................. 4-60

5 MITIGATION MEASURES .................... ......................... 5-1

5.1 Mitigation Measures During Construction and Operation ..... ........... 5-1

viii
CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page

5.2 Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs Conducted

by Other Agencies ................................... 5-1

5.2.1 Effluent Monitoring Program . . .5-3

5.2.1.1 Radiological Effluents . .5-3

5.2.1.2 Nonradiological Effluents . .5-3

5.2.2 Drinking Water Program . . .5-4

5.2.3 Storm Water Monitoring Program. . . 5-4

5.2.4 Site Environmental Surveillance Program . . .5-4

5.2.5 Offsite Environmental Surveillance Program . . .5-4

5.2.6 U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Monitoring Program ... 5-5

5.2.7 Meteorological Monitoring Program . . .5-5

5.2.8 State of Idaho/INEEL Oversight Program . . .5-5

5.3 References ............ 5-6

6 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND

MONITORING PROGRAMS .6-1

6.1 Radiological Monitoring .. 6-1

6.1.1 Preoperational Radiological Monitoring .6-1

6.1.2 Operational Radiological Monitoring .6-3

6.2 Nonradiological Monitoring .. 6-3

6.2.1 Preoperational Monitoring .6-3

6.2.2 Operational Monitoring .6-5

6.3 References .. 6-6

7 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS .7-1

7.1 Costs Associated with the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility .... 7-1

7.1.1 Costs Associated with Construction Activities . . .7-1

7.1.2 Costs Associated with Operational Activities . . .7-1

7.1.3 Costs Associated with Decontamination and Decommissioning .. 7-2

7.1.3.1 Radiological Decommissioning Costs . .7-2

7.1.3.2 Nonradiological Decommissioning Costs . .7-2

7.1.4 Other Costs Associated with the Proposed Action ... 7-3

7.1.5 Impact of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility on the

Programmatic Costs of SNF Management at INEEL ... 7-5

7.2 Benefits Associated with the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility .... 7-6

7.3 References . . . .7-6

8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .8-1

8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .8-1

8.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity. 8-4

8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments. 8-4

8.4 References .8-5

ix
CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page

9 INDEX ..................... 9-1

10 LIST OF PREPARERS ................. 10-1

11 DISTRIBUTION ................. 11-1

APPENDIXES

A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING PROCESS-SCOPING

SUMMARY REPORT .A-1

B CONSULTATION LETTERS .B-1

C DETAILED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT .C-1

D RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS .D-1

x
FIGURES

Figure Page

1-1 Location of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility .......................... 1-3

2-1 Location of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility .......................... 2-3

2-2 Site Plan for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility ......................... 2-5

2-3 Schematic Storage Vault Configuration for the Proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility . ........................................................ 2-6

3-1 Regional Location of INEEL ............................................ 3-2

3-2 Current Land Use at INEEL ............................................ 3-3

3-3 Location of Major Operating Facilities on INEEL ............................ 3-5

3-4 Volcanic Zones on the Eastern Snake River Plain .......................... 3-11

3-5 Historical Seismicity in the Region Surrounding INEEL ...................... 3-12

3-6 Surface Drainages Associated with the Big Lost River System ..... ........... 3-20

3-7 Predicted Inundation Area at INEEL for a Probable Maximum Flood Event with

Overtopping of the Mackay Dam ....................................... 3-22

3-8 Regional Groundwater Flow in the Snake River Plain Aquifer Beneath INEEL .... 3-25

3-9 Approximate Location of Wildfires at INEEL ............................... 3-36

3-10 General Surface Topography in the Vicinity of the Proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility . ........................................................ 3-41

3-11 Annual Average Wind Direction and Wind Speed at Meteorological Stations

on INEEL . ........................................................ 3-42

3-12 Offsite Environmental Radiological Monitoring and Sampling Locations .... ..... 3-59

3-13 1995 Employment by Sector in the Seven-County Region of Influence .3-72

3-14 Minority Population Distribution within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility .3-76

3-15 Low-Income Population Distribution within 80 km [50 mu of the Proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility . .................................................. 3-77

4-1 INEEL Facilities and Surrounding Communities ............................ 4-15

4-2 INTEC Area Maximum Radiological Dose for Maximum Hypothetical

Dose Accident ...................................................... 4-33

4-3 INEEL Area Maximum Radiological Dose for Maximum Hypothetical

Dose Accident ...................................................... 4-34

6-1 Preoperational Environmental Radiation Monitoring Locations at the Proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility . ............................................. 6-2

6-2 Operational Environmental Radiation-Monitoring Locations at the Proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility . .............................................. 6-4

xi
TABLES

Table Page

2-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

and the No-Action Alternative .2-10

3-1 Baseline Traffic for Selected Highway Segments in the Vicinity of INEEL .3-8

3-2 Annual Average Shipments to and from INEEL (1998-2001) by Type of Cargo

and Transportation Mode ............................................... 3-9

3-3 Idaho Spent Fuel Site Soil Contamination Screening Results ..... ............ 3-14

3-4 Monitoring Parameters That Were Exceeded for INTEC Surveillance Wells ...... 3-30

3-5 Maximum Concentrations of Inorganics and Radionuclides in the Snake River

Plain Aquifer in the Vicinity of INTEC ........ ............................ 3-31

3-6 Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, Species of Concern, and Other

Unique Species That Occur, or Possibly Occur, on INEEL ..... .............. 3-39

3-7 Overview of Federal, State, and DOE Programs for Air Quality Management ..... 3-45

3-8 Highest Predicted Concentrations of Toxic Air Pollutants at Onsite Locations for

the Maximum Baseline Case at INEEL Including Anticipated Increases .... ..... 3-48

3-9 Ambient Air Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants from the Combined Effects of

Maximum Baseline Emissions and Projected Increases ..... ................ 3-50

3-10 Highest Predicted Concentrations of Carcinogenic Air Pollutants at Site Boundary

Locations for the Maximum Baseline Case at INEEL, Including Anticipated ...... 3-51

3-11 Highest Predicted Concentrations of Noncarcinogenic Air Pollutants at Site

Boundary and Public Road Locations for the Maximum Baseline Case at INEEL .. 3-52

3-12 PSD Increment Consumption at Distant Class I Areas by Sources Subject to

PSD Regulation ......................... 3-54

3-13 PSD Increment Consumption at the Craters of the Moon Class I Areas by

Sources Subject to PSD Regulation ........ ................. 3-55

3-14 PSD Increment Consumption at Class II Areas at INEEL by Sources Subject to

PSD Regulation .......... ;. 3-56

3-15 Summary of Airborne Radionuclide Emissions (in Curies) for 1999 and 2000 from

Facility Areas at INEEL ............................................... 3-57

3-16 Population of the INEEL Region of Influence and Idaho: 1980-2025 .... ....... 3-68

3-17 Region of Influence Housing Characteristics (Year 2000) ...... .............. 3-69

3-18 Historical Trends in Region of Influence Labor Force ...... .................. 3-69

3-19 Historical Trends in Region of Influence Employment ...... ................. 3-70

3-20 Historical Trends in Region of Influence Unemployment Rates ..... ........... 3-70

3-21 INEEL Tax Support to Southeastern Idaho Counties (in Millions of 1998

Dollars) Rates . ..................................................... 3-73

3-22 Population and Selected Socioeconomic Statistics for All Incorporated Cities and

Census-Designated Places within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed Idaho .... ..... 3-78

3-23 Sources and Contributions to the U.S. Average Individual Radiation Dose ....... 3-79

3-24 Annual Dose to Individuals from Exposure to Routine Airborne Releases

at INEEL . ........................................... ........... 3-80

3-25 Estimated Increased Health Effects Because of Routine Airborne Releases

at INEEL .......................................................... 3-80

3-26 Summary of Waste Volumes Awaiting Treatment and Disposal at INEEL .... .... 3-82

.xiii
TABLES (continued)

Table Page

4-1 Impacts at Public Access Locations from Projected Construction Fugitive Dust

Emissions for Alternative B Spent Nuclear Fuel Program ..... ................ 4-8

4-2 Impacts at Public Access Locations from Projected Construction Vehicle

Emissions for Alternative B Spent Nuclear Fuel Program .4-9

4-3 Radiological Protection Design Criteria .4-19

4-4 Proposed Chemical Uses and Quantities for the Proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility .4-21

4-5 Comparison of the Estimated Annual Dose to the Public with the Relevant

Regulatory Limits and Natural Background .4-22

4-6 Radionuclides That Contribute to Calculated Dose at Frenchman's Cabin .4-23

4-7 Comparison of the Anticipated Annual Occupational Dose during Construction

with the Relevant Regulatory Limits and Natural Background .4-23

4-8 Off-Normal Event Evaluated .4-25

4-9 Accident Analysis for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility .4-29

4-10 Elevation of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Relative to the Probable

Maximum Flood .4-35

4-11 Estimated Concentrations of Principal Radionuclides in Liquid Waste .4-43

4-12 Estimated Volumes of Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste .4-44

4-13 Summary of the Cumulative Effects Concerns Related to Past Actions .4-47

4-14 Current Actions and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Identified in the

DOE Programmatic EIS on SNF and Included in the Projected Baseline .4-49

4-15 Summary of Current Actions and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Identified in the Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition .4-51

4-16 Maximum Impact from Other Past, Present and Reasonably

Foreseeable Projects .4-52

5-1 Summary of Potential Impacts and Potential Mitigation Measures .5-2

7-1 Estimated Decommissioning Costs .7-3

7-2 Costs Associated with a Generic Dry Fuel Storage Facility/Fuel Receiving,

Canning/Characterization, and Shipping Project .7-4

xiv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering whether to issue a license,

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 72, that would result in construction and operation of an independent

spent nuclear fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) in southeast Idaho. This action would be taken in response

to an application filed with the NRC by the Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWENC)

on November 19, 2001. To support its licensing decision on the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility, NRC determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required by the NRC

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-imrplementing regulations in 10 CFR Part 51.

During the last 40 years, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies

have generated, transported, received, stored, and reprocessed spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at

DOE facilities nationwide. Part of this SNF originated from non-DOE domestic licensed

facilities, including training, research, and test reactors at universities; commercial reactors; and

government-owned installations, including U.S. Navy reactors for which DOE has contractual

obligations to accept SNF. Most of the SNF at INEEL, originally destined for reprocessing, is

currently stored in conditions acceptable only for short-term storage. Current'storage at INEEL

consists of aging above-ground facilities, including wet storage pools, and dry underground

storage facilities. The potential for deterioration and leakage of current SNF storage facilities is

a concern due to their location over the Snake River Plain Aquifer, a major water source for

the region.

A Settlement Agreement dated October 17, 1995, among the DOE, the U.S. Navy, and the

State of Idaho established schedules for SNF and radioactive waste management activities at

INEEL, including, among other things, the transfer and dry storage of SNF until it can be

removed from Idaho. As part of the DOE effort to meet terms of this 1995 Settlement

Agreement, DOE contracted with FWENC to design, license, construct, and operate the

proposed ISFSI at INEEL to provide interim dry storage for portions of the SNF currently in

storage. The SNF to be stored at the proposed ISFSI includes SNF resulting from operation of

the Peach Bottom Unit 1 nuclear power reactor, which was licensed by the Atomic Energy

Commission and operated between 1966 and :1974. SNF from the Shippingport Light Water

Breeder Reactor, which ceased operation in 1982, and SNF from training, research, and isotope

research reactors built by General Atomic (TRIGA reactors) are also to be stored at the

proposed ISFSI.

In 1995, DOE published a record of decision based on NEPA analyses associated with its SNF

management program. One project to manage SNF at INEEL is described in the record of

decision as a dry fuel storage facility to accommodate receipt and storage of various fuel types

currently in inventory at INEEL and the fuels projected to be received. The ISFSI proposed by

FWENC is designed to meet these requirements for dry fuel storage. The proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility, which this EIS addresses, would be located on the INEEL property adjacent

to the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) facilities.

xv
THE PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action considered in this EIS is the construction, operation, and decommissioning

of an ISFSI. On November 19, 2001, FWENC filed an application with NRC for a license to

receive, package, transfer, and store SNF at an ISFSI at the INEEL in Butte County, Idaho.

This new installation, if approved, will be situated on a 3.2-ha [8-acre] site located adjacent to

the INTEC facility, about 4.8 km [3 mi] north of the INEEL Central Facilities Area. The proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be designed, constructed, and operated by FWENC per

contract to DOE. DOE has leased the site to FWENC for the planned operating life of

the installation.

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would store SNF and process associated radioactive

material such as steel and aluminum cylinders and other internal support structures from the

Peach Bottom Unit 1 High-Temperature, Gas-Cooled Reactor; the Shippingport Light Water

Breeder Reactor; and various TRIGA reactors. All the commercial SNF (Peach Bottom and

Shippingport) and slightly more than two-thirds (1,100 of 1,600 elements) the TRIGA SNF is

currently stored within INTEC. Potential locations for the remaining TRIGA fuel and potential

environmental impacts of its transport to INEEL have previously been evaluated by DOE in an

earlier programmatic EIS for SNF management and documented in the DOE records

of decision.

If NRC approves the FWENC license application, DOE would transfer the SNF to the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility when that facility becomes operational. These transfers would occur

completely within the boundaries of the INEEL site and would comply with INEEL procedures

and DOE requirements. On arrival at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, the SNF would be

(i) removed from the containers in which it is currently stored, (ii) visually inspected,

(iii) inventoried, (iv) placed into new storage containers, and (v) placed into interim storage. The

storage containers are intended to be packaged for transportation and shipped to a repository

when it becomes available. The potential environmental impacts of onsite SNF transfers within

INEEL have been documented by DOE in earlier NEPA documents, and the DOE Idaho

Operations Office will use an environmental checklist to verify whether the actual impacts are

within the expected range.

If approved, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would receive, repackage, and provide

interim dry storage for

* 1,601.5 elements of Peach Bottom reactor SNF;

* 2,971 rods of Shippingport reactor SNF; and

* About 1,600 elements of TRIGA SNF.

The Peach Bottom and Shippingport reactors ceased operations in 1974 and 1982. Because of

the lengthy cooling period since final operation, these fuels produce relatively low decay heat

compared to typical commercial SNF. The TRIGA SNF originated from TRIGA reactors

worldwide. Although the age of the TRIGA SNF varies, the SNF generates low decay heat

because of the design and operational characteristics of the TRIGA reactors.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose and need for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are to implement, in part, that

portion of the DOE SNF management and INEEL record of decision concerning construction of

a dry SNF storage facility. This facility also would allow DOE to satisfy, in part, its commitments

Xvi
in the 1995 Settlement Agreement to procure dry storage facilities to replace wet storage,

below-ground facilities, prepare SNF for disposal, and complete removal of all SNF from the

state by 2035. These objectives would be accomplished at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility by

* Receiving SNF generated at the Peach Bottom Unit 1 High-Temperature Gas-Cooled

Reactor; the Shippingport Light Water Breeder Reactor, and various TRIGA reactors;

* Transferring SNF from the current DOE storage facilities at INTEC into new storage

containers; and

* Placing the storage containers into an ISFSI licensed by NRC per 10 CFR Part 72.

Additionally, DOE specified the canister dimensions in its original request for proposal for the

construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Storage Facility to meet the anticipated criteria of

a national high-level waste (HLW) geologic repository and facilitate eventual removal of the SNF

from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and INEEL.

ALTERNATIVES

The DOE effort to manage the national issue of SNF involved evaluation of many national

alternatives: No Action, Decentralization, 1992/1993 Planning Basis for INEEL and the

Savannah River site, Regionalization, and Centralization. The 1995 DOE programmatic SNF

EIS identified Regionalization by Nuclear Fuel Type as the preferred national SNF management

alternative. Consistent with these national alternatives, alternatives considered for the INEEL

environmental restoration and waste management program included No Action; Ten-Year Plan;

Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal; and Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal.

In its record of decision, DOE designated Regionalization by Nuclear Fuel Type as the preferred

programmatic alternative for management of SNF. The record of decision also announced the

DOE decision to implement a modified version of the Ten-Year Plan, including construction of a

dry fuel storage facility and other site-specific environmental restoration and waste management

actions at INEEL. The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is considered by DOE to implement

the dry fuel storage facility identified in the modified Ten-Year Plan.

In addition to the proposed action to construct the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, this EIS includes

analysis of the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative, NRC would not approve

the FWENC license'application, and the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would not be built.

DOE would continue to store the SNF from the Peach Bottom Unit 1 High-Temperature,

Gas-Cooled Reactor, the light water breeder reactor spent fuel from the Shippingport Light

Water Breeder Reactor, and the TRIGA reactor SNF at their current locations within INTEC.

Remaining TRIGA reactor fuel would continue to be shipped and stored at INEEL as identified

in previous DOE records of decision. As necessary, the current storage facilities would be

modified to accommodate the extended storage time. Other SNF activities would continue as

described in the 1995 DOE programmatic SNF EIS.' Other activities at the INTEC facility would

continue as described in other DOE NEPA analyses.

Dry fuel storage is the alternative preferred by DOE for SNF consolidation and management

at INEEL. In developing design' criteria for the proposed dry storage facility at INEEL, DOE

specified operational performance characteristics and specific design criteria such as container

xvii
dimensions, year-round operation, storage containers that can be transported by truck or rail,

personnel and public exposure limits, and minimization of decommissioning activities. In

evaluating design approaches, DOE considered both cost and value to the government. Based

on these objectives and criteria, DOE selected the FWENC design for the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility. Other alternatives to dry storage considered in previous DOE NEPA

analyses either did not meet programmatic objectives or did not meet terms of the 1995

Settlement Agreement. Based on previous DOE and NRC NEPA analyses and comments

received during the public scoping period, the proposed action alternative and the no-action

alternatives are likely to bound the impacts of dry fuel storage at INEEL, and only these

alternatives are evaluated in this EIS.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternatives are

evaluated in this EIS and summarized in the following paragraphs. Detailed discussion of the

potential impacts is included in Section 4 of this EIS. The environmental impacts from the

proposed action are generally small and will be mitigated by methods described in Section 5.

Monitoring methods are described in Section 6.

The NRC has established guidance for assessing environmental impacts at one of three

significance levels:

Small Impact: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

Moderate Impact: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

Large Impact: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.

Land Use

Small Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

would occur on a 3.2-ha [8-acre] facility site and an adjoining 4.1-ha [10-acre] laydown area.

The 7.3 ha [18 acres] are adjacent to INTEC, a large existing industrial facility at INEEL. The

proposed site is currently in use as a laydown area and has been disturbed previously by other

construction activities and land uses. Operational impacts include restricted access to the

3.2-ha [8-acre] facility site and the use of the site for SNF receiving, packaging, and storage.

Transportation

Small Impact. Operational impacts are related to transfer of the currently stored SNF at INTEC,

distances of 800 m [2,600 ft] or less, to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Shipments

would be made in DOE-supplied casks loaded on trailers. Movement of the SNF within INEEL

and the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be conducted in accordance with the DOE

procedures and orders for SNF transfers within the INEEL complex.

xviii
Geology and Soils

Small ImDact. Construction-related impacts to soil would occur on the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site and,

to some extent, on the 4.1-ha [10-acre] laydown area. Excavation, earthmoving, and grading

would occur on the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site. Preconstruction surveys conducted in 2001 indicate no

contamination above regulatory limits at the site. No construction or operational impacts would

occur on mineral deposits or unique geological resources.

Water Resources

Small ImDact. Construction impacts would be small to the quality of both surface water and

groundwater. An existing storm water pollution prevention plan is in effect at INEEL to minimize

surface runoff impacts. Water used for construction-phase dust control would evaporate or

seep into surface soils. The proposed site is 140 to 146 m [460 to 480 ftj above the Snake

River Plain Aquifer. Facility water requirements would be met through the existing water supply

at the INTEC facility. There are no planned liquid effluents for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility, and sanitary wastewater treatment requirements would be met via existing

INTEC facilities. Because no new groundwater wells or percolation ponds would be developed

for the proposed facility, groundwater contamination is unlikely. During the first year of

construction, about 1.5 million L [396,000 gal] of water would be used for dust suppression, with

an additional 1.91 million L [505,000 gal] estimated for concrete production at the site. During

the second year of construction, it is estimated that water needs will be reduced by half.

Routine water usage during operation would be about 141,950 Umo [37,500 gal/mo]. Water

usage for nonroutine operations such as emergency showers and decontamination is estimated

to be less than 19,700 L [5,200 gal]. These amounts are a small fraction of the 7.4 billion L [2.0

billion gal] used annually at INEEL and the annual withdrawal of 43 billion L [11.4 billion gal]

permitted by the DOE and State of Idaho Water Rights Agreement.

Ecological Resources

Small Impact. No significant impacts to ecological resources are anticipated from the

construction and operation of the proposed facility.; There are no wetlands or habitats for

threatened or endangered plant or animal species at the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site or the 4.1-ha

[10-acre] laydown area. Secondary impacts on wildlife from noise and various human activities

associated with the proposed action are expected to be localized, temporary, and small.

Consultafions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been completed.

Air Quality

Small Impact. Construction-related fugitive dusts and exhaust emissions would be temporary

and highly localized. With construction phase watering, the fugitive dusts and particulates

would be about 8.2 metric tons [9 tons]; this amount is small in relation to the INEEL emission

inventory for particulates. No significant impacts to radiological air quality are anticipated from

construction activities. During operation, there would be no chemical air discharges, and the

vehicular exhausts would be small and within applicable regulatory limits. Therefore, no

significant impacts to nonradiological air quality are anticipated. Facility operations are not

expected to result in the atmospheric discharge of significant amounts of gaseous radioactive

effluents. The proposed facility would be fully enclosed and would include a special ventilation

xix
system along with high efficiency particulate air filters. Monitoring of stack emissions for

particulate radionuclides, iodine-129, and tritium (hydrogen-3) would be used to warn of

any releases.

Noise

Small Impact. Construction-phase noise levels would be typical of industrial areas; further, they

would be temporary and highly localized. Noise from construction and operational traffic would

be small in relation to existing traffic noise levels in the INTEC area. Potential noise levels from

operations would be less than those from construction. Hearing protection would be required

for workers per Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. No unique noise

receptors are in the vicinity of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Therefore, noise impacts

are not expected to be significant.

Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources

Small Impact. There are no known historical, cultural, or paleontological resources within the

3.2-ha [8-acre] site and the 4.1-ha [10-acre] laydown area. Consultations with the Idaho State

Historic Preservation Officer have been completed. Thirty-eight buildings and structures within

INTEC are potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, however, only two of

these structures are near the area that would be affected by the construction of the proposed

facility and the transfer of SNF. The proposed facility would not introduce a built environment in

a pristine natural setting. There are potential cumulative effects from withdrawal of access by

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to the proposed 7.3-ha [18-acre] site, but these lands are

already contained within the limited access buffer area around INTEC.

Visual/Scenic Resources

Small Impact. Because of its smaller scale in relation to the adjacent INTEC facilities,

construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would not cause visual

impacts to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Class IV rating for the INTEC area. Fugitive

dusts and exhaust emissions from construction would not impair the BLM Class IlIl rating of

lands adjacent to INEEL, nor would the minimal releases of radioactive particulates and gases

during operations. No significant visual or scenic impacts are anticipated.

Socioeconomic

Small Impact. Construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would last about 2 years.

This phase would employ a maximum of 250 workers, about 3 percent of the current INEEL

workforce of 8,100. Because of the relatively small number of construction workers, and since

most workers will likely come from the existing INEEL workforce, the construction phase would

not have significant impacts on population growth, employment levels, housing, and

infrastructure. For the first 3 years of operation, when fuel receipt and packaging occurs, nearly

60 employees would be required. Storage operations beyond the first 3 years would likely

require fewer workers. Most operations staff will be from the local INEEL workforce. Again, no

significant impacts are expected on the various features of the socioeconomic environment.

xx
Environmental Justice'--

Small Impact. The minority population near INEEL is predominately Hispanic, American Indian,

and Asian; these groups compose about 12 percent of the population within an 80-km [50-mi]

radius. Based on 200 census data at the census tract level, the low-income population in this

same area composes about 13 percent of the population. Special concerns related to the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have been identified via numerous consultations between Tribal

officials and INEEL officials. Two recent programmatic impact studies prepared by DOE for

INEEL concluded that environmental justice impacts are not significant. Accordingly, because

of the small socioeconomic impacts of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, in general, and

the lack of identified disproportionate impacts in the recent impact studies, it can be concluded

that no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects will occur on

minority and low-income populations.

Public and Occupational Health and Safety

Small Impact. Potential impacts were examined for normal, off-normal, and accident conditions.

For normal operating conditions, no chemical discharges are planned, and a health and safety

program would be in place for the workers. The prim ary pathway for offsite radiation exposure

to the public is from atmospheric emissions of radioactive particulates, iodine-129, tritium, and a

few other radionuclides. Iodine-129 and tritium would contribute nearly 80 percent of the total

estimated dose. The estimated annual dose for the maximally exposed individual at the

southern boundary of INEEL is 3 x 10-7 mSv [3 x 10-5 mrem] from the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility; from all nearby facility operations, the estimated dose is less than 0.0032 mSv

[0.32 mremJ. -The regulatory annual dose limit is 0.1 mSv [10 mrem], and the natural

background annual radiation is 3.6 mSv [360 mrem] in this general area. Therefore, there

would be no significant public radiation impacts during normal operations of the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility. Estimated occupational radiological doses from construction of the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are less than 0.0032 mSv [0.32 mrem] annually to

construction workers. The NRC annual occupational limit is 50 mSv [5,000 mrem], and the

annual natural background radiation dose is 3.6 mSv [360 mrem]. The estimated occupational

dose to SNF-handling workers is 9.1 mSv [910 mrem] annually, with the NRC annual

occupational limit at 50 mSv [5,000 mrem]. The estimated annual radiation dose to all workers

within an 8-km [5-mi] radius is 6.68 x 10-5 mSv [6.68 x 10-3 mrem]. Further analyses were also

made of the public and occupational health and safety impacts of external events such as

flooding, aircraft impact, volcanic hazards, seismic hazards, extreme wind and wind-generated

missiles, and wildfires. Design features and operational practices are expected to minimize the

public and occupational health and safety impacts of these events and accidents.

Waste Management

Small Impact. Small quantities of gaseous, liquid, and solid low-level radioactive waste will be

generated during the SNF receipt and repackaging operations planned for the first 3 years.

Liquid radioactive waste would not be generated during normal operations of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, however, such waste may be generated during nonroutine

decontamination activities or as a result of sprinkler or firefighting water. FWENC estimates no

more than 19,700 L [5,200 galJ of liquid low-level radioactive waste would be generated each

year from nonroutine decontamination activities. A liquid waste processing system would be

.xxi
installed to collect and store such liquid wastes temporarily in two tanks {18,900L [5,000gal]}

and 1,900 L 500 gal], prior to transfer to a licensed treatment facility by a commercial mobile

waste processing contractor. Solid wastes will be disposed of either at the INEEL Radioactive

Waste Management Complex or shipped to an offsite low-level radioactive waste disposal

facility. After the SNF is repackaged and stored, no gaseous releases or liquid or solid

radioactive wastes are anticipated on a regular basis. The INEEL Radioactive Waste

Management Complex has the capacity to handle these small quantities of generated wastes

during the storage period for the repackaged SNF. Overall, waste management activities

associated with the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are designed to limit waste volumes and

maintain exposures as low as reasonably achievable.

MITIGATION MEASURES

The types of impacts and potential mitigation measures are summarized in Section 5 of this EIS.

Mitigation Measures During Construction

Mitigation measures during construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will include

monitoring and best-management practices, such as using water to control fugitive dust and

soil-retention methods to control erosion.

Mitigation Measures During Operation

Using the organizational structure for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, FWENC would be

responsible for operational programs within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site and rely

on the DOE Idaho Operations Office for services, environmental control and management,

security, and emergency planning functions outside the boundaries of the proposed facility. As

the operator of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, FWENC would participate in the INEEL

Monitoring and Surveillance Committee to help coordinate activities among organizations with a

stake in operations at the INEEL facility and also share in the exchange of information related to

monitoring, analytical methodologies, and quality assurance.

The existing environmental monitoring programs on INEEL include

* Effluent Monitoring Program;

* Drinking Water Program;

* Storm Water Monitoring Program;

* Site Environmental Surveillance Program;

* Offsite Environmental Surveillance Program;

* U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Monitoring Program;

* Meteorological Monitoring Program; and

* State of Idaho INEEL Oversight Program.

The FWENC monitoring program for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is discussed in

more detail in Section 6 of this EIS. Preoperational sampling would be used to establish

baselines for both radiological and nonradiological constituents at the proposed site. For

radiological constituents, the operational program would measure direct radiation, airborne

radionuclide concentrations within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site boundaries, and

xxii
-'.- , I  - - ,

radionuclide concentrations in the soil on the proposed site. The environmental sampling for

radionuclides would include thermoluminescent dosimeters at the fence and particulate and gas

sampling at the stack. Additional samplings and analyses would be performed if routine outdoor

surveys show unexpected anomalies or after any incident involving a radioactive spill. The

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, as part of INEEL, would become a part of the INEEL

environmental surveillance program. NRC will prepare a safety evaluation report to provide a

detailed evaluation of the compliance of the monitoring program with the applicable regulations.

SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Costs and benefits of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are estimated based on existing

DOE NEPA analyses and cost information provided in the FWENC license application to NRC.

Detailed analyses of these costs and benefits are included in Section 7 of this EIS.

Costs Associated with Construction Activities

FWENC would design, construct, and initially operate the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

contract with DOE. FWENC estimates construction costs associated with the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility will be about $119.6 million (2001 dollars).

Costs Associated with Operational Activities

After the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is operational, DOE would make payments to

FWENC during the transfer and storage of the first 800 fuel-handling units of SNF. As defined

in the contract, one fuel-handlirig unit is equal to one fuel element for intact SNF. These

amortized capital costs total about S1 19.6 million (2001 dollars). In addition to the amortizing

payments, DOE would also make payments for transfer and storage of the remaining SNF at

specific unit prices for each SNF type. Total payments, inclusive of all fuel types, would be

about $32.5 million (2001 dollars).

Poststorage operation and maintenance of the facility by FWENC would be at the option of

DOE. Pending necessary transfer of the NRC license from FWENC, DOE would have the

contractual option to assume responsibility for the facility after the initial fuel-handling,

packaging, and storage operations. Should DOE desire that FWENC continue as the licensee

during the poststorage operations phase of the project, DOE would pay FWENC about

$1.94 million (2001 dollars) per year.

Costs Associated with Decontamination and Decommissioning

DOE would retain ownership of the SNF and remain financially responsible for the eventual

decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. As part of its

license application to NRC, FWENC provided a proposed decommissioning plan that presents

the estimated cost of dismantling, decontaminating, and decommissioning the site at

$22.6 million (2001 dollars) for radiological decommissioning activities and about $13.2 million

(2001 dollars) for the nonradiological activities associated with site restoration. The radiological

decommissioning cost estimate considers only those costs associated with normal

decommissioning activities necessary for release of the site for unrestricted use in accordance

with the NRC radiological criteria for license termination in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The

xxiii
radiological decommissioning cost estimate does not include those costs associated with SNF

management or the disposal of nonradioactive structures and materials. Cost estimates for

nonradiological decommissioning consider those costs associated with site remediation and

demolition and removal of uncontaminated structures.

Impact of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility on the Programmatic

Costs of SNF Management at INEEL

DOE estimated the programmatic costs of SNF management both with and without the

construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The current life-cycle

cost estimate for sending all SNF managed by DOE at INEEL to a national HLW repository is

$2.815 billion (2001 dollars). This life-cycle cost considers the costs for construction and

operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, plus the predicted cost of implementing any

future modifications or enhancements to the facility necessary to prepare the SNF for shipment

to a national HLW repository.

If the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is not built, the life-cycle cost estimate for sending all

DOE-managed SNF from INEEL to a national HLW repository is estimated to be $3.069 billion

(2001 dollars). This estimate assumes alternative facility approaches (essentially making major

modifications to extend the life of existing facilities) in lieu of the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility. Based on these two estimates, the programmatic benefit to the Federal

government of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is, at a minimum, $251 million

(2001 dollars).

Benefits Associated with the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

Construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would have a minor

positive effect on the regional economy. Socioeconomic benefits include using regional workers

for construction and increased sales for regional suppliers for the duration of construction.

Because the work force would be small relative to the number of employees at INEEL, the

proposed action would not result in a regional growth spurt, and the infrastructure of public

services and transportation systems would not be adversely affected.

The proposed action is designed to support the INEEL mission and comply with agreements

and commitments negotiated by DOE. Currently, most SNF to be received by the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is stored at INTEC. The 1995 Settlement Agreement among DOE, the

State of Idaho, and the U.S. Navy established specific activities required to remove SNF from

Idaho by 2035. Although the current storage configuration has worked well, it does not prepare

the SNF for shipment from INEEL to a national HLW repository. The proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility would provide the ability to remove the SNF from existing storage locations, place it

in specially designed storage containers, then seal and place the loaded containers in interim

storage. The new containers would be designed for compatibility with transportation systems

and with the eventual permanent disposal systems. After the SNF is placed in the containers, it

would not need to be repackaged for shipment to a national HLW repository that

becomes available.

xxiv
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES :

For the no-action alternative, NRC would not grant the license, and the proposed facility would

not be constructed. In this case, DOE would maintain current storage activities as described in

the 1995 DOE programmatic SNF EIS. According to the no-action alternative, SNF stored at

INEEL would be transferred and consolidated at existing facilities at INTEC. During a 3-year

transition period, Naval SNF would continue to be received and stored at INTEC based on

terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. Existing procedures and site-wide plans such as the

INEEL Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan and the INEEL Long-Term Stewardship Strategic

Plan would continue to be implemented by DOE and its contractors. In the short term, no major

upgrades or new facilities would be installed, and minor fuel conditioning would be necessary to

maintain safe operation. Because no new facility would be constructed, short-term impacts to

geological resources; land use; water resources; and ecological, visual/scenic, and cultural

resources would be unchanged from current operations and SNF management activities.

Transportation and storage of the remaining TRIGA reactor fuel would continue per an existing

DOE record of decision.

In the short term, differences between the proposed action and the no-action alternative are

negligible. In the longer term, however, current storage and fuel-handling facilities at INTEC

would be open and operational longer than planned. Ultimately, existing facilities would need to

be modified or facilities similar to those described in the proposed action would need to be built.

For example, the current storage location of Shippingport SNF at the INTEC Irradiated Spent

Fuel Storage Facility would be modified to expand the hot cell and add a load-out facility in lieu

of the availability of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Long-term impacts would be similar

to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, because the SNF must be repackaged before

shipment can occur from INEEL to a national geologic HLW repository.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

After weighing the costs and benefits of the proposed action and comparing alternatives, the

NRC staff recommends that, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the action called for is the

issuance of the proposed license to FWENC. In this regard, NRC has evaluated the

environmental impacts of the proposed action and concluded the anticipated overall benefits of

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility outweigh the potential impacts and costs, based on

consideration of the following:

* The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will have small impacts on the physical

environment and human communities in the vicinity; environmental monitoring and

proposed mitigation measures would eliminate or substantially lessen any potential

adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. In addition,

long-term impacts of the no-action alternative are likely to be similar to the impacts of the

proposed action.

* The proposed action is designed to meet the programmatic needs of INEEL and DOE for

compliance with negotiated agreements and commitments, including the 1995

Settlement Agreement among DOE, the State of Idaho, and the U.S. Navy to remove

SNF from Idaho by 2035.

xxv
* Currently, most SNF to be received by the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is stored

at INTEC. Transfer distances from current storage locations to the proposed facility are

relatively short.

* The current storage configuration does not prepare the SNF for shipment from INEEL to

a national HLW repository. The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will provide the

ability to remove the SNF from existing canisters, place it in specially designed storage

containers, then seal and place the loaded containers in interim storage. The new

containers are designed to be compatible with transportation systems and with the

eventual permanent disposal systems. Hence, once the SNF is placed in the canisters,

it would not need to be repackaged for shipment to a national HLW repository when one

becomes available.

xxvi
ACRONYMS

ALARA

ANS

ANSI

BLM

CNWRA

DOE

EBSLs

EIS

EPA

FWENC

HEPA

HLW

HVAC

IMPROVE

INEEL

INTEC

ISFSI

LMITCO

MEl

NEPA

NPDES

NRC

PM

PRGs

PSD

PSHA

RCRA

SNF

SSCs

TRIGA

as low as is reasonably achievable

American Nuclear Society

American National Standards Institute

Bureau of Land Management

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses

U.S. Department of Energy

ecologically based screening levels

environmental impact statement

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

high efficiency particulate air

high-level waste

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (formerly INEL)

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

independent spent fuel storage installation

Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company

maximally exposed individual

National Environmental Policy Act

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

particulate matter

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Remediation Goals

prevention of significant deterioration

probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

spent nuclear fuel

structures, systems, and components

training, research, and isotope reactors built by General Atomics

xxvii
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering whether to issue a license,

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 72, for construction and operation of an independent spent nuclear fuel

storage installation (SFSI) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

(INEEL) (formerly the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory), which is located in southeast

Idaho. This action would be taken in response to an application filed with NRC by the Foster

Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWENC) on November 19, 2001 (NRC, 2002a). To

support its licensing decision, NRC determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is

required by the NRC National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-implementing regulations in

10 CFR Part 51.

During the last 40 years, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies

have generated, transported, received, stored, and reprocessed spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at the

DOE facilities nationwide. Part of this SNF originated from non-DOE domestic licensed

facilities, including training, research, and test reactors at universities; commercial reactors; and

govemment-owned installations for which DOE has contractual obligations to accept SNF. Most

of the SNF at INEEL, originally destined for reprocessing, is currently stored in conditions only

acceptable for short-term storage. Current storage at INEEL consists of aging aboveground

facilities, including wet storage pools, and dry underground storage facilities. Deterioration of

these SNF facilities is a potential concern because of their location over the Snake River Plain

Aquifer, a major water source for the region.

A Settlement Agreement dated October 17, 1995, among DOE, the U.S. Navy, and the State of

Idaho requires, among other things, the

transfer and dry storage of SNF.until it can be

removed from Idaho. As part of the DOE On October 17,1995, DOE, the U.S. Navy, and

effort to meet terms of this 1995 Settlement - the State of Idaho entered into The 1995

Agreement, the DOE contracted with FWENC Settlement Agreement. This agreement ended

to design, license, construct, and operate the years of litigation between the Federal

proposed ISFSI at INEEL to provide interim government and the state regarding waste

dry storage for portions of the SNF currently removal and environmental cleanup of INEEL in

in storage. The SNF to be stored at the the cases of Public Service Company of in strage.The SF tobe stred a theColor-ado v. Batt, CV-91-0035-S-EJL (. Idaho) proposed ISFSI includes SNF resulting from- and United States v. Ball. CV-91-006SEJL

operation of the Peach Bottom Unit 1 nuclear (D. Idaho). According to terms of The 1995

power reactor, which was licensed byqthe Settlement Agreement, Idaho agreed to allow

Atomic Energy Commission and operated shipments of specified amounts of certain types

between 1966 and 1974. SNF from the of SNF to be received at INEEL and to process

Shippingport Light Water Breeder Reactor, DOE permit applications in a timely manner.

which ceased operation in 1982, and SNF DOE agreed, among other things, to initiate

from training, research, and isotope research procurement of dry storage facilities to replace

reactors built by General Atomic (TRIGA ; wet storage and below-ground facilities, employ

reactors) are also to be stored at the multipurpose canisters to prepare SNF for disliosal, and complete removal of all SNF from proposed ISFSI. the state by 2035.

DOE previously issued a record of decision

(DOE, 1995a) pertaining to its SNF

.1-1
Introduction

management program, later amended to reflect the Settlement Agreement (DOE, 1996a). The

record of decision documents the DOE programmatic decision to pursue the regionalization by

fuel type" and the INEEL site-specific decision to pursue the "modified Ten-Year plan." One

project to manage SNF is described in the record of decision as a dry fuel storage facility that

"will accommodate receipt and storage of various fuel types currently in inventory at the [Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory] and the fuels projected to be received at

the [INEEL]" (DOE, 1995a). The ISFSI proposed by FWENC, which this EIS addresses, will be

located on the INEEL property adjacent to the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering

Center (INTEC) facilities.

The DOE decisions were based, in part, on the information and analyses contained in the final

programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995b). Volume 2 of the DOE programmatic SNF EIS evaluates

potential impacts of the SNF management program at INEEL with additional information on

foreseeable projects, including a generic analysis of a facility similar to the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility.

1.2 The Proposed Action

The proposed action considered in this EIS is the construction, operation, and decommissioning

of an ISFSI. On November 19, 2001, FWENC filed an application with NRC for a license to

receive, package, transfer, and store SNF and other radioactive materials associated with SNF

at an ISFSI at INEEL in Butte County, Idaho. NRC accepted the license application for

docketing in June 2002 (NRC, 2002a). As part of its license application, FWENC submitted an

environmental report and a safety analysis report. These reports and the license application

have been subsequently updated and reissued in response to the NRC requests for additional

information (FWENC, 2003a,b,c). This new installation, if approved, will be on a 3.2-ha [8-acre]

site located adjacent to the INTEC facility, about 4.8 km [3 mi] north of the INEEL Central

Facilities Area (Figure 1-1). The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be designed,

constructed, and operated by FWENC per contract to DOE. DOE has leased the site to

FWENC for the planned operating life of the installation.

The proposed ISFSI, which is referred to herein as the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility,

would store SNF and associated radioactive material from the Peach Bottom Unit 1

High-Temperature, Gas-Cooled Reactor; the Shippingport Light Water Breeder Reactor, and

various TRIGA reactors. All the SNF (Peach Bottom and Shippingport) and slightly more than

two thirds (about 1,100 of 1,600 elements) of the TRIGA SNF is currently stored within INTEC.

Potential locations of the remaining TRIGA fuel and potential environmental impacts of its

transport to INEEL have previously been evaluated by DOE in earlier NEPA documents (DOE,

1995b, Volume 1, Appendix E; 1996b, Volume 1, Section 2) and the associated records of

decision (DOE, 1995a, 1996a,c).

If NRC approves the FWENC license application, DOE plans to transfer the SNF to the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility when that facility becomes operational. These transfers

would occur completely within the boundaries of the INEEL site and would comply with INEEL

procedures and DOE requirements. On arrival at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, the

SNF would be (i) removed from the containers in which it is currently stored, (ii) visually

inspected, (iii) inventoried, (iv) placed into new storage containers, and (v) placed into interim

storage. The storage containers are intended to be packaged for transportation and shipped to

a national high-level waste (HLW) repository when it becomes available. The potential

1-2
Introduction

14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

HTEC/1DAIO SPENT FUEL FACuLITY

SNF ~~ ~ NE

FfNS1WeCTON

LAYDOWN

INTEV

Figure 1-1. Location of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (FWENC, 2003b)

'OILITY

'1-3
Introduction

environmental impacts of onsite SNF transfers within INEEL have been documented by DOE in

earlier NEPA documents (DOE, 1995a,b). The DOE Idaho Operations Office will use an

environmental checklist to verify if the actual impacts are within the expected range

(FWENC, 2003d).

If approved, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will receive, repackage, and provide interim

dry storage for

* 1,601.5 elements of Peach Bottom reactor SNF;

* 2,971 rods of Shippingport reactor SNF; and

* About 1,600 elements of TRIGA SNF.

The Peach Bottom and Shippingport reactors

ceased operations in 1974 and 1982. As defined in 10 CFR 72.3, High-level radioactive

Because of the lengthy cooling period since waste or HLW means (1) the highly radioactive

final operation, these fuels produce relatively material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly low decay heat compared with typical in reprocessing and any solid material derived from

commercial SNF. The TRIGA SNF originated such liquid waste that contains fission products in

from TRIGA reactors worldwide. Although the sufficient concentrations; and (2) other highly

age of the TRIGA SNF varies, it also radioactive material that the Commission, consistent

generates low decay heat because of the with existing law, determines by rule requires

design and operational characteristics of the permanent isolation.

TRIGA reactors. Spent Nuclear Fuel or Spent Fuel (SNF) means

fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor

1 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~following irradiation, has undergone at least one 1.3 Purpose and Need for years decay since being used as a source of energy

the Proposed Action in a power reactor, and has not been chemically separated into its constituent elements by

The purpose and need for the proposed Idaho atreprocessing. SNF includes the special nuclear The an purose need or the ropose Idaho material, byproduct material, source material, and

Spent Fuel Facility is to implement, in part, the other radioactive materials associated with

portion of the DOE SNF management fuel assemblies.

program and INEEL record of decision (DOE, Both HLW and SNF will be disposed of in a HLW

1995a, 1996a) concerning construction of a Bo ro and r F Part 63o a

dry SNF storage facility. Implementation also geologic repository (10 CFR Part 63).

would allow DOE to satisfy, in part, its

commitments in the 1995 Settlement Agreement to procure dry storage facilities to replace wet

storage and below-ground facilities, employ multipurpose canisters to prepare SNF for disposal,

and complete removal of all SNF from Idaho by 2035. These objectives would be accomplished

at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility by

* Receiving SNF generated at the Peach Bottom Unit 1 High-Temperature, Gas-Cooled

Reactor; the Shippingport Light Water Breeder Reactor; and various TRIGA reactors;

* Transferring SNF from the DOE storage containers in which it is currently stored at

INTEC into new storage containers; and

* Placing the storage containers into an ISFSI licensed by NRC per 10 CFR Part 72.

Additionally, DOE specified the canister dimensions in its original request for proposal for the

construction of the Idaho Spent Fuel Storage Facility to meet the anticipated criteria of a

I

1-4
Introduction

national HLW geologic repository and facilitate eventual removal of the SNF from the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and INEEL.

1.4 NRC Regulation of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

On November 19, 2001, FWENC filed an application with NRC for a license per 10 CFR Part 72

to receive, transfer, package, and store SNF and operate an ISFSI at INEEL in Butte County,

Idaho. If approved, the initial term of the license would be for 20 years, with the option for

additional renewals (10 CFR 72.42) (FWENC, 2003c, Appendix A). The NRC decisionmaking

process includes an environmental and safety review of the construction and operation of the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. On completion of both reviews, NRC will decide whether to

grant a license with or without conditions, or deny the FWENC request.

As required in 10 CFR 51.102(a),

any NRC decision on this action Background Information on the NRC Safety Review Process

will be accompanied by a public

record of decision. The record of The NRC safety review of an ISFSI includes the preparation of a record of decisio. The record of detailed report published as a Safety Evaluation Report. This decision may be integrated into publicly available report is based, in part, on the Safety Analysis

any other record prepared by NRC Report submitted by the applicant (i.e., FWENC). The Safety

in connection with the action Evaluation Report also includes the NRC review of technical

[10 CFR 51.103(b)]. issues such as adequacy of the facility design to withstand external events (e.g., earthquakes, floods, and tornadoes);

radiological safety of facility operation, Including doses from The NRC regulations for an ISFSI normal operations and accidents; emergency response plans;

are contained in 10 CFR Part 72. physical security of the facility; fire protection; maintenance and

Compliance with these regulations operating procedures; and decommissioning. NRC also performs

will provide reasonable assurance a detailed safety review of the storage containers against design that the design and operation of criteria contained In 10 CFR Part 72. The NRC standards for that thedesign nd opertion of protection against radiation are contained in 10 CFR Part 20.

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility will provide adequate

protection for public health and safety. The NRC regulations for compliance with NEPA are

contained in 10 CFR Part 51. Consistent with NEPA, the NRC regulations require an EIS be

completed for Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

The NRC previously determined that licensing an away-from-reactor ISFSI requires the

preparation of an EIS [10 CFR 51.20(b)(9)]. Because the proposed location for the Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility is at a site not occupied by a nuclear power reactor, NRC is, therefore, preparing

an EIS for the environmental review associated with this licensing action.

1.5 Scope of This Environmental Analysis

As required by NEPA, NRC used the scoping process to solicit public involvement and

comment, and to identify, in general, the issues that need to be addressed in an EIS. The

scoping process has also helped NRC to identify significant issues requiring indepth analysis.

Such information has been used by NRC in preparing this EIS to support the decision whether

to issue a license to FWENC for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. During the scoping

process, commenters noted that previous NEPA analyses have been prepared by DOE for

INEEL (DOE, 1995b; 2002a) and by NRC for the Three-Mile Island Unit 2 ISFSI situated within

the INTEC facility (NRC, 1998). Based on the scoping process, NRC reviewed the relevant

sections of these previous ElSs in preparing this EIS. Adequacy of the existing NEPA analyses

prepared by DOE and NRC for actions at the INEEL facility (DOE, 1995b, 2002a; NRC, 1998)

1-5
Introduction

has been examined within the context of the proposed action and supplemented and updated

as necessary. Because the scope of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility EIS is limited to

the licensing action now being reviewed by NRC, issues related to decisions already made by

DOE or NRC will be addressed by referencing the appropriate existing NEPA analysis and by

summarizing the information, as appropriate. Development of this EIS has also been closely

coordinated with development of the safety evaluation report prepared by NRC to evaluate the

health and safety impacts of the proposed action.

1.5.1 Issues Studied in Detail

The notice of intent (NRC, 2002b) proposed several areas for detailed discussion in this EIS as

they relate to the proposed action.

* Health and Safety: potential public and occupational consequences from construction,

routine operation, transportation, and credible accident scenarios;

* Waste Management: types of wastes expected to be generated, handled, and stored

and the potential consequences to public safety and the environment;

* Water Resources: surface and groundwater hydrology, water use and quality, and the

potential impacts of the proposed action;

* Air Quality: meteorological conditions, ambient background levels, pollutant sources,

and the potential impacts of the proposed action;

* Earth Resources: physical geography, topography, geology, and soil characteristics;

* Ecological Resources: wetlands, aquatic and terrestrial resources, economically and

recreationally important species, and threatened and endangered species;

* Socioeconomic: demography, economic base, labor pool, housing, transportation,

utilities, public services/facilities, education, recreation, and cultural resources;

* Natural Disasters: floods, tornadoes, volcanic activity, and seismic events;

* Cumulative Effects: impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at

and near the site;

* Indirect Effects: transportation to the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility;

* Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: negative impacts of the proposed action and any

mitigative measures; and

* Environmental Justice: any potential disproportionately high and adverse impacts to

minority and low-income populations.

No additional issues were raised during the public scoping process (Appendix A). Detailed

analysis of the effects of operation of the proposed facility on human health and safety are

considered in the safety evaluation report prepared by NRC.

1-6
Introduction

1.5.2 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study

Issues not directly related to the assessment of potential impacts from the proposed action now

being considered were eliminated from detailed study in this EIS. The lack of indepth

discussion in the EIS, however, does not mean that an issue lacks value. Issues beyond the

scope of this EIS may not yet be ripe for resolution, have already been decided, or are more

appropriately discussed and decided in other venues. Examples of items not analyzed in detail

include health and safety issues that will be considered in detail in the safety evaluation report

prepared by NRC and summarized in this EIS, past DOE decisions related to the management

of SNF at INEEL, and terrorist activities. Other issues that will not be addressed in detail are

* Land Use: The area that would be used for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is

adjacent to the INTEC industrial facility. The area is currently used for construction

laydown and is disturbed from its natural state with only about 5-percent vegetative

cover (FWENC, 2003a). The land is outside areas on INEEL used for grazing and will

not prevent access to areas not already restricted. Only 3.2 ha [8 acres] are to be

committed to the proposed facility, with an additional 4.1 ha [10 acres] to be disturbed as

a construction laydown area. These two areas represent a small percentage of the

2,305-km2 [890-mi2] INEEL.

* Noise: The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be adjacent to an industrial facility

already regulated by INEEL procedures that establish workplace noise limits in

compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. The site is at

least 5 mi [8 km] away from public areas, and noise associated with the construction

and operation of the proposed facility is not expected to exceed current noise levels

at INTEC.

* Scenic and Visual Resources: The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be

adjacent to INTEC, an industrial facility similar in structure and appearance. The site is

at least 8 km [5 mi away from public areas, and neither air emissions associated with

the construction and operation of the proposed facility nor the facility itself are expected

to alter the current visual/aesthetic resources surrounding INTEC.

These issues will be summarized in this EIS, however, detailed analyses will not be conducted,

and readers are referred to existing studies (DOE, 1995b; 2002a).

1.5.3 Scoping Process

1.5.3.1 Scoping for the Draft EIS

On July 26, 2002, NRC published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility (NRC, 2002b). In this notice of intent, NRC announced the public scoping

period would extend until September 16, 2002. Announcements of the scoping process were

provided on the NRC Idaho Spent Fuel Facility web page

(hftp://www.nrc.aov/waste/spent-fuel-storaae/idaho-spent-fuel.html) and in the following

local newspapers:

* The Idaho News, Idaho Falls, Idaho (Sunday, August 4, and Wednesday,

August 7, 2002); and

1-7
Introduction

The Idaho Statesman, Boise, Idaho (Sunday, August 4, and Wednesday,

August 7, 2002).

During the public comment period, NRC received about 15 written comments from

two organizations. The public comments, discussed in the scoping summary report

(Appendix A), were categorized under the following issue headings:

* NEPA Issues;

* Policy Issues;

* Ecology, Air, and Water;

* Cumulative Impacts;

* Human Health Impacts;

* Waste Management;

* Security and Terrorism; and

* INEEL Infrastructure and Existing Conditions.

The scoping process was used to help identify those issues to be discussed in detail in this EIS

(see Section 1.5.1) and those issues that are either beyond the scope of this EIS or are not

directly related to the assessment of potential impacts from the proposed action (see

Section 1.5.2). Additional issues, beyond those identified in the scoping process, will be

discussed in this EIS.

1.5.3.2 Comments on the Draft EIS

NRC issued a draft EIS for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility for public review and

comment on June 26, 2003, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.74 and 40 CFR 1503.1

(NRC, 2003). A 45-day public comment period began at that time as specified in 10 CFR 51.73.

The public comment period ended on August 18, 2003, and NRC received more than

90 written comments.

Each comment letter was carefully reviewed and considered. Comments relating to similar

issues and topics were grouped together and summarized. This type of categorization is

permitted by NRC implementing regulations at 10 CFR 51.91 and Council on Environmental

Quality National Environmental Policy Act regulations at 40 CFR 1503.4(b). The grouping,

including editorial comments, follows the general outline of the draft EIS, and includes

* Editorial comments,

* Introduction,

* Alternatives,

* Description of the Affected Environment,

* Environmental Impacts, and

* Mitigation.

After grouping similar comments, responses were prepared to each of the comments or

summaries of comments.

The grouped comments and the responses are contained in Appendix D of this EIS. When

comments resulted in modifying or supplementing the information presented in the draft EIS,

1-8
Introduction

those changes are noted. In each case, NRC responded to all comments received during the

public comment period. '

1.6 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and

Regional Consultations

There are numerous applicable regulations, Federal and State licenses, permits, and other

approvals required for the protection of the environment in connection with construction and

operation of the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The NRC consultations are documented in

Appendix B. Status of the negotiations between FWENC and the responsible regulatory

agencies is provided in Section 12 of FWENC (2003a).

1.6.1 Applicable Statutes, Regulations, and Permits

1.6.1.1 Federal Statutes and Regulatory Requirements

The following Federal statutes are applicable to the proposed action:

* The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC §2011 et seq.), gives NRC

authority to license and regulate the possession, use, storage and transfer of byproduct

and special nuclear materials to protect public health and safety and the common

defense and security. Section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as

amended (42 USC §5801 et seq.), permits NRC to license and regulate the DOE

facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of HLW resulting from activities

licensed by the Atomic Energy Act. If the license application for the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility is approved, it'will be operated per an NRC license.

* The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC §1996 et seq.) reaffirms

Native American religious freedom in the First Amendment and ensures the protection to

Native Americans to believe, express, and exercise their religious traditions. According

to this law, sacred locations and traditional resources integral to the practice of their

religions, as well as access to those locations, are protected.

* The Archaeological Resources Protection Act, as amended (16 USC §470aa et seq.),

requires a permit for excavation or removal of archaeological resources from publicly

held or Native American lands. If archaeological resources are discovered and

removed, they are to remain the property of the United States. If a resource is found on

land owned by a Native American tribe,' the tribe must give its consent before a permit is

issued, and the permit must contain terms or conditions requested by the tribe.

Because the proposed construction area for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is on

government-owned property and has been Ithoroughly surveyed, it is unlikely that any

unknown sites will be discovered. If any resources are found, however, requirements of

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act will be followed.

* The Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC §7506 et seq.), establishes regulations to

ensure air quality and authorizes individual states to manage permits. Compliance with

the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act 58.01.01 and Rules for the Control of Air

Pollution in Idaho meets Clean Air Act requirements (40 CFR Part 52) for nonradiological

1-9
Introduction

emissions. Radiological emissions to the air are regulated directly through the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants requirements in 40 CFR Part 61.

Section 402(a) of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 USC §344 et seq.), establishes

water quality standards for contaminants in surface waters. The Clean Water Act

requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit before

discharging any point source pollutant into U.S. waters. Although the EPA can delegate

permission, administration, and enforcement of the NPDES program to individual states,

the State of Idaho does not have this delegation. There are no anticipated process

discharges from the proposed facility, however, storm water and snow melt runoff from

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility must be considered as part of the NPDES

permitting process. DOE filed for a Construction General Permit in accordance with

40 CFR Part 122. By its provisions, F'NENC is required to submit a notice of intent

(EPA Form 3510-9) at least 2 days prior to the start of construction. The INEEL facility

maintains storm water pollution prevention plans for industrial and Construction activities

(DOE, 2001, 1998). A site-specific Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

will be developed, but does not need to be submitted to EPA. The proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility is exempt from the industrial activities storm water permit, because it

is not included in EPA-identified sectors or subsectors requiring this permitting process

(EPA, 2000).

The Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 USC §1531 et seq.), is intended to

prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and to restore these

species and their habitats. The Act is jointly administered by the U.S. Departments of

Commerce and the Interior. Section 7 of the Act requires consultation with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service to determine whether endangered and threatened species or their

critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action. The NRC has

completed the consultation process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see

Section 1.6.2 and Appendix B).

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC §3001

et seq.) directs the Secretary of the Interior to administer the development of procedures

and monitor unexpected discoveries of graves or grave-related artifacts that may be

unearthed during ground disturbing activities on Federal or Tribal owned lands. The

proposed location for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is on heavily disturbed land that has

been surveyed for archeological resources. Although it is unlikely that an undiscovered

site will be found, construction activities will be monitored to ensure that requirements of

this Act will be followed in the event that resources are discovered.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

(16 USC §470 et seq.), and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800 protect

cultural and historic resources. If a particular Federal activity may affect historic

properties, consultations with the State Historic Preservation Officer are required to

ensure that potentially significant sites are properly identified and appropriate mitigative

actions implemented. In 2001, the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer was

contacted by the Cultural Resources Management Office at INEEL regarding the

potential construction activities of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. A letter was

sent by the INEEL Cultural Resources Management Office to the Idaho State Historic

1-10
Introduction

Preservation Officer seeking concurrence that the proposed construction activities would

not affect any historic properties. The Idaho State Historic .Preservation Officer replied in

a letter dated May 4, 2001, that the project could be completed with no effect to historic

properties (Idaho State Historical Society, 2001). The NRC has completed its

consultation process with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (see

Section 1.6.2 and Appendix B).

A Memorandum of Agreement was negotiated in 1998 between DOE, Idaho Field Office,

and Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer for the Fuel Receiving and Storage building

(CPP-603) within the INTEC boundaries and was submitted to the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6 (A). The Memorandum of Agreement

recognizes that the Fuel Receiving and Storage building will be "fully or partially

decontaminated and dismantled (D&D) for reasons of environmental concem, human

health and safety, security, and economy." Although the construction of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is not the impetus for the removal of the Fuel Receiving and

Storage building, once the fuel has been transferred from that building to the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, the building will be in a more ready state for removal as

referenced in the Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement states

the stipulations and requirements to be followed before and after the removal of the Fuel

Receiving and Storage building.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (42 USC §10101 et seq.),

authorizes Federal agencies to develop a geologic repository for the permanent disposal

of SNF and HLW. The Act specifies the process for selecting a repository site and

constructing, operating, closing, and decommissioning the repository. DOE would apply

for an NRC license according to regulations in 10 CFR Part 63. SNF that would be

stored at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would eventually be transported to a

repository that becomes available, in accordance with the DOE shipment schedules.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (29 USC §651 et seq.),

establishes standards to enhance safe and healthy working conditions in places of

employment throughout the United States. The Act is administered and enforced by the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a U.S. Department of Labor agency.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration jurisdiction is limited to safety and

health conditions that exist-in the workplace environment. In general, per the Act, it is

the duty of each employer to furnish all employees with a place of employment free of

recognized hazard likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Employees have a

duty to comply with the occupational safety and health standards and all rules,

regulations, and orders issued according to the Act. Occupational Safety and Health

Administration regulations (published in Title 29 of the U.S.- Code of Federal

Regulations) establish specific standards for a safe and healthful working environment.

DOE places emphasis on compliance with these regulations at DOE facilities and

prescribes through DOE orders the Occupational Safety and Health Act standards

that contracts shall meet, as applicable to the work at government-owned,

contractor-operated facilities. DOE keeps and makes available the various records

of minor illnesses, injuries, and work-related deaths required by Occupational Safety

and Health Administration regulations.

1-11
Introduction

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended (42 USC §692

et seq.), requires EPA to establish standards for hazardous waste generators. As

identified in 40 CFR Part 272, compliance with the requirements of the Idaho Hazardous

Waste Management Program (Idaho Administrative Procedures Act 58.01.05) will meet

requirements for permission, administration, and enforcement of RCRA.

The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended [42 USC §300 (F) et seq.), is intended to

protect the quality of the public water supplies and sources of drinking water. The

implementing regulations, administered by the EPA unless delegated to the states,

establish standards applicable to public water systems. Other programs established by

the Safe Drinking Water Act include the Sole Source Aquifer Program, the Wellhead

Protection Program, and the Underground Injection Control Program. The Snake River

Plain Aquifer below INEEL and the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is classified as a

sole source aquifer.

* Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs Federal agencies to establish

procedures to ensure that the potential effects of flood hazards and floodplain

management are considered for any action undertaken in a floodplain and that floodplain

impacts be avoided to the extent practicable.

* Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) directs Federal agencies to achieve

environmental justice by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and

its territories and possessions. The Order creates an Interagency Working Group on

Environmental Justice and directs each Federal agency to develop strategies within

prescribed time limits to identify and address environmental justice concerns. The Order

further directs each Federal agency to collect, maintain, and analyze information on the

race, national origin, income level, and other readily accessible and appropriate

information for areas surrounding facilities or sites expected to have a substantial

environmental, human health, or economic effect on the surrounding populations, when

such facilities or sites become the subject of a substantial Federal environmental

administrative or judicial action, and to make such information publicly available.

* Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) directs Federal agencies, to the extent

permitted by law and not inconsistent with agency missions, to avoid adverse effects to

sacred sites and to provide access to these sites to Native Americans for traditional

religious practices.

* Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)

directs Federal agencies to establish consistent consultation and collaboration with tribal

governments in the development of Federal policies that are relative to tribal interests, to

strengthen relationships between Federal and tribal governments, and to maintain

significant communications.

1-12
Introduction

1.6.1.2 State Licenses and Permits

Prior to submitting the November 2001 license application to NRC, FWENC consulted with the

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality-Idaho Falls Regional Office, which is responsible

for the geographic area that includes INEEL. The Idaho regional administrator is responsible for

approving the Permit to Construct. As part of these consultations, FWENC committed to submit

a Permit to Construct Categorical Exemption request at least 1 year prior to beginning

construction at the proposed facility. FWENC also consulted with the Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality INEEL Oversight Committee on August 15, 2001.

State permits include

The State of Idaho regulates pollutant emissions through the Idaho Administrative

Procedures Act 58.01.01, Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho. Because the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is not a major facility as defined by the Idaho

Administrative Procedures Act 58.01.01, Part 006.55, and expected radionuclide

emissions are less than 1 percent of the site boundary dose limit of 10 mrem/yr

[0.1 mSv/yr], the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will be exempt from the need for a

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants application. As appropriate,

FWENC will provide documentation of the calculated emissions to the Idaho Department

of Environmental Quality and the EPA to demonstrate compliance and to address

requirements of the INEEL operations permit according to Title V of the Clean Air Act

(FWENC, 2003, Section 12.2).

The State of Idaho regulates hazardous waste through the Idaho Administrative

Procedures Act 58.01.05, Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste and incorporates

the EPA RCRA requirements. Although the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will

generate only small quantities of waste subject to the RCRA, and would, on its own,

meet small quantity generator requirements, the proposed facility will be considered part

of INEEL for RCRA waste accountability purposes. As a result, applicable sections of

40 CFR Part 270 for large quantity generators will be implemented in compliance with

the existing INEEL RCRA permitting and in coordination with the DOE Idaho Operations

Office and its management and operations contractor.

1.6.2 Consultations

The INEEL Cultural Resource Management Office consulted with the State Historic

Preservation Officer for information on the historic,-scenic, archaeological, architectural, and

cultural aspects of the site of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (Idaho State Historical,

Society, 2001). A supplemental report was prepared and provided as an appendix to the

FWENC environmental report (FWENC, 2003a). In preparing this EIS, NRC consulted with the

Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix B) to identify other parties to the

proposed action and to confirm previous findings of no adverse impacts to historic properties. -

The'Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer responded in a June 4, 2003, letter (Appendix B)

agreeing with the NRC determination of "no effect" (Idaho State Historical Society, 2003).- DOE

currently maintains an INEEL Architectural Properties Management Plan and is party to a

Memorandum of Agreement with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (Braun, 2002;

DOE, 2002a).

1-13
Introduction

NRC consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see Appendix B) to determine the status

of endangered and threatened species that may be present at the site of the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility and to evaluate the proposed action for compliance with the Endangered

Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded in a June 10, 2003, letter agreeing

with the NRC determination of 'no effect" on Federally listed species or their critical habitat

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003).

As part of the INEEL Long-Term Stewardship Strategic Plan (DOE, 2002b), DOE has committed

to keep the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes informed of activities on INEEL. At the INEEL facility,

DOE and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation entered into an agreement

in principle to govern formal communication.

1.6.3 Cooperating Agencies

During the scoping process, no Federal, state, or local agencies were identified as potential

cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS.

1.6.4 Organizations Involved in the Proposed Action

Three organizations have specific roles in the proposed action:

DOE and its contractors operate and manage the activities at INEEL through the DOE Idaho

Operations Office. These activities include managing SNF storage in accordance with the terms

of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. With regard to the proposed action, DOE is responsible for

moving the SNF from its current location at INTEC to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

adjacent to INTEC. SNF transfer activities will be performed in compliance with applicable DOE

orders and procedures. DOE will retain ownership of the SNF stored in the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility and will remain financially responsible for the eventual decontamination and

decommissioning of the facility. According to terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement, DOE is

responsible for removing the SNF from Idaho prior to 2035.

FWENC is the license applicant. An indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Foster Wheeler Ltd.,

FWENC would design, construct, and initially operate the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

per contract with DOE. According to terms of the contract, the specific fuel to be stored at the

applicant facility consists of Cores 1 and 2 from the Peach Bottom Unit 1, High-Temperature,

Gas-Cooled Reactor that operated from March 1966 until October 1974; various reflector

modules and rods from Shippingport, an experimental light water breeder reactor that ceased

operation in 1982; and SNF assemblies from various TRIGA reactors. As the holder of the NRC

license, FWENC will be responsible for operating the proposed facility in compliance with

applicable NRC regulations.

NRC is the licensing agency. NRC has the responsibility to evaluate the license application for

compliance with the NRC regulations associated with dry storage installations. These include

standards for protection against radiation in 10 CFR Part 20 and requirements for independent

storage of SNF in 10 CFR Part 72. NRC is responsible for regulating activities performed within

the proposed facility through its licensing review process and subsequent inspection program.

To fulfill the NRC responsibilities under NEPA, the environmental impacts of the proposed

action will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 and

documented in this EIS.

1-14
- 1.

Introduction

1.7 References

Braun, J.B. KINEEL Architectural Properties Management Plan." INEEUEXT-02-1338. Idaho

Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

DOE. Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement." DOE/EIS-0287-F. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002a.

. DOEIID-11008, Rev. 0, INEEL Long-Term Stewardship Strategic Plan." Idaho Falls,

Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002b.

. DOEID-10431, "INEEL Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Industrial Activities."

Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2001.

. DOE/ID-10425(98), UINEEL Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Construction

Activities-Generic Plan." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1998.

'Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs." Federal Register.

Vol. 61. pp. 9441-9443. March 8,1996a.

. DOE/EIS-0218-F, Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Conceming

Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Environmental Impact Statement." Washington,

DC: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1996b.

. Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed

Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear

Fuel: Notice." Federal Register. Vol.61. pp.25092-25103. May 17, 1996c.

. Environmental Statements Availability, etc; Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs." Federal Register. Vol. 60. pp. 28680-28696. June 1, 1995a.

. DOE/EIS-0203-F, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE,

Idaho Operations Office. 1995b.

EPA. Final Reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm

Water Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities." Federal Register. Vol. 65.

pp. 64746-64795. October 30, 2000.

FWENC. "Environmental Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0032. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003a.

. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003b.

1-15
2 ALTERNATIVES

During the past 40 years, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies

have stored spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at the DOE facilities around the country, including the

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The SNF has been stored

in wet (in SNF pools/canals) or dry (in casks, vaults, or dry wells) facilities. In 1991, the State of

Idaho initiated litigation against DOE related to the environmental impacts of SNF storage and

transportation. During this litigation, DOE issued a rcord of decision (DOE, 1995a, 1996a)

based on the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEEL Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement [referred

to herein as the DOE programmatic SNF environmental impact statement (EIS)]. Volume 2 of

the DOE programmatic SNF EIS dealt with the INEEL environmental restoration and waste

management program (DOE, 1995b).

The DOE effort to manage the national issue of SNF involved evaluation of many national

alternatives: No Action, Decentralization, 1992/1993 Planning Basis for INEEL and the

Savannah River site, Regionalization, and Centralization. The detailed information on each

alternative is provided in DOE programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995b). The DOE programmatic

SNF EIS identified Regionalization by Nuclear Fuel Type as the preferred national SNF

management alternative. Consistent with these national alternatives, alternatives considered for

the INEEL environmental restoration and waste management program, found in Volume 2 of the

DOE programmatic EIS, included No Action; Ten-Year Plan; Minimum Treatment, Storage, and

Disposal; and Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal. The Ten-Year Plan was identified

as the preferred alternative for SNF management at the INEEL site.

The record of decision (DOE, 1995a, 1996a) also designated Regionalization by Fuel Type as

the chosen programmatic alternative for management of SNF. And, this record of decision

announced the DOE decision to implement a modified version of the Ten-Year Plan, including

construction of a dry fuel storage facility and other site-specific environmental restoration and

waste management actions at INEEL.

In accordance with the DOE programmatic SNF EIS and the record of decision and as part of

the implementation of the 1995 Settlement Agreement, DOE requested proposals from the

private sector to design, license, construct, and operate an SNF dry storage facility. On

May 19, 2000, DOE awarded a contract to Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

(FWENC) (hereinafter, the applicant). One contract requirement was that FWENC obtain a

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license to receive, transfer, package, and store

SNF at the proposed SNF dry storage facility.

2.1 Process Used to Formulate Alternatives

During the scoping process conducted to prepare this EIS, NRC solicited public input to help

define alternatives to the proposed action by placing announcements in the Federal Register

and local newspapers. Announcements and additional information on the proposed action were

also posted on the NRC Idaho Spent Fuel Facility web page. During the public comment

period, NRC received about 15 written comments from 2 organizations, none of which provided

suggestions for alternatives beyond the proposed action and the no-action alternatives.

2-1
Alternatives

NRC reviewed the alternatives documented in the DOE programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995b)

and in the accompanying records of decision (DOE, 1995a, 1996a). NRC also examined

alternatives proposed for construction and operation of the Three-Mile Island Unit-2

independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) (NRC, 1998) which is located within the

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), as alternatives to the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. These alternatives were evaluated by NRC against the programmatic

needs of the DOE SNF management program at INEEL and against the terms of the 1995

Settlement Agreement. The alternatives evaluated or eliminated are discussed in the

following sections.

2.2 No-Action Alternative

The no-action alternative would be to not build the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

According to the no-action alternative, NRC would not approve the license application to

receive, transfer, package, and store SNF at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Hence,

DOE would continue to store the SNF from the Peach Bottom Unit 1 High-Temperature,

Gas-Cooled Reactor, the Shippingport Light Water Breeder Reactor, and the training, research,

and isotope reactors built by General Atomics (TRIGA reactor) SNF at their current locations

within INTEC (see Figure 1-1). Remaining TRIGA reactor fuel will continue to be shipped and

stored at INEEL as identified in the previous DOE records of decision (DOE, 1996a,b). Other

SNF activities would continue as described in DOE (1995a,b). Other activities at the INTEC

facility will continue as described in DOE (2002).

Short-term impacts of not constructing the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be small.

Current storage and fuel-handling facilities at INTEC, however, would be open and operational

longer than planned. Ultimately, existing facilities would need to be modified or similar facilities

to those described in the proposed action would need to be built. For example, the current

storage location of Shippingport SNF at the INTEC Irradiated Spent Fuel Storage Facility

(CPP-603) would be modified to expand the hot cell and add a load-out facility in lieu of the

availability of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Long-term impacts would be similar to the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, because the SNF must be repackaged before shipment

from INEEL to a geologic repository can occur.

2.3 Applicant's Proposed Action Alternative

The applicant's proposed action is to (i) receive SNF generated at Peach Bottom Unit 1, the

Shippingport Light Water Breeder Reactor, and various TRIGA reactors from DOE; (ii) transfer

SNF from the existing DOE storage facilities into new storage containers; and (iii) place the

storage containers in a redundant confinement storage tube system consisting of a vault

structure that provides radiological shielding and passive natural convection air cooling

(FWENC, 2003a,b,c). The tallest structures would be about 24 m [80 ftl. DOE would transfer

the SNF from its existing storage locations in INEEL to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Most of the SNF transfer would occur within the boundaries of INTEC over distances of 800 m

[2,600 ft] or less (Figure 2-1), and all transfers would be conducted in accordance with INEEL

procedures and DOE orders. Movement and transfer of SNF within the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility site would be conducted according to the provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. As

described by FWENC, the proposed action can be divided into four major activities: (i) facility

construction, (ii) fuel-handling operations, (iii) storage operations, and (iv) decontamination and

decommissioning. Additional aspects of the proposed action include monitoring, emergency

planning, and quality assurance.

2-2
-IIDAHO SPENT FUEL FACILITY

LEGEND

_eaz V2Riu icIPi

N

C.0

7-

CD Figure 2-1. Location of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (Modified ' from FWENC, 2003d)
Alternatives

2.3.1 Facility Construction

If constructed, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will be located on a previously disturbed

site adjacent to INTEC (Figure 2-1). INTEC occupies about 101 ha [250 acres] of the

south-central portion of INEEL and is 68 km [42 mi] west of Idaho Falls, Idaho. The proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site would occupy 3.2 ha [8 acres] adjacent to the southeast boundary

of INTEC. In addition to the site, about 4.1 ha [ 10 acres] east of the site would be disturbed to

provide a laydown area during construction. Mobile construction equipment will excavate the

foundation and establish the facility grade. Explosives would not be used to establish

below-grade areas. The facility would consist of a fully enclosed two-story building with three

principal areas for cask receipt, fuel transfer operations, and fuel storage (Figure 2-2). The

principal areas are connected by a below-grade tunnel designed to transfer fuel throughout the

facility via shielded, rail-mounted trolleys. Support structures such as a warehouse,

administrative offices, a guard house, a visitor center, and a parking area are also planned for

the facility. During construction, equipment delivering cement and other construction materials

would access the site. Construction is anticipated to last nearly 2 years (FWENC, 2003c).

2.3.2 Fuel-Handling Operations

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be fully enclosed to allow year-round operations

for receipt, packaging, and storage of SNF.

The Cask Receipt Area (Figure 2-2) would provide for transfer of incoming DOE transport

casks from truck-mounted transporters to the rail-mounted trolley for movement into other areas

within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The two-story Cask Receipt Area would use a

single-failure-proof crane to lift the transport cask from its transport vehicle and place it on a

rail-mounted trolley for transfer within the proposed facility. The rail-mounted trolley would

move in an enclosed Transfer Tunnel that connects the Cask Receipt Area with the Transfer

and Storage Areas.

The Transfer Area (Figure 2-2) comprises the Fuel Packaging Area and the Canister Closure

Area. These areas would provide the facilities for remote-controlled unloading of the DOE

transport cask. After removal from the DOE transfer cask, the SNF would be inspected,

inventoried, and repackaged into new storage containers designed to be compatible with future

transportation and disposal requirements. The containers would be welded closed, vacuum

dried, and backfilled with helium to provide an inert storage environment for the SNF. SNF

handling would be performed entirely by remote manipulation using a fuel-handling machine

and master/slave manipulators. The Transfer Area would be equipped with shielded windows

and a closed-circuit television system to aid in remote operations. Fuel-handling operations are

anticipated to last about 3 years.

2.3.3 Storage Operations

The Storage Area (Figure 2-2) would provide for the interim dry storage of the SNF. The

Storage Area would include reinforced concrete storage vaults covering an area 24 x 15 m

[79 x 49 fly. The storage vaults would provide passively cooled housing for 246 below-grade

storage tubes in which the containers would be placed (Figure 2-3). The area above the

concrete vault would be enclosed in a two-story, metal-sided building to facilitate year-round

2-4
Alternatives

Figure 2-2. Site Plan for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (Modified from

FWENC, 2003b)

2-5
Alternatives

Figure 2-3. Schematic Storage Vault Configuration for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility (Modified from FWENC, 2003b)

2-6
Alternatives

SNF loading operations. Each storage tube would provide interim storage for a single

container. A canister-handling machine would move the individual containers from the Transfer

Tunnel to the storage tube location. After the container is lowered into a storage tube, the

storage tube would be sealed with a cover plate with dual metallic seals, and the air would be

evacuated. The storage tubes would then be filled with an inert gas to further reduce the

potential of corrosion during storage.

Material balances and SNF inventories at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be used

to ensure safe container storage. Each container would be labeled with a unique identifier.

Information, including location, on all storage containers would be documented and kept with

other proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility records.' Prior to any movement of a container,

established procedures would require a review of the documentation to help ensure the proper

container is being moved. In addition, a physical inventory of the containers at the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be performed in accordance with NRC requirements to ensure

all containers are untampered with and are in their assigned locations. Records of the results of

the current inventory, material control, and accounting 'procedures would be maintained in

accordance with requirements of 10 CFR Part 72 and retained until termination of the

NRC license.

The SNF would remain in storage at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility until a high-level

waste (HLW) geologic repository becomes available. The storage containers would then be

removed from the facility, loaded into a transportation cask (to be licensed in accordance with

10 CFR Part 71), and transported offsite by DOE. Because of uncertainties in scheduling fuel

shipment to a geologic repository, it is difficult to place a time limit on the duration of fuel

storage at the proposed facility. The terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement call for shipment

of fuel by 2035, so storage may be as long as about 27 years. After removal, the facility would

be decontaminated and decommissioned in accordance with the NRC regulations.

2.3.4 Monitoring and Emergency Response

Process and effluent radiation monitoring for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would

include criticality monitoring, area radiation monitoring, radiation signature monitoring,

continuous air monitoring, and record sample air m6nitoring. Because there would be no liquid

releases, the only effluent radioactive release point would be the exhaust stack. 'Continuous air

monitors would be used to monitor the general level of airborne material in work areas and to

detect breakthrough of the high efficiency particulate air filters downstream of the Fuel

Packaging Area. Effluent monitoring would consist of exhaust stack sampling for particulate

radionuclides, iodine-129, and tritium. 'Any undue rise in radiation levels would trigger an alarm

to signal a prompt evacuation of the immediate ar6a. All monitoring would be conducted in

accordance with radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20 (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6).

Primary emergency response at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be provided by

DOE and its qualified management and operating contractor staff located at INEEL. In

accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72, FWENC must have an approved -

emergency plan. FWENC has submitted an emergency plan that will be reviewed by NRC in

preparing the safety evaluation report for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

(FWENC, 2003e).

2-7
Alternatives

2.3.5 Quality Assurance

In compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart G, activities associated with

design, fabrication, construction, testing, operation, modification, and decommissioning of the

structures, systems, and components of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be

conducted in accordance with an approved quality assurance program. FWENC would ensure

the provisions of the Quality Program Plan and its implementation are understood by the

personnel involved in their execution (FWENC, 2003b, Section 11). FWENC also would

maintain an adequate complement of trained and certified personnel prior to receipt of the SNF

for storage and throughout the different phases of the project.

2.4 Other Reasonable Alternatives

The proposed action is consistent with both the programmatic objectives and the preferred

alternative identified in earlier DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses

(DOE, 1995a,b). Also, no additional alternatives to the proposed action were identified during

the public scoping process. The proposed action and the no-action alternatives are considered

to bound the impacts of storing the designated SNF. Based on these considerations, other

alternatives to meet the DOE programmatic obligations from the 1995 Settlement Agreement

are reasonably likely to result in equal or larger environmental impacts.

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

In preparing its programmatic EIS for SNF management at the INEEL (DOE, 1995b), DOE

considered numerous alternatives to dry SNF storage at INEEL:

* No Action;

* The Ten-Year Plan;

* Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal; and

* Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal.

Based on these considerations, the DOE record of decision (DOE, 1995a, 1996a) selected a

modified Ten-Year Plan for SNF management at the INEEL as the preferred alternative for

meeting programmatic objectives. The modified Ten-Year Plan was considered to be consistent

with the terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement and included the construction of dry interim

storage facilities similar to the proposed action (DOE, 1995b, Volume 2, Part B, Appendix C).

The proposed action considered in this EIS is a part of the modified Ten-Year Plan alternative

documented in that DOE 1995 record of decision.

In 1998, DOE obtained an NRC license to construct and operate an ISFSI at the INTEC facility

for fuel debris from Three-Mile Island Unit 2. In fulfilling NEPA requirements of 10 CFR Part 51,

NRC developed an EIS (NRC, 1998). That EIS was prepared by adopting previous DOE NEPA

analyses (DOE, 1995b, 1997). Several alternatives to dry-cask storage were considered that

are relevant to the proposed action:

* Construct New Wet Storage;

* Store Three-Mile Island Unit 2 Fuel in Existing INTEC Storage Systems;

2-8
Alternatives

* Construct an ISFSI Test Area North; and

* Construct an ISFSI at a Point Removed from Above the Snake River Plain Aquifer.

These alternatives were eliminated from consideration on the basis of not meeting the

programmatic objectives for fuel consolidation at INTEC documented in the DOE record of

decision (DOE, 1995a, 1996a).

Similar to the Three-Mile Island Unit 2 ISFSI, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is part of

the DOE effort to meet the terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. In developing design

criteria for a dry ISFSI at INEEL, DOE specified operational performance characteristics and

specific design criteria such as container dimensions, year-round operation, storage containers

that can be transported by truck or rail, personnel and public exposure limits, and minimization

of decommissioning activities (FWENC, 2003a). In evaluating design approaches, DOE

considered cost and value to the govemment. Based on these objectives and criteria, DOE

selected the FWENC design for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Dry fuel storage is the alternative preferred by DOE for SNF consolidation and management at

INEEL. Other alternatives either do not meet programmatic objectives or do not meet the terms

of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. Based on previous DOE and NRC NEPA analyses

(DOE, 1995b; NRC, 1998) and comments received during the public scoping period, the

proposed action alternative and the no-action alternatives are likely to bound the impacts of dry

fuel storage at INEEL, and only these alternatives are evaluated in this EIS.

2.6 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts

A more detailed evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the

no-action alternative is presented in Section 4

of this EIS. The impacts are summarized in 

Table 2-1.

Environmental Impacts

2.7 Final Recommendation NRC has established guidance for assessing

Regarding the Proposed environmental impacts. Each impact should be

Action assigned one of three significance levels:

Small: The environmental effects are not detectable

After weighing the small impacts, costs, and or are so minor they will neither destabilize nor

benefits of the proposed action and noticeably alter any important attribute of the

comparing alternatives (see Sections 2.6, resource.

4.15, and 7 of this EIS), the NRC staff, in Moderate: The environmental effects are sufficient

accordance with 10 CFR 51.91 (d), set forth to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important

their final NEPA recommendation regarding attributes of the resource.

the proposed action. The NRC staff

recommend that, unless safety issues L te nvionental effets are clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important mandate otherwise, the action called for is attributes of the resource.

the issuance of the proposed license to

FWENC. In this regard, the NRC staff

conclude (i) the applicable environmental monitoring program described in Section 6 and (ii) the

proposed mitigation measures discussed in Section 5 would eliminate or substantially lessen

any potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

2-9
Table 2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and the No-Action Alternative

Impacts

Affected Environment Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility No-Action Alternative"

Land Use SMALL. Construction activities to occur on a 3.2-ha 8-acre] facility site and an SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

adjoining 4.1-ha (10-acre] laydown area. The 7.3 ha [18 acres] are adjacent to because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

the southeast corner of INTEC and have been previously disturbed by other facilities. There would be no construction or operational

construction activities and land uses. Operational impacts include restricted activities, and the land would continue to be used as a

access to the 3.2-ha 8-acre] facility site and use of the site for SNF receiving, restricted access construction laydown area. In the

processing, and storage. longer term, additional facilities may be necessary to

prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW repository, with a

likely impact on land use similar to the proposed action.

Transportation SMALL. Operational impacts are related to transfer of the SNF from current SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

storage facilities at INTEC, a distance of 800 m [2,600 ft] or less to the because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, and shipment of the remaining TRIGA fuel facilities. No fuel transfers would occur. TRIGA fuel

to INEEL for storage at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Onsite transfers would continue to be shipped to INEEL for storage in

will be made in DOE-supplied casks loaded on trailers and managed in existing facilities. In the longer term, additional facilities

accordance with DOE orders and procedures. may be necessary to prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW

repository, with a likely impact on transportation similar to

the proposed action.

Geology and Soil SMALL. Construction-related impacts to soil will occur on the 3.2-ha [8-acre] SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

site and, to some extent, on the 4.1-ha [10-acre] laydown area. Excavation, because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

earthmoving, and grading will occur on the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site. There is no soil facilities. There would be no construction or operational

contamination at the site above regulatory limits. No construction or operational activities, and the land would continue to be used as a

impacts will occur on known mineral deposits or unique geological resources. restricted access construction laydown area. In the

longer term, additional facilities may be necessary to

prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW repository. If the

same area is chosen for these facilities, the likely impact

on geology and soils would be similar to the proposed

action.

CD

0
Table 2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and the No-Action Alternative (continued)

Impacts

Affected Environment Proposed idaho Spent Fuel Facllit No-Action Alternative'

Water Quality SMALL Construction phase impacts will be minimal to both surface water SMALL. No additional short-term Impacts would occur

quality and groundwater quality. A storm water pollution prevention plan is in because SNF would continue to be stored at existing effect at NEEL. The proposed site is 140 to 146 m 1460 to 480 fIt above the facilities. There would be no construction or operational

Snake River Plain Aquifer. Water used for construction phase dust control will activities, and water quality would not be affected. In the

evaporate or seep into surface soils. No new groundwaler wells or percolation longer term, additional facilities may be necessary to

ponds will be required. There are no planned liquid discharges from the facility. prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW repository.

Depending on the design of these facilities, the likely

impact on water quality would be similar to the proposed

action.

Water Use - SMALL. During the first year of construction, about 1.5 million L 1396.000 gal of SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

water will be used for dust suppression, with an additional estimated 1.91 million because SNF would continue to be stored at existing L 1505,000 gail for concrete production at the site. During the second year of facilities. There would be no construction or operational construction, it Is estimated that water needs will be reduced by half. Drinking activities, and water usage would continue at current

water usage during operation will be about 141,950 Umo 137.500 gal/mo). rates. In the longer term, additional facilities may be

These amounts are a small fraction of the 7.4 billion L 12.0 billion gaq used necessary to prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW

annually at the INEEL and the annual withdrawal of 43 billion L (11.4 billion gal] repository. Depending on the design of these facilities,

permitted by the DOE/State of Idaho Water Rights Agreement. Wastewater the likely Impact on water usage would be similar to the

treatment requirements wilt be met via existing INTEC facilities. proposed action. -

Ecology SMALL. Minimal Impacts frbrn the construction and operation of the facility are SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

anticipated. There are no wetlands or habitats for threatened or endangered because SNF would continue to be stored at existing plant or animal species at the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site or 4.1-ha 10-acre] laydown facilities. There would be no construction or operational

area. Secondary impacts on wildlife from noise and various human activities are activities, and the land would continue to be used as a

expected to be minimal, of short duration, or both . restricted access construction laydown area. In the

longer term, additional facilities may be necessary to

prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW repository, with a

likely impact on ecological resources similar to the ____________________ ___________________________________________ proposed action.

K)

II

.A

:>

-

(,
Table 2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and the No-Action Alternative (continued)

N)

II

11.)I

Impacts

Affected Environment Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility No-Action Alternativea

Air Quality SMALL. Construction-related fugitive dusts and exhaust emissions will be SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

temporary and highly localized. With construction phase watering, the fugitive because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

dusts and particulates will be about 8.2 metric tons [9 tons]; this is small in facilities. There would be no construction or operational

relation to the INEEL emission inventory for particulates. No impacts to activities, and the land would continue to be used as a

radiological air quality are anticipated from construction activities. During restricted access construction laydown area. In the

operation, there will be no chemical air discharges, and the vehicular exhausts longer term, additional facilities may be necessary to

will be small and within limitations. Therefore, no significant impacts to prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW repository.

nonradiological air quality are anticipated. Facility operations are not expected Depending on the construction methods and design of

to result in the atmospheric discharge of significant amounts of gaseous these facilities, the likely impact on air quality would be

radioactive effluents. The facility is fully enclosed and includes a special similar to the proposed action.

ventilation system along with HEPA filters. Monitoring of slack emissions for

particulate radionuclides, iodine-129, and tritium will be used to identify

any releases.

Noise SMALL. Construction phase noise levels will be typical of industrial areas; SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

further, they will be temporary and highly localized. Noise from construction and because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

uperaliouai traffic will be minimal in relation to existing traffic noise ieveis in the facilities. Tnere would e no construction or operational

' INTEC area. Potential noise levels from operations will be less than those from activities, and the land would continue to be used as a

construction. Hearing protection will be required for workers per restricted access construction laydown area. In the

29 CFR 1910.95. No unique noise receptors are in the vicinity of the longer term, additional facilities may be necessary to

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site. Therefore, noise impacts are not prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW repository.

expected to be significant. Depending on the construction methods and design of

these facilities, the likely noise impacts would be similar

to the proposed action.

Historical, Cultural, and SMALL. There are no known historic, cultural resources, or paleontological SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

Paleontological Resources resources within the 3.2-ha [-acrel site and 4.1-ha [10-acre] laydown area. because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

Thirty-eight buildings and structures within INTEC are potentially eligible for the facilities. There would be no construction or operational

National Register of Historic Places, although only two (CPP-603 and activities, and the land would continue to be used as a

CPP-642) are close to the current storage location or proposed transfer routes. restricted access construction laydown area. In the

There are no plans for modification or demolition of either of these buildings. longer term, additional facilities may be necessary to

The proposed facility would not introduce a built environment into a pristine prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW repository. If the

natural setting. There are potential cumulative effects from withdrawal of access same area is chosen for these facilities, the likely impact

to the proposed 7.3-ha [18 -acre] site by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, but on historical, cultural, and paleontological resources

these lands already are contained within the limited access buffer area would be similar to the proposed action.

around INTEC.

a)

U,
Table 2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and the No-Action Alternative (continued)

c;

Impacts

Affected Environment Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility No-Action Alternative"

VisuaVScenic Resources SMALL. Because of its smaller scale In relation to the adjacent INTEC facilities, SMALL. No additional short-term Impacts would occur

construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would not because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

cause significant visual impacts to the BLM Class IV rating for the INTEC area. facilities. There would be no construction or operational

Fugitive dusts and exhaust emissions from construction would be localized and activities, and the land would continue to be used as a

temporary and would not impair the BLM Class III rating of lands adjacent to restricted access construction laydown area. In the

INEEL, nor would the minimal to nil releases of radioactive particulates and longer term, additional facilities may be necessary to

gases during operations. No significant visual or scenic impacts are anticipated. prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW repository.

Depending on the construction methods and design of

these facilities, the likely visual/scenic impacts would be

similar to the proposed action.

Socioeconomic SMALL. The total population In 2000 In the 7-county region of influence was SMALL. No additional short-term mpacts would occur

250,365, and population in the region of Influence Is estimated to reach almost because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

269,000 by 2005 and 339,700 by 2025. In the 1990s, employment in the region facilities. The land would continue to be used as a

of Influence grew at an average annual rate of about 2.6 percent. The region of restricted access construction laydown area. About 250

Influence experienced the lowest unemployment rate In a decade In 2000-4.0 construction jobs and 60 operational jobs would not be

percent. This rate was lower than the 4.9 percent for the state, though rates created. In the longer term, additional facilities may be

varied widely in the region of Influence (from 2.5 percent In Madison County to necessary to prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW

5.0 percent In Bannock County). The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would repository. Depending on the construction methods and

employ a maximum of 250 construction workers during the 2-year construction design of these facilities, the likely number of jobs

period and 60 workers during the first 3 years of operations. These numbers are created would be similar to the proposed action.

small relative to the total employment at INEEL; for example, In fiscal year 2001,

INEEL accounted for 8,100 obs, or about 6 percent of the total jobs in the region of Influence. Finally, housing and key community services such as education,

law enforcement, fire protection, and medical services do not appear to be

overstressed In the region of influence and the additional workers can be

accommodated in the region.

Environmental Justice SMALL. The environmental justice study area was chosen to encompass an SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

80-km 50-m radius around INTEC. This area Includes portions of the seven because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

counties composing the region of Influence for socioeconomics. Based on the facilities. There would be no construction or operational

2000 census data, the minority population within 80 km [50 mg of the proposed activities, and the land would continue to be used as a

facility Is about 12 percent of the total populations, and is comprised primarily of restricted access construction laydown area. In the

Native American, Hispanic, and Asian peoples. The low-income population longer term, additional facilities may be necessary to

within 80 km [50 mi] Is about 13 percent of the total population. Overall, impacts prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW repository with a

from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are small and do not likely Impact on environmental justice concerns similar to

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. the proposed action.

cD

CD

en
Table 2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and the No-Action Alternative (continued)

Impacts

Affected Environment Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility No-Action Alternativea

Public and Occupational Health SMALL. Potential impacts were examined for normal, off-normal, and accident SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

and Safety conditions. For normal operating conditions, no chemical discharges are because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

planned, and a health and safety program will be in place for the workers. The facilities. There would be no construction or operational

primary pathway for offsite radiation exposure to the public is from atmospheric activities, and the land would continue to be used as a

emissions of radioactive particulates, iodine-129, tritium, and a few other restricted access construction laydown area. In the

radionuclides. Iodine-129 and tritium contribute about 80 percent of the total longer term, additional facilities may be necessary to

dose. The estimated annual dose for the maximally exposed individual at the prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW repository.

southern boundary of INEEL is 3 x 10- mSv [3 x 10- mrem] from the proposed Depending on the design of these facilities, the likely

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility; from all nearby facility operations (including the impact on public and occupational health and safety

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility), the dose is less than 0.0032 mSv would be similar to the proposed action.

(0.32 mreml. The regulatory annual dose limit is 0.1 mSv [10 mremJ, and the

natural background annual radiation is 3.6 mSv [360 mrem] in this general area.

Therefore, public radiation impacts during normal operation of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are not significant. Occupational radiological doses to

construction workers from the construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility will be less than 0.0032 mSv 0.32 mreml annually. The NRC annual

occupational imit is 50 mSv [5,000 mrem], and te natural background radiation

dose is 3.6 mSv [360 mrem]. The maximum occupational doses to

SNF-handling workers is 9.1 mSv (910 mrem] annually, with the NRC annual

occupational limit of 50 mSv [5,000 mrem]. The annual radiation dose to all

workers within an 8-km [5-mi] radius is 6.68 x 10'5 person-mSv

16.68 x 10" person-mrem]. Detailed analyses of the radiation doses from

off-normal events and accidents at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are in

the safety analysis reportb and will be evaluated as part of the NRC Safety Evaluation Report. Further, analyses also were made of the public and

occupational health impacts of external events such as flooding, aircraft impact, volcanic hazards, seismic hazards, and extreme wind and wind-generated missiles. Design features and operational practices are expected to ensure the

public and occupational health impacts of these events and accidents are small.

CD

_,

CD

ch

K)

I

-P,
Table 2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and the No-Action Alternative (continued)

Impacts

Affected Environment Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility No-Action Alternative'

Waste Management SMALL. Small quantities of gaseous, liquid, and solid low-level radioactive SMALL. No additional short-term impacts would occur

waste will be generated during the SNF receipt and repackaging operations because SNF would continue to be stored at existing

planned for the first 3 years. Once fuel is repackaged and stored, no gaseous facilities. There would be no construction or operational

releases or liquid or solid radioactive wastes are anticipated on a regular basis activities, and the land would continue to be used as a

from routine activities. Less than 19,700 L [5,200 gal] of low-level liquid wastes restricted access construction laydown area. No new

will be generated annually from nonroutine decontamination activities. The wastes would be created or added to the existing waste

INEEL Radioactive Waste Management Complex has the capacity to handle the stream. In the longer term, additional facilities may be

small quantities of wastes generated during the storage period for the necessary to prepare SNF for shipment to a HLW

repackaged SNF. repository. Depending on the design of these facilities.'

the likely impact on waste management activities at

INEEL would be similar to the proposed action.

BLM = Bureau of Land Management.

M DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental Impact statement

FVVENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

HEPA = high efficiency particulate air

HLW = high-level waste -

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

INTEC = Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

SNF = spent nuclear fuel

TRIGA = training, research, and Isotope reactors built by General Atomics

Environmental impacts of current and planned DOE programs are addressed In two existing NEPA documents (DOE. DOEJEIS-0203-F, Department of Energy Programmatic

Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact

Statement.' Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1995); (DOE. DOEIEIS-0287-F, 'Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact..

Statement.' Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE. Idaho Operations Office. 2002)1. b FWENC. 'Safety Analysis Report. Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.' NRC Docket No. 72-25. ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 2. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FENC. 2003.

OJ

CD
Alternatives

The NRC staff have preliminarily concluded the overall benefits of the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility outweigh the disadvantages and costs, based on consideration of the following:

* The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will have small impacts on the physical

environment and human communities in the vicinity. Long-term impacts of the no-action

alternative are likely to be similar to the impacts of the proposed action.

* The proposed action is designed to support the INEEL mission and comply with

agreements and commitments negotiated by DOE, including the 1995 Settlement

Agreement among DOE, the State of Idaho, and the U.S. Navy to remove SNF from

Idaho by 2035.

* Currently, most of the SNF to be received by the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is

stored at INTEC. Transfer distances from current storage locations to the proposed

facility are relatively short.

* The current storage configuration does not prepare the SNF for shipment from INEEL to

a national HLW repository.

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will provide the ability to remove the SNF from existing

canisters, place it in specially designed storage containers, then seal and place the loaded

containers in interim storage. The new containers are designed to be compatible with

transportation systems and with the eventual permanent disposal systems. Hence, once the

SNF is placed in the canisters, it would not need to be repackaged for shipment to a national

HLW repository when one becomes available.

2.8 References

DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final

Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

. DOE/EA-1217, "Environmental Assessment. Test Area North Pool Stabilization

Project." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1997.

. Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Wasle Management Programs." Federal Register.

Vol. 61. pp. 9441-9443. March 8,1996a.

. Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed

Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear

Fuel; Notice." Federal Register. Vol. 61. pp. 25092-25103. May 17, 1996b.

. Environmental Statements Availability, etc; Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs." Federal Register. Vol. 60. pp. 28680-28696. June 1, 1995a.

2-16
7 1 . ..

Alternatives

DOE/EIS-0203-F, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE,

Idaho Operations Office. 1995b.

FWENC. "Environmental Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25,

ISF-FW-RPT-0032. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003a.

. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003b.

. License Application, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0127. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003c.

. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Response to

NRC Request for Additional Information Related to Environmental Review." Letter (March 7)

from R.D. Izatt to NRC. NRC Docket No. 72-25. TAC No. L20768. FW-NRC-ISF-03-0048.

Richland, Washington: FWENC. 2003d. [The preceding document is available for public

review through the NRC electronic reading room at hftt://www.nrc.cov/readinc-rm/adams.html.]

. Emergency Plan, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket 72-25. ISF-FW-PLN-0021.

Rev. 2. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003e.

NRC. NUREG-1626, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and

Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation to Store the Three-Mile Island

Unit 2 Spent Fuel at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory."

Washington, DC: NRC. March 1998.

2-17
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section establishes a baseline for current conditions at the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) site. The baseline provides a starting point from which to

assess impacts of the proposed action described in Section 2.3. This baseline may include

regional features and conditions, but where practicable, it is focused on the Idaho Nuclear

Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) facility, the site of the proposed action. Much of

the information in this section is taken from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Programmatic

Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (DOE, 1995), the DOE Idaho

High-Level Waste (HLW) and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a), and the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) EIS for the Three-Mile Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation (ISFSI) (NRC, 1998). Specific information on the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

has been taken from the environmental and safety analysis reports submitted by Foster

Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWENC) in support of its license application to NRC

(FWENC, 2003a,b,c).

3.1 Site and Facility Description

This description of the INEEL facility is based on information provided in the DOE Idaho HLW

and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.2);

3.1.1. The INEEL

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is to be located at the INEEL, one of nine multiprogram

laboratories within the DOE complex. The INEEL covers about 230,850 ha [570,000 acres] in

southeast Idaho (Figure 3-1). Most of the INEEL is undeveloped, and only about 2 percent of

the total area 4,617 ha [11,400 acres]) has been developed to support the DOE mission

at INEEL.

The INEEL has nine primary facility Existing and Proposed Facilities

areas. The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility would be sited adjacent to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

southeast comer of INTEC, a facility with iEEŽ This existing facility is managed for the

the mission to receive and store SNF and Department 0U.S. of Energy and contains about the reeive mssionto nd stre SN and 230,850 ha [570,000 acres], most are undeveloped, but

radioactive wastes (see Figure 2-1). under controlled access.

Other INEEL facilities include Test Area

North, Naval Reactors Facility, Test Idaho Nuclear Energy Technolowy and Engineering Center

Reactor Area, Central Facilities Area, Ifflj1-This existing facility, formerly known as the

Powr BrstFaclit, AxilaryReactor Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP). consists of Power Burst Facility, Auxiliary Rea r about 150 buildings located on 101 ha [250 acres] in the Area, Argonne National south central part of the INEEL. It is the current site of

Laboratory-West, and the Radioactive HLW and SNF storage activities at INEEL, including

Waste Management Complex current interim storage for the Peach Bottom and

(Figure 3-2). These facilities are not Shippingport SNF.

directly involved in the proposed action. Idaho Spent Fuel Facility-This proposed facility is the

focus of the proposed action. If licensed, this facility would

The INEEL is remote from major provide dry storage for SNF from the Peach Bottom and

population centers, waterways, Shippingport commercial reactors, as well as SNF from Li dII III I, I z 1.1 , Cal U I~lautJu I ucwla~ wuyi UI UY I.7u ml 

-Atomics (TRIGA).

3-1
Description of the Affected

Environment

Figure 3-1. Regional Location of INEEL (Modified from DOE, 2002a)

3-2
Description of the Affected

Environment

ANL-W

ARA

CFA

EBR-I

INTEC

NRF

PBF ., RWMC

TAN

TRA

WERF

Argonne National Laboratory-Vst

Auxiliary ReactorArea

Central Facilities Area

Experimental Breeder Reactor - I

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

Naval Reactors Facility

Power Burst Facilty

Radioactive Waste Management Complex TestArea North

Test Reactor Area

Waste Experimental Reduction Facility

.<~~~~~~~P

_ ~~~~~~~~~N _..... _ 

o 2 A 6 * ~Sk

i Ifil lI I II 0181 I

0 A a 12 n

Figure 3-2. Current Land Use at INEEL (Modified from FWENC, 2003a)

3-3
Description of the Affected

Environment

and interstate transportation routes. INEEL has no permanent residents, and access to the

INEEL facilities is controlled by DOE. Visitor access to the INEEL is also restricted, except for

persons driving through INEEL on one of four public highways and visitors to the Experimental

Breeder Reactor-1, a national historic landmark open to the public during summer months.

INEEL is located entirely in the state of Idaho, mostly within Butte County, but with portions in

Bingham, Bonneville, Jefferson, and Clark Counties. Nearby cities include Mud Lake and

Terreton to the east; Arco, Butte City, and Howe to the west; and Atomic City to the south.

Larger communities farther from INEEL include Idaho Falls 80 km [50 mi]} and Rexburg

{132 km [82 mi]} to the east; and Blackfoot (64 km [40 mi]} and Pocatello {80 km [50 mi]} to

the southeast.

Tourist and recreation destinations surrounding the INEEL site include Craters of the Moon

National Monument and Preserve, Hell's Half Acre Wilderness Study Area, Black Canyon

Wilderness Study Area, Camas National Wildlife Refuge, Market Lake Wildlife Management

Area, North Lake State Wildlife Management Area, Targhee and Challis National Forests, and

the Snake River (Figure 3-1).

3.1.2 The INTEC

If licensed, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (Figure 3-3) would be constructed adjacent

to the eastern boundary of the INTEC. The INTEC facility consists of about 150 buildings

located on 101 ha [250 acres] in the south-central part of the IN EEL. The facility is located

about 13.7 km [8.5 mil north of the southern boundary, and the closest community is Atomic

City, 16.9 km [10.5 mi] to the southeast (Figure 3-2). The INTEC facility is the current storage

location of the Peachbottom and Shippingport SNF and the majority of the TRIGA fuel. It is also

the location of the Three-Mile Island Unit 2 SFSI (see Figure 1-1).

INTEC was originally constructed in the 1950s to reprocess and recover uranium-235 from SNF

from government reactors. In addition, a treatment process known as calcining was developed

at INTEC to reduce the volume of liquid radioactive waste generated during reprocessing and

place it in a more-stable solid form. The INTEC Was renovated and facilities upgraded during

the 1980s. However, with a continued low demand for highly enriched uranium, reprocessing

activities at INTEC ended in 1992.

The site for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is a flat-lying area near the Big Lost River in

the south-central part of the INEEL. The area is underlain by about 9 to 18 m [30 to 60 ft] of Big

Lost River alluvial silts, sands, and gravels, which lie on an alternating sequence of basalt lava

flows and interbedded sediments extending to a depth of about 600 to 700 m [2,000 to 2,300 ft].

Landforms in the vicinity of ISFSI consist of braided channels (some abandoned) of the Big Lost

River to the west and north of the site and irregular flow lobes of basalt lavas to the east of the

site (DOE, 2002a).

3.1.3 The Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

If constructed, the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be located on a previously disturbed site

adjacent to the southeast corner of INTEC (Figure 2-1). The land currently serves as a

construction aydown area for INTEC. It is sparsely vegetated, with only about 5 percent

3-4
Description of the Affected

Environment

To Shnon,

To Dubo.

To

Arco

Central Tac=tm Am (A)

Arone Natonal Laboratory West NL-W)

Experiental Broeder Reactorl- (EBR-1)

Idho, Nucler Technology and gneilng Center (MTEC)

Noval Reoctor Facility (NRF) - .

Powor Burt Fcity (PB)

Roooctve Waste Mnogornn Conplex (RWWC)

Test Am North (AN)

Test Reactor Aino (1 

Idoho Spent rud Focit (ISF)

Figure 3-3. Location of Major Operating Facilities on INEEL (Modified from

FWENC, 2003a)

3-5
Description of the Affected

Environment

coverage (FWENC, 2003a). The proposed site for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site is located

at an elevation above the estimated 100- and 500-year flood plains for the Big Lost River. In the

event of a probable maximum flood with overtopping of the Mackay Dam, the proposed site

could be flooded (FWENC, 2003b, Section 2.4.4.2). The roads nearest to the proposed facility

are INEEL-controlled access and include Spruce Avenue on the north, Balsa Street on the east,

and East Perimeter road to the west. A railroad spur line from the Mackay Branch of the Union

Pacific Railroad is just south of the site. No cities or towns are within a 16-km [10-mi] radius of

the site (Figure 3-1).

3.2 Land Use

This description of existing and planned land uses for the INEEL and the surrounding area

summarizes the current and projected land uses based on the discussion presented in the DOE

Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.2).

3.2.1 INEEL Land Use

DOE is the designated Federal agency with the responsibility and authority for effectively

managing the INEEL lands in accordance with a series of Land Withdrawal Public Land Orders

PLO 318, PLO 545, PLO 637, and PLO 691 that include about 204,930 ha [506,000 acres]. In

addition, about 8,505 ha [21,000 acres] of state land and 17,415 ha [43,000 acres] of private

land were transferred to DOE ownership and management, for a total of about 230,850 ha

[570,000 acres] (Peterson, 1995). DOE is responsible for ensuring that the future use and

management of these lands are in accordance with the Public Land Orders.

Most of the INEEL is undeveloped high-desert terrain, and most of the operations are performed

within the nine primary facility areas that occupy 823 ha [2,032 acres]. A 139,725-ha

[345,000-acre] security and safety buffer zone surrounds these developed areas.

Approximately 6 percent of INEEL {13,770 ha [34,000 acres]} is devoted to utility rights-of-way

and public roads (Figure 3-2). U.S. Highway 20 runs east and west and crosses the southern

portion of INEEL, U.S. Highway 26 runs southeast and northwest, and Idaho State

Highways 22, 28, and 33 cross the northeastern part of INEEL (DOE, 1995). Up to 137,700 ha

[340,000 acres] of INEEL are leased for cattle and sheep grazing (DOE, 1995, Volume 2,

Part A, Section 4.2), with grazing permits administered by the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM). Livestock grazing, however, is prohibited within 0.8 km [0.5 mi] of any primary facility

boundary and within 3.2 km [2 mi] of any nuclear facility. In addition, 365 ha [900 acres] located

on the northeast boundary of the INEEL at the junction of Idaho State Highways 28 and 33

serve as the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station as a winter feedlot for sheep (DOE, 1997a).

On July 17, 1999, the Secretary of Energy and representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, BLM, and Idaho State Fish and Game Department designated 29,672 ha

[73,263 acres] of the INEEL as the Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystem Reserve. The sagebrush

steppe ecosystem was identified as critically endangered across its entire range by the National

Biological Service in 1995. The INEEL Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystem Reserve, designated to

ensure this portion of the ecosystem receives special consideration, is located in the northwest

portion of the area. The southern boundary of the reserve runs east and west along section

lines and is 17.6 km [11 mi] north of INTEC at the closest point. A natural resources

management plan is being developed for the reserve (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.2).

3-6
Description of the Affected

Environment

In preparing its programmatic EIS for SNF management, DOE projected land-use scenarios at

INEEL for the next 25, 50, 75, and 100 years (DOE, 1995). In general, the DOE analyses

indicate that energy research and waste management activities would continue in the existing

facility areas and, in some areas, expand into adjacent undeveloped areas. Future industrial

development is projected to take place in the central portion of INEEL within existing major

facility areas (DOE, 1993, 1997a, 2002a).

At INTEC, where most of the activities under the proposed action would take place, primary

facilities include storage and treatment facilities for SNF, mixed HLW, and mixed transuranic

waste/sodium-bearing waste, and process development and robotics laboratories. The original

mission of INTEC was to function as a processing facility to extract uranium-235 from'

government-owned nuclear fuels from research and defense reactors. INTEC recovered

uranium and rare gases from SNF so that these materials could be reused. Currently, INTEC

operations include receipt and storage of DOE-assigned SNF; management of HLW prior to

disposal in a repository; technology development for final disposition of SNF, mixed HLW,

and mixed transuranic waste/sodium-bearing waste; and development of new waste

management technologies.

Other than activities directly associated with the DOE mission, there are other uses for the land

at INEEL. For example, recreational uses of the INEEL include public tours of the general

facility areas and the Experimental Breeder Reactor-1, a national historic landmark. Controlled

hunting is also permitted on INEEL to assist the Idaho Department of Fish and Game in

reducing crop damage caused by wild game on adjacent private agricultural lands. These hunts

are restricted to specific locations. INEEL is a designated National Environmental Research

Park, functioning as a field laboratory set aside for ecological research and evaluation of the

environmental impacts from nuclear energy development. INEEL does not lie within any of the

land boundaries established by the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868, and the entire INEEL is land

occupied by DOE.

3.2.2 Offsite Land Use

Approximately 75 percent of the land adjacent to the INEEL is managed by the Federal

government and administered by the BLM for wildlife habitat, mineral and energy production,

grazing, and recreation. Approximately 1 percent of the adjacent land is owned by the State of

Idaho and used for purposes similar to that of the Federal government. The remaining

24 percent of the land adjacent to INEEL is privately owned and primarily used for grazing and

crop production (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.2).

In addition to the areas described in Section 3.1.1, the region surrounding INEEL has recreation

and tourist attractions including Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, the

Jackson Hole recreation complex, Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Sawtooth Wilderness

Area, and Sawtooth National Forest.

Lands surrounding INEEL are governed by Federal and state planning laws and regulations.'

Land-use planning in the State of Idaho is derived from the Local Planning Act of 1975.

Currently, the State of Idaho does not have a land-use planning agency (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.2). Therefore, the Idaho legislature requires that each county adopt its own land use

planning and zoning guidelines. At present, most of the surrounding counties have

implemented guidelines to focus development adjacent to previously developed areas, with a

3-7
Description of the Affected

Environment

goal of avoiding urban sprawl and the pressures that it might place on existing infrastructure.

Because INEEL is remotely located, adjacent areas are not likely to experience residential and

commercial development, and no new development is planned. However, recreational and

agricultural uses are expected to increase in the surrounding area in response to greater

demand for recreational areas and the conversion of rangeland to cropland (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.2).

3.3 Transportation and Infrastructure

Transportation and infrastructure at INEEL are described in the DOE Idaho HLW and Facilities

Disposition ES (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.10). Two interstate highways serve the regional area

surrounding INEEL. Interstate 15, a north-south route that connects several cities along the

Snake River, is 40 km [25 mi east of INEEL. Interstate 86 intersects Interstate 15 about 64 km

[40 mi south of INEEL and provides linkage to points west. Interstate 15 and U.S. Highway 91

are primary access routes to the Fort Hall reservation. U.S. Highways 20 and 26 are the main

access routes to the southern portion of INEEL. State Route 33 provides access to the northern

INEEL facilities. Table 3-1 provides average daily and peak hourly traffic data for selected local

highway segments in the vicinity of INEEL.

INEEL contains an on-site road system of about 140 km [87 mi of paved service roads that are

closed to the public (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.1). Most roads undergo

continuous maintenance and are adequate for the current level of normal transportation activity.

Onsite roads presently have the capacity for increased traffic.

Railroad access to INEEL is provided by a DC)E-owned spur line at Scoville Siding that is

connected to a Union Pacific Blackfoot-to-Arco branch off a main line that follows the Snake

River to the Pacific Northwest (DOE, 2002a). Rail shipments to INEEL include bulk

commodities, SNF, and radioactive waste. Non-DOE air traffic over INEEL is limited to altitudes

Table 3-1. Baseline Traffic for Selected Highway Segments in the Vicinity of INEELa

Route Average Daily Traffic Peak Hourly Trafficb

U.S. Highway 20-Idaho Falls to INEEL 2,100 315

U.S. Highways 20/26-INEEL to Arco 1,900 285

U.S. Highway 26-Blackfoot to INEEL 1,400 210

State Route 33-West from Mud Lake 600 90

Interstate 15-Blackfootto Idaho Falls 11,000 1,650

EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

a DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement.' Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

b Estimated as 15 percent of average daily traffic

3-8
Description of the Affected

Environment

greater than 305 m [1,000 ft] over buildings and populated areas. Primary air traffic includes

high-altitude commercial jets.

Hazardous, radioactive, industrial, commercial, and recyclable wastes are transported to and

from INEEL. Hazardous materials include commercial chemical products and hazardous

wastes that are nonradioactive and are regulated and controlled by the U.S. Department of

Transportation based on the material's chemical reactivity, toxicity, and flammability. Table 3-2

summarizes shipments associated with INEEL from 1998 through 2001 based on data from the

Enterprise Transportation Analysis System (DOE, 2002a). These shipments include express

mail packages, radioactive waste shipments, and SNF shipments. Nonhazardous materials

shipments accounted for more than 95 percent of lNEEL shipments. Radioactive materials

and hazardous materials 'shipments accounted for-1.2 percent and 3.2 percent of the

shipments, respectively.

Occupational and public exposures from radioactive waste shipments have been estimated in

prior ElSs (DOE, 2002a, 1996c,d, 1995). These past estimates have indicated doses and

estimated latent cancer fatalities from radioactive material transportation are small and indicate

no adverse environmental impacts are associated with radioactive material transportation

to INEEL.

3.4 Geology and Soils

This description of the general geology of the affected environment at the INEEL facility is

based on information provided in the DOE Programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995, Volume 2,

Part A, Section 4.6).

Table 3-2. Annual Average Shipments to and from INEEL (1998-2001) by Type of

Cargo and Transportation Modea

Mode Hazardous Nonhazardous Radioactive Total

Air 221 18,549 . 177 18,947

Motorb 294 4,439 109 4,842

Otherc 273 - 229 5 507

Rail 0 3 1 4

Total 788 23,220 292 24,300

EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

a Enterprise Transportation Analysis System (DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities

Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement.' Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.)

b Commercial motor carriers

c Freight forwarder, private motor carrier, government vehicles, or parcel carriers

3-9
Description of the Affected

Environment

3.4.1 General Geology

The INEEL site is located on the Eastern Snake River Plain in southeast Idaho (Figure 3-4).

Geologically, the Eastern Snake River Plain can be summarized as a broad northeast-trending

basin that began filling with volcanic deposits about 6 million years ago. Most of the Plain that

is visible today was shaped by volcanic eruptions of lava flows and domes during the last

1.2 million years. Overlying the lavas are thin, discontinuous deposits of wind-blown sand and

loess, floodplain, riverbed and lake sediments, and landslope debris. These sedimentary

deposits are often found between the lava flows, showing that a quiet period occurred between

past volcanic eruptions. To the northeast, the Plain merges with the Yellowstone Plateau.

Higher elevation mountains and valleys of the Basin and Range Province bound the Plain to the

north and south. These mountains are formed by rocks more than 70 million years old, which

have been folded and faulted. This Basin and Range deformation, which began 20 to 30 million

years ago, affects some ongoing volcanic and tectonic processes in the NEEL area.

Earthquake histories and seismic characteristics of the Eastern Snake River Plain and the

adjacent Basin and Range Province are different (Figure 3-5). The Plain historically has

produced only infrequent, small-magnitude earthquakes (King, et al., 1987; Pelton, et al., 1990;

Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1992; Jackson, et al., 1993). Larger historical earthquakes and

active faulting are associated with tectonic activity in the Basin and Range Province. For

example, the 1959 Hebgen Lake Earthquake (moment magnitude 7.5) occurred about 150 km

[93 mi] from the INEEL. The October 28, 1983, Borah Peak earthquake (moment magnitude

6.9, Richter magnitude 7.3) occurred along the Lost River fault about 100 km [62 mi] from the

INEEL site. Although the Borah Peak earthquake produced peak ground accelerations of

0.022 g to 0.078 g at INEEL (Jackson, 1985), INEEL facilities were not damaged significantly

(Guenzler and Gorman, 1985).

The tectonic forces that control nearby Basin and Range Province faulting likely affected the

development of four northwest-trending volcanic zones that cross the Plain (Figure 3-5). Along

with a northeast-trending zone that runs along the axis of the Plain, these zones have localized

volcanism during the last 1.2 million years (Bowman, 1995; Hackett and Smith, 1992; Kuntz,

et al., 1990). Most of this volcanism has consisted of thin basaltic lava flows and small volcanic

vents like those on the island of Hawaii. Some past eruptions of rhyolite, however, have been

more energetic and produced ash deposits and steep-sided volcanoes called domes. The last

of these rhyolite eruptions occurred about 300,000 years ago (Kuntz, et al., 1990). The nearest

volcano to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site is 3 km [1.8 mi to the northwest and is

about 600,000 years old (Kuntz, et al., 1994). Although lava flows younger than about

200,000 years old are exposed within 5 km [3 mi] of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel facility

site, the young volcanoes that produced these lavas all occur more than 10 km [6 mi from the

site (Kuntz, et al., 1994).

3.4.2 Soils

According to FWENC (2003a, Section 2.5), surficial sediments ... at the ISF [proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel] Facility site consist mostly of gravel, gravelly sands, and sands," and vegetative

cover is only about 5 percent. Soils have been characterized and consist of 1.5 m [5 ft] of

uncontrolled fill, or loose silt, overlaying about 7.6 m [25 ft] of dense sand and gravel. The silty

soils are of loose to medium-dense consistency and have aeolian and fluvial origins (FWENC,

2003a, Section 6.1). The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be built on a previously

disturbed site.

3-10
Description of the Affected

Environment

Holocene Lava Fields - Volcanic Rift Zones Eastern Snake River Plain

RE]1

COM=Cralers of he Moon

CG=Csrro Grands

HHA=Hells Half Acre

R=North & South Robbers

S=Sjencer-High Point

L=Lava Rdge-Hells .

Half Acre

H=Howe-East Butte

A=Arco I

G=Great Rift --

BSB=Big Southern Butte

MB=Middle Butte

EB=East Butte .

Baoin and Range Province

ISF= IDAHO SPENT FUEL FACIULTY

Figure 3-4. Volcanic Zones on the Eastern Snake River Plain (Modified from

FWENC, 2003a)

13-11
m :3CD

< n

o :.

'0 C.~o3_0

CD

CD

CL

46-

45.

44 .

.0 -

1.0 0

o 0

4.0 Q

so D

to Q

* .

Ir

I a

II A

1I A

IVA

V A

V&

VW 

AllAot 

1

43.

42-

41' 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I00wI

0 SONO I

4 i2OL'n~

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

5;J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o ' 3*@109' *1-I IS- -I 14' -1 13' -112' 1*00 a 

Figure 3-5. Historical Seismicity in the Region Surrounding INEEL (from FWENC, 2003b)

-1 70 -116' l 
Description of the Affected

Environment

A remedial investigation of the INTEC site did not identify the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility site as contaminated (Rodriguez, et al., 1997). Site investigations, in which soil

contaminant levels were measured, were subsequently carried out by the DOE and FWENC on

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site.! A radiological screening was performed in 2002,

and all measured cesium-137 concentrations were well below the risk-based soil remediation

goal of 23 pCi/g defined in the INTEC final record of decision (Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality, 1999); in fact, none exceeded the INEEL background value of 0.8 pCi/g,

also from that report. Because cesium-137 is cbnsistently the highest activity soil contaminant

elsewhere at INTEC and has the lowest activity remediation goal among radionuclides of

concern (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 1999, Sections 5 and 8), it is an

appropriate marker for establishing soil contamination. Therefore, the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility site is not radiologically contaminated.

Nonradiological soil contamination is also of concern as a potential health hazard. FWENC

performed sampling and analyses for nonradiological contaminants in 2000; results are shown

in Table 3-3, which is reproduced from FWENC (2003d). FWENC used a five-step process to

eliminate contaminants from consideration. In the first two steps, metals were eliminated if the

maximum measured concentration was below background or if the metal is considered an

essential nutrient. Table 3-3 presents the metals eliminated by these comparisons. The

maximum measured iron concentration was 24,100 mg/kg [24,100 ppm], which is slightly higher

than the background value of 24,000 mg/kg [24,000 ppm] (LMITCO, 1996). However, this

difference is not considered significant. First, there are uncertainties in both the measurement

and the statistical method used for calculating the background value that, though not reported in

FWENC (2003d), will exceed the 0.4 percent difference. Second, the 24,000-mg/kg

[24,000-ppm] background value is an upper tolerance limit for composite samples. Lockheed

Martin Idaho Technologies Company (LMITCO) (1996) states the upper tolerance limit for

composite samples should not be applied to'grab samples. The corresponding LMITCO (1996)

upper tolerance limit for grab samples is 35,000 mg/kg [35,000 ppm]. Thus, it is concluded that

iron has been appropriately screened out.

In Step 3, organic constituents and remaining metals were compared to U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Preliminary Rernediation Goals (PRGs) for residential soil. For

arsenic, the higher noncancer PRG was appropriately used because the cancer-based PRG

was below background. Although all contaminants for which PRGs were available were below

the PRG levels (Step 3 in Table 3-3), the potential combined effects must be considered.

FWENC addressed this issue by stating that because the PRGs were based on a carcinogenic

risk level of x 10-, combining their effects would still result in risk below the INEEL-employed

risk level of I x 10-. However, this rationale is not appropriate for the 13 contaminants for

which noncancer PRGs were used. The potential additive risk can be evaluated by applying the

methodology recommended in EPA (2002, Section 3.3), in which carcinogenic and

noncarcinogenic risks are considered separately using maximum concentrations. The additive

carcinogenic risk is below 1 x 10-6, and the noncarcinogenic Hazard Index is below one. Thus,

the additive risks are below the respective levels of concern. (Note: if arsenic is considered,

the noncarcinogenic Hazard Index is 1.2; however, considering the high natural background,

this value is not considered a significant exceedence of the level of concern.)

The first three screening steps eliminated all contaminants for which PRGs are defined. Step 4

compared the two remaining organic contaminants (phenanthrene, total petroleum

hydrocarbons-diesel) to EPA Ecologically Based Screening Levels (EBSLs) (EPA, 1999). An

3-13
w

II

-rmo

Table 3-3. Idaho Spent Fuel Site Soil Contamination Screening Results' a _ , M.

Sample Results Step I Step 2 Stop 3 Step 4 Step 5 CD ° =3:3'0

Number Minimum Maximum 

Is Maximum Is Maximum Is Maximum - Background Concentration Non- Region IX Concentration Re ion IV Concentration

Detected Contaminant Samples 

of Concentration Concentration (Composite) Greater Than Toxic PRGb Greater Than EBSL Greater Than Potential 3 (mglkg) (mglkg) (mg/kg) Background? Metal? (mglkg) PRG? (mgfkg) EBSL? Concern? >

Aluminum 16 3,850 15,400 16,000 No --- No 

Arsenic 16 Arsenic 

2.3 16 

8.9 5.8 Yes No 22dNo 

d No ~~~~~~~~~~

-_ No (D

Barium 16 59.2 234 300 No - -

Beryllium 16 0.24 0.96 1.8 No No

Cadmium 2 0.12 0.25 2.2 No .

Calcium 16 8,080 42,700 24,000 Yes Yes _ _ _ _ No

Chromium 16 9.0 32.6 33 No - No

Ubdil| 16 2.5 8. l i i NO - NO

Copper 16 5.3 19.3 22 No - - - | No

Iron 16 6,340 24,100 24,000 No - No

Lead 16 4.2 98.9' 17 Yes No 400 No No

Magnesium 16 3,600 9,170 12,000 No _ _ _ _ _ No

Manganese 16 158 542 490 Yes No 1,800 No No

Mercury 4 0.03 0.05 0.05 No _ _ _ _ _ No

Nickel 16 6.2 25.2 35 No No

Potassium 16 1,040 4,060 4,300 No No

Selenium 16 0.52 1.7 0.22 Yes No 390 No No
Table 3-3. Idaho Spent Fuel Site Soil Contamination Screening Results' (continued)

en

Sample Results Step I Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Is Maximum Is Maximum Is Maximum Number Minimum Maximum Background Concentration Non- ReglortIX Concentration Region IV Concentration

Detected Contaminant of Concentration Concentration (Composite) Greater Than Toxic PRG1 Greater Than EBSLI Greater Than Potential Samples (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) Background? Metal? (mglkg) PRG? (mglkg) EBSL? Concern?

Sodium 16 243 636 320 Yes Yes _ No

Thallium 11 0.22 0.86 0.43 Yes No 5.2 No No

Vanadium 16 13.2 50.0 45 Yes No 550 No No ..

Zinc 16 26.4 104 150 No _ . - _ No

Acetone 14 0.002. 0.054 NA NA- No 1,600 No - No

Trichiorofluoromethane .. 0.003 0.003 NA NA No 390 No - . No

2-Methyinaphthalene 2 045 00.25 NA- . NA No 1,600 No No

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 0.073~ 0.073 N NA No 0.62 -. No - -- No

8is(2-Ethyihexyi)phthaiate = 7 0.088 1.1 NA NA No 35 No . _ No

Chrysene 1 0.091 0.091 NA NA No 62 No No

Dibenzofuran 2 0.081 0.12 NA NA No 290 No No

Fluoranthene 2 0.082 0.13 NA NA No 2,300 No No;

Naphthalene 2 0.17 0.32 NA NA No 56 No - - No

Phenanthrene 2 0.15 0.21 NA NA No No PRG No PRG 0.1 Yes Yes

Pyrene 2 0.079 0.10 NA NA No 2,300 No - No

m .

*0'

CID

0

= 0

C0

CD

0
Table 3-3. Idaho Spent Fuel Site Soil Contamination Screening Results' (continued)

Sample Results Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Is Maximum Is Maximum Is Maximum

Number Minimum Maximum Background Concentration Non Region IX Concentration Region IV Concentration

of Concentration Concentration (Composite) Greater Than Toxic PRGb Greater Than EBSL' Greater Than Potential

Detected Contaminant Samples (mg/kg) (mglkg) (mglkg) Background? Metal? (mglkg) PRG? (mglkg) EBSL? Concern?

TPH-Diesel 1 >51 >51 NA NA No No PRG No PRG No EBSL No EBSL No

Motor Oil 3 >100 >100 NA NA No No PRG No PRG No EBSL No EBSL No

ITI 0

MCD

:3-o-9=

CD0

02,

CD

0

EBSL = Ecologically Based Screening Level

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FWENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation NA = Not applicable PRG = preliminary remediation goal TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons

' FWENC. 'Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Related to Environmental Review." NRC

Docket No. 72-25. TAC No. L20768. Table 5-1-1. Letter (March 7) from R.D. zatt to NRC. FW-NRC-ISF-03-0048. Richland, Washington: FWENC. 2003.

EPA Region X, Preliminary Pamediaticn Goals TabWe 200 i pdate Resid-ntial Sri!s. PRoion 9 PRGs Tbl I - f-iBcrr-hri- I -c r San F-- 

J- ICalifornia: EPA, Region 9. 2002. <http://www.eoa.ov/repion0g9waste/sfund/orq/files/02userpuide.odf> EPA Region IV, Recommended Ecological Screening Values (mg/kg) for soil. Region 4 Waste Management Division Soil Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites." Atlanta, 0 Georgia: EPA Region 4. chttp://www.epa.gov/regionO4/waste/ots/epatab4.pdf> 1999. dThe residential soils PRG for arsenic is 0.39 mg/kg 0.39 ppm]. However, when the natural background is higher than the risk-based concentration, EPA Region 4 allows use of the

noncancer PRG {22 mg/kg 122 ppm]} to evaluate the site.

Only one lead sample was greater than background; it is likely that a minute piece of metal was part of this sample and represents a hot spot. EPA Region Ill, Risked Based Concentration Table. Region IlIl Risk-Based Concentration Table." Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: EPA Region 3.

<http Awww epa qov/req3hwmd/risk/rbc1002 df> 2002. Region 9 PRG not available.

NOTE: To convert mg/kg to parts per million (ppm), multiply by 1.
Description of the Affected

Environment

EBSL is defined only for one-phenanthrene-and it exceeded the EBSL. All three

contaminants were then passed to Step 5, in which alternative corisiderations were made. The

maximum phenanthrene concentration was twice as high as the EBSL, however, the total for all

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (a group to which phenanthrene belongs) was below the

corresponding EBSL for the group. In addition, the maximum phenanthrene concentration of

0.21 mg/kg [0.21 ppm] was well below the 5 mg/kg [5 ppm] value defined as moderate soil

contamination that requires additional study (Beyer, 1990). Finally, FWENC (2003d) shows that

total petroleum hydrocarbons-diesel and motor oil are well below levels of concem.

3.4.3 Geologic Natural Resources

No geologic resources are identified at the site of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Known mineral resources inside the INEEL boundary are limited to several quarries or pits that

supply sand, gravel, pumice, silt, clay, and aggregate for road construction and maintenance,

new facility construction and maintenance, waste burial activities, and omamental landscaping

cinders. 'Outside the INEEL site boundary, mineral resources include sand, gravel, pumice,

phosphate, and base and precious metals (Strowd,'et al., 1981; Mitchell, et al., 1981). The

geologic history of the Plain makes the potential for petroleum production at INEEL very low. In

1979; INEEL drilled a geothermal exploration well to 3,159 m [10,365 ft]. Researchers

measured a temperature of 142 c°C [288 0F] but identified no commercial quantities of

geothermal fluids (Idaho Department of Water Resources, 1980).

3.4.4 Seismic Hazard

The distribution of earthquakes at and near INEEL from 1884 to 1989 clearly shows that the

Eastem Snake River Plain has a low rate of seismicity, whereas the surrounding Basin and

Range Province has a relatively high rate (Figure 3-5) (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1992).

The mechanism for faulting and generation of earthquakes in the Basin and Range Province is

attributed to northeast-southwest directed crustal extension.

Major seismic hazards include the effects from ground shaking and surface deformation

(faulting, tilting). Other potential seismic hazards (e.g., avalanches, landslides, mudslides, soil

settlement, and soil liquefaction) are not likely to occur at INEEL because the local geologic

conditions are not conducive. Based on the seismic history and the geologic conditions,

earthquakes greater than moment magnitude 5:5 (and associated strong ground shaking and

surface fault rupture) are not likely to occur in the Plain. However, moderate to strong ground

shaking from earthquakes in the Basin and Range Province can affect INEEL. Researchers use

patterns of seismicity and locations of mapped faults to assess potential sources of future

earthquakes and to estimate levels of ground motion at the site. The sources and maximum

magnitudes of earthquakes that could produce the maximum levels of ground motions at all

INEEL facilities include the following (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1990, 1992):

* A moment magnitude 7.0 earthquake at the southern end of the Lemhi fault along the

Howe and Fallert Springs segments;

* ' A moment magnitude 7.0 earthquake at the southern end of the Lost River fault along

the Arco segment;

3-17
Description of the Affected

Environment

* A moment magnitude 5.5 earthquake associated with dike injection in either the Arco or

Lava Ridge-Hell's Half Acre Volcanic Rift Zone and the Axial Volcanic Zone; and

* A random moment magnitude 5.5 earthquake in the Eastern Snake River Plain.

3.4.5 Volcanic Hazard

Potential volcanic hazards to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility arise primarily from lava

flows and airborne ash-falls. Lavas are hot {1,100 0C [2,000 F]}, heavy {2,600 kg/m3

[4,374 lb/yd3]} flows of molten rock that can travel down slopes at several miles per hour. Lava

flows that could possibly affect the site would likely originate from a new basaltic volcano that

formed in either the Axial Volcanic Zone or the Arco Volcanic Rift Zone (Figure 3-4). These

volcanic zones are closest to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and contain volcanoes

younger than 400,000 years old. Based on an analysis of past volcanic eruptions in the INEEL

area, the Volcanism Working Group (1990) estimated a likelihood of <2 x 10-5 per year for a

new volcano forming in these zones and erupting a lava flow that would be long enough to

reach the general area of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Volcanic ash is a relatively hard, highly abrasive, fine-grained particulate that can produce loads

on horizontal surfaces, readily clog air- and water-filtration systems, rapidly abrade pumps and

seals, and short electrical systems. Volcanic ash-falls could occur at the site from eruptions as

far away as the Cascade Mountains. Hoblitt, et al. (1987) calculated a 10-3 annual probability

for a 1-cm- [0.4-in-] thick ash deposit forming at the INEEL from a Cascade volcano eruption.

This annual probability decreases to 10-6 for a 10-cm- [4-in-] thick ash deposit (Hoblitt, et al.,

1987). Rhyolite dome volcanoes, such as Big Southern Butte or East Butte, also have the

potential to produce ash-fall deposits within tens of kilometers from the volcano (e.g., Scott,

1987). In addition, large-volume eruptions from the Yellowstone Volcanic Zone could produce

appreciable ash-fall deposits at INEEL in the unlikely event that regional winds were directed to

the southwest during a potential eruption (Figure 3-4).

3.5 Water Resources

3.5.1 Surface Water Resources

This description of the surface water resources in the affected environment at the INEEL is

taken from the DOE Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8).

Other than surface-water bodies formed from accumulated runoff during snowmelt or heavy

precipitation and artificial infiltration and evapcration ponds, there is little surface water at

the site.

3.5.1.1 Regional Drainage

INEEL is located in the Mud Lake-Lost River E3asin (also known as the Pioneer Basin).

Figure 3-6 shows major surface water features of this basin. This closed drainage basin

includes three main streams-the Big and Little Lost Rivers and Birch Creek. These three

streams drain the mountain areas to the north and west of INEEL, although most flow is diverted

for irrigation in the summer months before it reaches the site boundaries.

The Big Lost River drains about 3,755 km2 [1,450 mi2] of land before reaching the site.

Approximately 48 km [30 mi] upstream of Arco, Idaho, Mackay Dam controls and regulates the

3-18
Description of the Affected

Environment

flow of the river, which continues southeast onto the Eastern Snake River Plain. The river

channel then crosses the southwestern boundary of the INEEL, where the INEEL Diversion

Dam controls surface-water flow. During heavy runoff events, the dam diverts surface water to

a series of natural depressions, designated as spreading areas (Figure 3-6). During periods of

high flow or low irrigation demand, the Big Lost River continues past the diversion dam to the

northeast. It passes within 61 m [200 ft] of INTEC and 1,200 m [4,000 ft] of the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility to an area of natural infiltration playas or sinks about 24 to 32 km [15 to

20 mu northeast of INTEC. In dry years, surface water does not usually reach the western

boundary of the site. Because INEEL is located in a closed drainage basin, surface water does

not flow off the site.

Birch Creek drains an area of about 1,940 km2 [750 mil. Upstream of INEEL, surface water

from Birch Creek is diverted during the summer to provide irrigation and to produce hydropower.

In the winter, water flow crosses the northwest comer of the site, entering a humanmade

channel 6.4 km [4 mi north of Test Area North, where it then infiltrates into channel gravels.

The Little Lost River drains an area of about 1,825 km2 [705 mil. Streamflow is diverted for

irrigation north of Howe, Idaho. Surface water from the Little Lost River has not reached the site

in recent years; however, during high stream flow years, water would reach the site and infiltrate

into the subsurface (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8).

3.5.1.2 Local Drainage

INTEC is located on an alluvial plain and its northwest corner is about 61 m [200 ft] east of the

Big Lost River channel. Located at the

southeast corner of INTEC, the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is about 1,220 m F

[4,000 ft] east of the channel. Surface water, - Flood Frequency Terms

generated from local precipitation would Flood frequency is typically characterized by the

flow into lower areas on the site. This recurrence interval of a flood (or flow). This term is

surface water either evaporates or infiltrates the average period of time that elapses between

into the ground, increasing subsurface floods of a given size. Larger floods are more -uai infrequent, and, therefore, have a larger recurrence saturation and enha 'nicing subsurface Interval. Recurrence intervals are calculated based on

migration (Wilhelmson, et al., 1993). historical measurements of flow and on geologic

Localized flooding can occur at the site evidence of flooding.

when the ground is frozen and melting snow -oT e 1. -

combines with heavy spring rains. In 1969, 1 00-Year Flood--The 1 00-year flood does not combins heav wit sprig rais. In1969, necessarily occur only once every 1 00 years, but

rapid snowmelt caused extensive flooding in rather has a 11100 (1 percent) probability of occurring

the lower Birch Creek Valley, and Test Area - in any given year.

North was flooded (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.8). - 500-Year Flood-Similar to the 100-year flood, the 500-year flood may occur more or less than once in a

The location of the proposed Idaho Spent 500-year period, but has only a 1/500 (0.2 percent) The of he locaion propsed Idao Spent probability in any given year.l

Fuel Facility is just outside the INTEC .el

complex on an open, previously disturbed Probable Maximum Flood-This hypothetical flow

3.2-ha [8-acre] parcel of land immediately scenario is used to place an upper bound on the Vanf f n I a Dohn ovwgiyr u...,.ra hya 

but is intended to represent the combination of events

(snowmelt, precipitation, and dam failure) that could

lead to maximum streamnfow.

3-19
Description of the Affected

Environment

Figure 3-6. Surface Drainages Associated with the Big Lost River System (Modified from

FWENC-, 2003)

3-20
Description of the Affected

Environment

east of the INTEC perimeter fence, north of its coal-ash pit, and northeast of the coal-fired

power plant. INTEC is surrounded by a storm water drainage ditch system (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.8). The drainage system, including dikes and erosion-prevention features designed to

mitigate potential surface water flooding, is being upgraded (DOE, 2001 a, 2002a). Storm water

runoff from most areas of INTEC flows through the ditches to an abandoned gravel pit on the

northeast side of INTEC. From the gravel pit, the runoff infiltrates and provides potential

recharge to the Snake River Plain aquifer. The system is designed to handle a maximum

24-hour storm event with a 25-year recurrence interval. DOE built a secondary system around

the facility to hold water if the first system overflows. Because the land is relatively flat (slopes

of generally less than 1 percent) and annual precipitation is low, storm water runoff volumes are

small and generally are spread over large'areas where they evaporate or infiltrate the ground

surface. Annual precipitation at INEEL averaged 22.cm/yr [8.7 in/yr] from 1951 through 1994.

Annual net evaporation from large water surfaces in the Eastern Snake River Plain is 84 cm/yr

[33 in/yr] (Rodriguez, et al., 1997).

Artificial surface water features at INTEC consist of two percolation ponds used for disposal of

water from the service waste system and sewage-treatment lagoons and infiltration trenches for

treated wastewater. Service water consists of raw water, demineralized water, treated water,

and steam condensate (Rodriguez, et al., 1997). The sewage-treatment plant receives an

average sanitary sewage flow of 159,000 Liday [42,000 gal/day]. The percolation ponds receive

about 5.7 to 9.5 million Uday [1.5 to 2.5 million gal/day] of service wastewater per day and are

each about 1.8 ha [4.5 acres] in size (Rodriguez, et al., 1997).

3.5.1.3 Flood Plains

Flood studies at the INEEL (Figure 3-7) include the examination of the flooding potential at

INEEL facilities from a probable maximum flood (koslow and Van Haaften, 1986) caused by the

hypothetical failure of Mackay Dam, 73 km [45 mi] upstream of the INEEL. The U.S. Geological

Survey has published a preliminary map of the 100-year flood plain for the Big Lost River on the

INEEL (Berenbrock and Kjelstrom, 1998). As a result of this screening analysis, which

indicated that INTEC may be subject to flooding from a 100-year flood, DOE commissioned

additional studies (Ostenaa, et al., 1999) consistent with the requirements contained in DOE

standards for a comprehensive flood hazard assessment (DOE, 1996a). There is no historical

record of any flooding at the INTEC from the Big Lost River, although evidence of prehistoric

flooding exists in the geologic sediments at the site.

Estimates of the 100- and 500-year flows for the Big Lost River were most recently published by

the U.S. Geological, Survey (Berenbrock and Kjelstrom, 1996) and the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation (Ostenaa, et al., 1999). The U.S. Geological Survey 100-year flow estimate is

205 m3/s [7,260 f 3/s] at the Arco gauging station 19 km [12 mi] upstream of the INEEL Diversion

Dam. This estimate is based on 60 years of stream gauge data and conservative assumptions

to 'account for the effects of Big Lost River regulation and irrigation. The U.S. Geological Survey

published a preliminary map of the Big Lost River flood plain (Berenbrock and Kjelstrom, 1998)

based on the 205-m3/s [7,260-ft/s], 100-year flow estimate. In this study, it was assumed that

the INEEL Diversion Dam did not exist and that 29.4 m3/s [1,040 ft3/s] would be captured by the

diversion channel and flow to the spreading areas southwest of the Diversion Dam. The model

then routed the remaining 176 m3/s [6,220 f 3/s] down the Big Lost River channel on the INEEL.

A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers analysis of existing data (Bhamidipaty,1997) and an INEEL

geotechnical analysis (LMITCO, 1998) both concluded that the INEEL Diversion Dam could

-3-21
M. 0

M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ax-ts~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . iA<D (n 

Whlto Knob /t ) 9^ \ } _ , Pbp 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=, 

0 a.

9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~( D 0E

Mcka~yRMPrvlr k a '9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C -W

CD

(D

0

g2; { Sex Con~~~~~~~~gij _24Pla To Rexbur Fall

CL

Mountains ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JcIn Baulerrard

ig Lost Rivur Sinks

IN EEL

CAC Pioneer C t TRc1itir Lost River ANL-W

hRF Nevol R~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ser iluolib iNcll,

1RATo Idaho rai

INEEL Diversion Darnmu" Es

TAN Tedt Areo North

IFR Paser BuRst Facility

ANL-W Argonne National Laboratory-West

Proboble maximum tlood area

(Koslow nd Von Hcten. 1986)

Aproxlmaot Scale

o 3 10 . 20 MUs

1 a 18 2! 12 Kilometers

Figure 3-7. Predicted Inundation Area at INEEL for a Probable Maximum Flood Event with Overtopping of the Mackay

Dam (Modified from FWENC, 2003b)
Description of the Affected

Environment

withstand flows up to 170 m3/s [6,000 ft3 s]. Culverts running through the diversion dam could

convey a maximum of 25 m3/s [900 ft3/s] downstream, but their condition and capacity as a

function of water elevation is unknown (Bhamidipaty, 1997). Although the net capacity of the

INEEL Diversion Dam may exceed U.S. Geological Survey 100-year flow estimates, it is not

certified or used as a flood control structure for flood plain mapping purposes. The estimated

100-year flood plain covers the northern part of INTEC, but does not reach the southeast comer

where the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be located (DOE, 2002a, Figure 4-9).

The flows and frequencies in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation study are based on statistical

analyses with input from stream gauge data and two-dimensional flow modeling constrained by

geomorphic evidence. Radiocarbon dating indicates the geologic evidence records Big Lost

River flow history for the last 10,000 years. The mean Bureau of Reclamation estimate for the

100-year flow of the Big Lost River is 82 m3/s [2,910 ft3/s]. The 100-year flood plain was

estimated based on a flow with a 97.5-percent chance of not being exceeded in 100 years

{92.6 m3/s [3,270 ft3/s]). The mean Bureau of Reclamation estimate for the 500-year Big Lost

River flow is 104 m3/s [3,669 ft3/s]. The 500-year flood plain was estimated based on a flow with

a 97.5-percent chance of not being exceeded in 500 years {1 16 m3/s [4,086 ft3/s]}. These flood

plain maps were generated assuming one-dimensional flow, no infiltration or flow loss along the

Big Lost River flow path, and no diversion dam. With these conservative assumptions, small

areas of the northern portion of INTEC could flood at the estimated 97.5 quantile 100- and

500-year flows. The southeast comer of INTEC wherb the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

would be located is not within the estimated 97.5 quantile 100- and 500-year flood plains (DOE,

2002a, Figure 4-9). The estimated 100-year peak flow of the Big Lost River was reexamined

and updated (Hortness and Rousseau, 2003) to resolve differences in previous estimates by the

Bureau of Reclamation (Ostenaa, et al.,_1999) and the U.S. Geological Survey (Kjelstrom and

Berenbock, 1996). The 2003 report estimated a 100-year peak flow for the Big Lost River

immediately upstream of the INEEL diversion dam of 106 m3/s [3,750 ft3/s] with upper and lower

95-percent confidence limits of 177 m3/s [6,250 ft3/s] and 37 m3/s [1,300 ft3/s]. These estimates

indicate the conservative nature of earlier estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey {205 m3/s

[7,260 ft3/s]} (Berenbrock and Kjelstrom, 1996) and the 1999 Bureau of Reclamation {82 m3/s

[2,910 ft3/s]} (Ostenaa, etal., 1999).

3.5.1.4 Surface Water Quality

Water quality in the Big Lost River has remained fairly constant over the period of record.

Applicable drinking water quality standards for measured physical, chemical, and radioactive

parameters have not been exceeded (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.8). The

chemical composition of the water reflects the carbonate mineral composition of the surrounding

mountain ranges northwest of INEEL and the chemical composition of return irrigation water

drained to the Big Lost River (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8). INEEL activities do not directly affect

the quality of surface water outside the site because discharges are to humanmade seepage

and evaporation basins or storm water injection wells. Effluents are not discharged to natural

surface waters. In addition, surface water does iot flow directly off the site (Hoff, et al., 1990).

However, water from the Big Lost River, as well as seepage from evaporation basins and storm

water injection wells, does infiltrate the Snake River Plain Aquifer (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8).-

These areas are inspected, monitored, and sampled as stipulated in the INEEL Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Program (DOE,2001a).'

3-23
Description of the Affected

Environment

DOE measures surface water quality at INTEC, at two storm water monitoring locations, the

percolation ponds and the sewage-treatment 'agoons. The storm water monitoring locations are

at the inlet to the retention basin on the northeast side of INTEC and on the south side of a coal

pile at the discharge to a ditch. The coal pile is located on the southeast side of INTEC. DOE

monitors for metals, inorganics, radiological constituents, and volatile organic compounds in

storm water (LMITCO, 1997). EPA-specified nonradiological benchmarks (EPA, 1995) and

radiological benchmarks from the Derived Concentration Guides from DOE Order 5400.5 form

the baseline values from which DOE monitors. INTEC data for 1996 indicate that contaminants

are below benchmark levels (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8). Benchmarks are the pollutant

concentrations above which EPA and DOE have determined represent a level of concern. The

level of concern is the concentration at which a storm water discharge could potentially impact

or contribute to water quality impairment or affect human health as a result of ingestion of water

or fish.

Liquid effluents monitored at INTEC include effluent from the service waste system to the

percolation ponds and effluent from the sewage-treatment plant prior to discharge to the rapid

infiltration trenches. Wastewater Land Application Permits from the State of Idaho have been

issued for these discharges. Monitoring results for the percolation pond in 1996 indicate the

effluent constituent concentrations are within acceptable ranges, and annual flow volumes are

within the limits specified in the permits (LMITCO, 1997). In 2000, the sewage treatment plant

effluent did not exceed the 100-mg/L [100-ppm] total suspended solids limit or the flow limit

specified in the permit. The 20-mg/L [20-ppm] total nitrogen limit for the sewage treatment plant

effluent was exceeded in three monthly samples during the calendar year. The 2000 total

nitrogen average was 15.6 mg/L [15.6 ppm]. As part of the ongoing nitrogen study, an indepth

inventory of nitrogen sources contributing to the INTEC sewage treatment plant was performed.

The study did not identify any new sources. Additional corrective actions are planned

(DOE, 2001b).

3.5.2 Groundwater Resources

This description of the subsurface water resources in the affected environment at INEEL is

taken from the DOE Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8).

Subsurface water at the site occurs in the Snake River Plain Aquifer and the vadose zone.

Generally, the term groundwater refers to usable quantities of water that enter freely into wells

during confined and unconfined conditions within an aquifer.

3.5.2.1 Local Hydrogeology

The INEEL overlies the Snake River Plain Aquifer, the largest aquifer in Idaho (Figure 3-8).

This aquifer is the major source of drinking water for southeast Idaho and has been designated

a sole-source aquifer by EPA. This aquifer underlies the Eastern Snake River Plain and covers

an area of about 24,900 km2 [9,611 mi2l. The aquifer flows to the south and southwest. Depth

to the top of the aquifer ranges from 61 m [200 ft] in the northern part of INEEL to about 274 m

[900 ft) in the southern part. Beneath the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, the depth to water

is estimated to be 140 to 146 m [460 to 480 ft' (Rodriquez, et al., 1997). The aquifer, with

estimates of thickness ranging from 76 m [250 ft] to more than 914 m [3,000 ft], consists of thin

basaltic flows, interspersed with sedimentary layers.

3-:24
Description of the Affected

Environment

N.

: I STATE OF IDAHO

. I - .

*~~~~~~ . .;,

o 10 20 30 Maa

I I I I

]

I A0t1 A . AA

A

A

A AA-X1

A A

A A AA

A A A A 

A A A A

AAA A

A AA AAA AAA. A A

AA A A A

A A AA /XA

A XAA AAA

AA A AA ' AA AAA 'A^A A

AAAA AA~~ AA *A A 'A

EXPANAON

IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

SPRINGS

APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF SNAKE RIVER PLAIN

GENERALIZED GROUND-WATER FLOW

UNE (FROM MNDORFFAND

OTHERS. 1964)

Figure 3-8. Regional Groundwater Flow in the Snake River Plain Aquifer Beneath INEEL

(Modified from FWENC, 2003b). To Convert Miles to Kilometers, Multiply by 1.6.

3-25
Description of the Affected

Environment

The drainage basin recharging the Snake River Plain Aquifer covers an area of about

90,640 km2 [35,000 mi (DOE, 1995, 2002a) The aquifer is recharged by infiltration of

irrigation water, seepage from stream channels and canals, underflow from tributary stream

valleys extending into the watershed, and direct infiltration from precipitation (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.8). Most recharge is from irrigation water and by valley underflow from the mountains

to the north and northeast of the plain and along the northeastern margins of the plain. Some

recharge also occurs directly from precipitation (Rodriguez, et al., 1997). Groundwater in the

aquifer generally flows south and southwestward across the Snake River Plain. The estimated

water storage in the aquifer is 2.5 x 102 m3 [2 billion acre-ft]. A typical irrigation well can yield

as much as 26,500 L/min [7,000 gal/min] (DdE, 1995) or 13.9 billion L/yr [3.7 billion gal/yr] of

water if pumped every day (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8). The Snake River Plain Aquifer is among

the most productive aquifers in the nation.

Groundwater discharges primarily from the aquifer through springs that flow into the Snake

River and from pumping for irrigation. Major springs and seepages that flow from the aquifer

are located near the American Falls Reservoir (southwest of Pocatello) and the Thousand

Springs area between Milner Dam and King Hill (near Twin Falls) (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8).

The aquifer's ability to transmit water (transmissivity) and its ability to store water (storativity) are

important physical properties of the aquifer. In general, the hydraulic characteristics of the

aquifer enable the easy transmission of water, particularly in the upper portions. The rate at

which water moves through the ground depends on the hydraulic gradient (change in elevation

and pressure with distance in a given direction) of the aquifer, the effective porosity (percentage

of void spaces), and hydraulic conductivity (capacity of a porous media to transport water) of the

soil and bedrock. The local hydraulic gradient is low, 2 x 10-4 m/km [1.2 ft/mi], compared to the

regional gradient of 8 x 10-4 km/mi [4 ft/mil (Rodriguez, et al., 1997). In the INTEC area, the

hydraulic conductivity ranges over five orders of magnitude {0.03 to 3,048 m/day [0.10 to

10,000 fdayl}, with an average of 246 m/day [1,300 ft/day] (Rodriguez, et al., 1997). Because

aquifer porosity and hydraulic conductivity decrease with depth, most of the water in the aquifer

moves through the upper 61 to 152 in [200 to 500 ftj of the basalts. Estimated flow rates within

the aquifer range from 1.5 to 6.1 in [5 to 20 ftl per day (Barraclough, et al., 1981).

3.5.2.2 Vadose Zone Hydrology

The vadose zone extends down from the ground surface to the regional water table (the top of

the Snake River Plain Aquifer). Within the vadose zone, water and air occupy openings in the

geologic materials. Subsurface water in the vadose zone is referred to as vadose water. At the

site, this complex zone consists of surface sediments (primarily clay and silt, with some sand

and gravel) and many relatively thin basaltic lava flows, with some sedimentary interbeds. Thick

surficial deposits occur in the northern part of the site, which thin to the south where basalt is

exposed at the surface. Perched water bodies are the exception. The vadose zone at INTEC

extends from the ground surface to 140-146 in [460-480 ft] below the ground surface

(Rodriguez, et al., 1997). The vadose zone protects the groundwater by filtering many

contaminants through adsorption, buffering dissolved chemical wastes, and slowing the

transport of contaminated liquids to the aquifer. The vadose zone also protects the aquifer by

storing large volumes of liquid or dissolved contaminants released to the environment through

spills or migration from disposal pits or ponds, allowing natural decay processes to occur.

3-26
Description of the Affected

Environment

Travel times for water through the vadose zone are important for an understanding of

contaminant movement. The flow rates in the vadose zone depend directly on the extent of

fracturing, the percentage of sediments versus basalt, and the mbisture content of vadose zone

material. Flow increases under wet conditions and slows under dry conditions. During dry

conditions, transport of contaminants downward toward the aquifer is slow. Measurements

taken at the INEEL Radioactive Waste Management Complex during unsaturated flow

conditions indicated a downward infiltration rate ranging from 0.55 to 1.7 mm/yr [0.14 to

0.43 in/yr] (Cecil, et al., 1992). In another study during near-saturated flow conditions 'in the

same area, standing water infiltrated downward 2.1 m [6.9 ft] in less than 24 hours (Kaminsky,

1991). During 1994, an infiltration study was conducted at INTEC that showed significant

increase in moisture to a depth of 3 m [10 ft] after 2 hours (LMITCO, 1995).

3.5.2.3 Perched Water

Perched water occurs when water migrates vertically and laterally from the surface until it

reaches an impermeable layer above the regional water table (Irving, 1993). As perched water

spreads laterally, sometimes for hundreds of meters, it moves over the edges of the

impermeable layer and continues downward. -In general, perched water bodies slow the'

downward migration of fluids that infiltrate into the vadose zone from the surface because the

downward flow is not continuous (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8).

Historically at INTEC there have been three zones of perched water ranging from about

9 to 98 m [30 to 322 ft] below the ground surface. These zones include (i) a shallow perched

water zone in the Big Lost River alluvium above the basalt, (ii) an upper basalt perched water

zone, and (iii) a lower basalt perched water zone. Each zone is comprised of a number of

smaller perched water bodies that may or may not be hydraulically connected.

The shallow perched water zone in the Big Lost River alluvium in the southern area of INTEC is

believed to no longer exist (Rodriguez, et al., 1997). The upper basalt perched water zone

occurs between the depths of 30 and 43 m [100 and 140 ft]. At the northem' end of INTEC,

there is a body of upper basalt perched water beneath the sewage treatment ponds on the

eastern side of INTEC extending toward the west under north-central INTEC. The western

portion of the northern perched water body receives water from other sources including the Big

Lost River, leaking fire water lines, precipitation infiltration, steam condensate dry wells, and.

lawn irrigation (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8). In the southern area of INTEC, a large body of

perched water in the upper basalt has resulted primarily from discharge to the percolation ponds

(Rodriguez, et al.,1997). The lower basalt perched water zone occurs in the basalt between

97 and 128 m [320 and 420 ft] below the ground surface. Two areas of perched water occur in

the lower basalt, essentially directly beneath the upper basalt perched water. The northern.

body of lower basalt perched water is recharged from the sources contributing to the upper

perched water. The lower perched water was influenced by the failure of an injection well in the

late 1960s and late 1970s that allowed injection of service wastewater directly into the northern

lower perched water body. The southern lower-basalt perched water body is recharged from'

the discharge from the percolation ponds (Rodriguez, et al., 1997).

3.5.2.4 Subsurface Water Quality

Natural water chemistry and contaminants originating at the site affect subsurface water quality.

The INEEL Groundwater Protection Management Program and DOE perform groundwater

3-27
Description of the Affected

Environment

monitoring at INTEC and the surrounding area to monitor drinking water, detect unplanned

releases to groundwater, identify potential environmental problems, and ensure compliance with

Federal, State of Idaho, and DOE groundwater regulations and monitoring requirements.

Subsurface water quality is also monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bechtel

BWXT Idaho, LLC, Environmental Monitoring Program. This program collects samples from

surface water, perched water, and aquifer wells to identify contaminants and contaminant

migration to and within the aquifer. Groundwater monitoring at INEEL is generally divided into

four categories: drinking water monitoring, compliance monitoring, surveillance monitoring, and

special studies.

Several factors determine the natural groundwater chemistry of the Snake River Plain Aquifer

beneath the site. These factors include the weathering reactions that occur as water interacts

with minerals in the aquifer and the chemical composition of (i) groundwater originating outside

the site; (ii) precipitation falling directly on the land surface; and (iii) streams, rivers, and runoff

infiltrating the aquifer (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8). The chemistry of the groundwater is different,

depending on the source areas. For example, groundwater from the northwest contains

calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate leached from sedimentary rocks, and groundwater from

the east contains sodium, fluorine, and silicate resulting from contact with volcanic rocks.

Although the natural chemical composition of grcundwater beneath the site does not exceed the

EPA drinking water standards for any component, the natural chemistry affects the mobility of

contaminants introduced into the subsurface from INEEL activities. Many dissolved

contaminants adsorb (or attach) to the surface of rocks and minerals in the subsurface, thereby

retarding the movement of contaminants in the aquifer and inhibiting further migration of

contamination. Many naturally occurring chemicals compete with contaminants for adsorption

sites on the rocks and minerals or react with contaminants to reduce their attraction to rock and

mineral surfaces.

INTEC drinking water wells are hydrologically upgradient of the INTEC facility. Measured

drinking water parameters at INEEL are compared to the maximum contaminant levels

established in the Safe Drinking Water Act. State regulations are in the Idaho Rules for Public

Drinking Water Systems (Idaho Department ol Environmental Quality, 2001a). In 2000, the

most recent year with published data, all drinking water samples collected at INTEC had

concentrations below the maximum contaminant levels specified in Federal and state drinking

water regulations (DOE, 2001b).

DOE performs compliance groundwater monitoring at INTEC to meet the requirements of the

State of Idaho Wastewater Land Application Permits. The two areas monitored include wells in

the vicinity of the percolation ponds and near the sewage treatment pond. The permits require

compliance with the Idaho Groundwater Quality Standards in specified downgradient

groundwater monitoring wells, annual discharge volume and application rates, and effluent

quality limits (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 2001 b). Permit variance limits were

granted for total dissolved solids and chloride at the percolation pond compliance monitoring

wells. The primary source of total dissolved solids and chloride in the percolation ponds is the

INTEC water treatment processes. The data for 1996 indicate that no permit limits (or permit

variance limits) were exceeded at the percolation ponds in 1996 (LMITCO, 1997). At the

compliance well for monitoring the sewage treatment plant, maximum allowable concentrations

were not exceeded. At a shallow well (CPP-MC)N-PW-024) adjacent to the sewage treatment

plant, however, levels of total dissolved solids, chloride, and nitrogen compounds were

elevated. DOE monitors this well to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment and to detect

3-28
Description of the Affected

Environment

unplanned releases. Based on the information obtained from the monitoring data, DOE would

alter treatment processes to optimize wastewater treatment and'rr'nove elevated nitrogen

compounds (LMITCO, 1997).

DOE conducts surveillance monitoring at INTEC to meet the requirements of DOE Order 450.1.

This order requires DOE facilities with contaminated (or potentially contaminated) groundwater

resources to establish a groundwater monitoring program. The monitoring program is designed

to determine and document the impacts of facility operations on groundwater quantity and

quality and to demonstrate compliance with Federal, state, and local regulations. DOE (2002a,

Section 4.8) summarizes monitoring parameters that exceeded surveillance thresholds

(Table 3-4). The surveillance thresholds are'the'Safe Drinking Water Act maximum

contaminant levels and secondary'maximum contaminant levels.

At the perched-water surveillance wells for the percolation ponds, the constituents elevated

above the threshold limits include aluminum, chloride, iron, lead, and strontium-90. The causes

for the elevated aluminum, lead, and iron concentrations are uncertain, although there may be

some corrosion of well components. The chloride concentration is consistent with historical

chloride concentrations and reflects the concentration within the percolation ponds. The source

of chloride is the water-treatment proc6sses. The strontium-90 concentrations are most likely

residual from the historical discharges of radionuclides to the percolation ponds. Most

radionuclide discharges to the percolation ponds were discontinued in 1993 when the INTEC

Liquid Effluent Treatment and Disposal Facility began operations.

In 1995, surveillance monitoring at the sewage-treatment plant wells indicated measurements of

total coliform, iron, and strontium-90 above threshold levels. DOE suspects that the total

coliform measurement is the result of crbss-contamination. The source of iron is unknown.

Strontium-90 concentrations are consistent with historical values (LMITCO, 1997). In 2000,

data were available for USGS-52, indicating the gross alpha concentrations were above

threshold levels (DOE, 2002c). Constituents-detected above threshold levels in surveillance

wells are strontium-90 and tritium. Strontium-90 and tritium values are consistent with historical

values and reflect discontinued discharge practices (LMITCO, 1997).

In 1995, an indepth study of soil and groundwater contamination was conducted at INTEC

(Rodriguez, et al., 1997), and, in 2001, tracer and monitoring studies were conducted on INTEC

perched water and the Snake River Plain Aquifer (DOE, 2002c,d). Table 3-5 shows the

maximum concentrations of inorganics and radionuclides in the Snake River Plain Aquifer found

in these studies and monitoring efforts. The percolation pond perched water body was not

monitored as part of the 1995 study, but was previously described as part of the discussion of

the surveillance monitoring program. All perched water bodies monitored in the 1995 study had

samples exceeding the nitrate and nitrite Federal and state drinking water maximum

contaminant level of 10 mg/L [10 ppm]. The highest nitrate and nitrite concentration {69.6 mg/L

[69.6 ppm]) was found in the northern lower perched water body. For radionuclides, the

maximum gross alpha and gross beta concentrations in perched water are in the northern upper

perched water body. Tritium, strontium-90, and technetium-99 were found in all perched water

bodies. In 2001, all the perched water bodies again exceeded the maximum contaminant level

for nitrate and nitrite. However, only half of the 15 sample results were exceedences. The

highest nitrate and nitrite concentration {60.3 mg/L [60.3 ppm]) is slightly lower at the same

location (MW-1) of the maximum concentration observed in the 1995 study (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.8). The only inorganic found to'exceed its maximum contaminant level in perched '

water was chromium.

3-29
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-4. Monitoring Parameters That Were Exceeded for INTEC Surveillance Welisa

Exceeded Maximum Surveillance

Location Parameter Concentration Thresholdb

PW_1c Aluminum 0.254 mg/L 0.05 mg/L

Iron 26 mg/L 0.3 mg/L

Lead 0.0036 mg/L 0 mg/L

PW-2c Aluminum 1.49 mg/L 0.05 mg/L

Chloride 287 mg/L 250 mg/L

Iron 2.2 mg/L 0.3 mg/L

Strontium-90 8.3 ± 3.4 pCi/L 8.0 pCi/L

PW-4c Iron 2.2 mg/L 0.3 mg/L

PW-5c Aluminum 0.0562 mg/L 0.05 mg/L

Iron 2.93 mg/L 0.3 mg/L

USGS036d Strontium-90 9.54 ± 1.34 pCi/L 8.0 pCi/L

USGS-052d Gross alpha 15 ± 3.86 pCi/L 15.0 pCi/L

USGS-057d Strontium-90 21.1 ± 3.43 pCi/L 8.0 pCi/L

USGS-067d Strontium-90 11.1 ± 1.47 pCi/L 8.0 pCi/L

ICPP-MON-A-021e Total coliform 20 colonies/100 mL <1 colony/100 mL

ICPP-MON-A-022' Iron 0.487 mg/L 0.3 mg/L

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental impact statement

INTEC = Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

a DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

b Surveillance thresholds are comparison values cons'sting of maximum contaminant levels and secondary

maximum contaminant levels (40 CFR Part 141).

c INTEC percolation pond perched water surveillance well

d INTEC percolation pond aquifer surveillance well

e INTEC upgradient background well (upgradient Sew.3ge Treatment Plant well)

' INTEC Sewage Treatment Plant surveillance well

NOTE: To convert liters (L) to gallons (gal), multiply by 0.264: to convert milligrams per liter (mg/L) to parts per

million, multiply by 1.0; to convert picocuries (pCi) to Becquerel, multiply by 0.037.

Chromium exceedences were found in all the perched water bodies. The only organic was

methylene chloride from well PW-1. The highest radioactive contaminant levels (strontium-90

and technetium-99) continue to be found in the northern upper perched water body. Tritium is

the primary contaminant found in the southern upper perched water body. Gross alpha and

beta were not analyzed in 2001. The maximum radiological contaminant levels for strontium-90,

technetium-99, and tritium have decreased by as much as 50 percent since the 1995 study

(DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8).

3-:30
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-5. Maximum Concentrations of norganics and Radionuclides in the Snake

River Plain Aquifer in the Vicinity of INTECa

Maximum

Maximum Contaminant

Contaminant Concentration Well Level' Background

Inorganics (mg/L)

Aluminum ND 0.2c

Antimony 4.6 x 10-3 USGS-59 0.006

Arsenic ' 0.011 USGS-59 0.05

Barium 0.21 USGS-112 2 0.05-0.07-

Beryllium ND 0.004

Cadmium 3.0 x 10-3 USGS-39 0.005 <0.001

Calcium 76 CPP-2 NS

Chromium 0.039 USGS-39 0.1 0.002-0.003

Cobalt 1.0 x 10-3 USGS-85 NS

Copper 0.014 CPP-2 1.3

Iron 0.13 USGS-123 0.3c _

Lead 0.018 USGS-84 0.015 <0.005

Magnesium 22 USGS-67 NS _

Manganese 0.044 USGS-122 0.05

Mercury 3.6 x 10-4 USGS-44 0.002 <0.0001

Nickel 5.0 x 10-3 USGS-123 0.1

Potassium 6.80 USGS-122 NS

Selenium 3.0 x 10-3 -USGS-47 - 0.05 <0.001

Silver - 7.0 x 10-4 USGS-77 0.1C <0.001

Sodium 77 USGS-59 NS

Thallium ND - 0.002

Vanadium 0.010 USGS-82 NS,

Zinc 0.45 USGS7,115 5C

Zirconium ND - - NS

Radionuclides (pCi/L)

Gross Alpha - 15 ± 3.86 MW-52 15 0-3

Gross Beta 96.5 ± 6 rMW-48 <4 mremyrd 0-7

Tritium 1.4 x 104 ± 771 -USGS-114 20,000 0-40

Strontium-90 45 ± 7.57 MW-47 8 0

3-31
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-5. Maximum Concentrations of Inorganics and Radionuclides in the Snake

River Plain Aquifer in the Vicinity of INTEC' (continued)

Maximum

Maximum Contaminant

Contaminant Concentration Well Levelb Background

Plutonium-238 ND _ 15 0

Plutonium-239/240 ND _ 15 0

Americium-241 0.742 ± 0.0336 LF2-8 15 0

Neptunium-237 ND MW-18 15

Iodine-129 1.06 ± 0.19 LF3-8 1 0

Technetium-99 322 ± 6.6 USCGS-52 900

Uranium-233/234 1.62 ± 0.153 USGS-1 23 -

Uranium-235/236 0.146 ± 0.057 USGS-35 _

Uranium-238 0.851 + 0.126 USGS-85 -

EIS = environmental impact statement

INTEC = Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

MCL = maximum contaminant levels

ND = not detected

NS = no standard

* DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

b MCL from the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Part 140) and DOE Order 5400.5 unless otherwise noted.

' Secondary MCL from the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Part 140).

d Beta particle/photon radioactivity shall not produce ainual dose equivalent to the total body or internal organ

greater than 0.04 mSv 4 mrem/yrJ.

NOTE: To convert liters (L) to gallons (gal), multiply by 0.264; to convert milligrams per liter (mg/L) to parts per

million, multiply by 1.0; to convert picocuries (pCi) to Becquerel, multiply by 0.037.

For the Snake River Plain Aquifer, the concentrations measured in the 1995 study are primarily

related to the past disposal of waste through the INTEC injection well. The injection well was

drilled to a depth of 183 m 598 f (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8) and was routinely used for

disposal of service waste water through 1984, and permanently closed by pressure grouting in

1989. An estimated 22,000 Ci [8.1 x 1014 Bq] of radioactive contaminants were released

through the injection well. Most of the radioactivity is attributed to tritium (96 percent).

Americium-241, technetium-99, strontium-90, cesium-137, cobalt-60, iodine-129, and plutonium

contribute the remaining radioactivity. The general trend in these contaminants is decreasing

with time, including the most current data from 2001 (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8).

The combined tritium disposal to infiltration ponds at INTEC and the Test Reactor Area from

1992 to 1995 averaged 107 curies per year, con-pared to 910 curies per year from 1952 to 1983

(DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8). The tritium plume with a concentration exceeding 500 pCi/L

decreased from an area of 117 km2 [45 mi 2J in 1988 to about 104 km2 [40 mi2] in 1991. Since

1991, the concentration has remained nearly unchanged. The higher concentration lines,

however, have moved closer to their origin at INTEC and the Test Reactor Area. Prior to 1989,

strontium-90 concentrations in the Snake River Plain Aquifer were decreasing. The

3-32
Description of the Affected

Environment

concentrations from 1992 to 2001 have remained fairly constant. This constancy is due to the

migration of contamination fromn the near-surface releases into the'erched water bodies and

subsequently into the Snake River Plain Aquifer (Rodriguez, et al., 1997). When the Big Lost

River flows, the added infiltrating water would tend to reduce the concentrations observed in the

Snake River Plain Aquifer due to dilution of the perched water bodies.

Iodine-129 was discharged to the aquifer until 1984 through the injection well previously

described. More than 90 percent of the iodine-129 in the aquifer is from the injection well.

Smaller contributions include the percolation ponds and contaminated soils. Measurements

taken in 1990-1992 indicated the presence of iodine-129 in 32 of 51 wells at INTEC. The

concentrations ranged from below the detection limit to 3.82 pCiIL (Rodriguez, et al., 1997). In

2001, only 2 of 41 wells sampled detected iodine-129 above the maximum contaminant level

(I pCi/L). The two wells are located south of INTEC at the Central Facilities Area landfill. In

addition, iodine-129 was not detected in the sample'analyzed from well USGS-46

(DOE, 2002b).

3.5.3 Water Use and Rights 

The surface and subsurface water use in the affected environment at INEEL is described in the

DOE SNF Programmatic EIS (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.8.3).

The INEEL does not withdraw or use surface water for site operations, nor does it discharge

effluents to natural surface water. However, the three surface-water bodies at or near the site

(Big and Little Lost Rivers and Birch Creek) have the following designated uses: agricultural

water supply, cold-water biota, salmonid spawning, and primary and secondary contact

recreation. In addition, waters in the Big Lost River and Birch Creek have been designated for

domestic water supply and as special resource waters.

Groundwater use on the Snake River Plain includes irrigation; food processing and aquaculture;

and domestic, rural, public, and livestock supply. -,Water use for the upper Snake River drainage

basin and the Snake River Plain Aquifer was 16.4 trillion L [4.3 trillion gal] per year in 1985,

which was more than 50 percent of the water used in Idaho and about 7 percent of agricultural

withdrawals in the nation. Most water withdrawn from the Eastern Snake River Plain

{1.8 trillion L [0.47 trillion gal] per year} is for agriculture. The aquifer is the source of all

water used at INEEL. Site activities withdraw water at an average rate of 7.4 billion L/yr

[2.0 billion gal/yr] (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.8).- The baseline annual withdrawal rate, however,

dropped to 6.5 billion L [1.7 billion gal] in 1995. The average annual withdrawal is equal to

about 0.4 percent of the water consumed from the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer or

53 percent of the maximum annual yield of a typical irrigation well. Of the quantity of water

pumped from the aquifer, a substantial portion is returned to the aquifer through seepage

ponds, with the remaining water lost to the atmosphere through evaporation (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.13.1).

A sole-source aquifer, as designated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, is one that supplies

50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. Sole-source

aquifer areas have no alternative source or combination of sources that could physically, legally,

and economically supply all those who obtain their drinking water from the aquifer. Because

groundwater supplies 100 percent of the drinking water consumed within the Eastern Snake

River Plain (Gaia Northwest, Inc., 1988) and an alternative drinking water source or combination

3-33
Description of the Affected

Environment

of sources is not available, the EPA designated the Snake River Plain Aquifer a sole-source

aquifer in 1991.

DOE holds a Federal Reserved Water Right for the INEEL, which permits a water-pumping

capacity of 2.3 m3/s [80 ft3/s] and a maximum water consumption of 43.2 billion L/yr

[11.4 billion gal/yr] for drinking, process water, arid noncontact cooling. Because it is a Federal

Reserved Water Right, the site priority on water rights dates back to the establishment

of INEEL.

3.6 Ecological Resources

During the past decade, many detailed studies have been documented that include descriptions

of the ecology at and in the vicinity of INTEC. Several of these studies were reviewed and are

summarized here to describe the ecological resources at or near INTEC (Rope, et al., 1993;

DOE, 1995, 2002a; NRC, 1998). To ensure that this ecological information was up to date, the

NRC consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about potential threatened, endangered,

and sensitive species near INTEC. This section discusses the following ecological resources of

INEEL: (i) plant communities and associations; (ii) animal communities (both terrestrial and

aquatic); (iii) threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; and (iv) wetlands.

3.6.1 Plant Communities and Associations

The flora at and near INTEC has been well characterized by previous studies, some for ElSs

related to other projects at INEEL. A detailed description of the flora of the potentially affected

environment near INTEC is provided in the DOE Programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995,

Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.9).

Vegetation on the INEEL site is primarily of the shrub-steppe type and is a small fraction of the

45,000 km2 [17,375 mi2J of this vegetation type in the Intermountain West. The 15 vegetation

associations on the INEEL site range from primarily shadescale-steppe vegetation at lower

altitudes through sagebrush- and grass-dominated communities to juniper woodlands along the

foothills of the nearby mountains and buttes (Rope, et al., 1993; Kramber, et al., 1992;

Anderson, 1991). These associations can be grouped into six basic types: juniper woodland,

grassland, shrub-steppe (which consists of sagebrush-steppe and salt desert shrubs), lava,

bareground-disturbed, and wetland vegetation. Shrub-steppe vegetation, which is dominated by

big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus

spp.) covers more than 90 percent of the INEEL. Grasses include cheatgrass (Bromus

fectorum), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), wheatgrasses (Agropyron spp.), and

squirreltail (Sitanion hysterix). Herbaceous plants include phlox (Phlox spp.), wild onion (Allium

spp.), milkvetch (Astragalus spp.), Russian thistle (Salsola kali), and various mustards.

Facility and human-disturbed (grazing not included) areas include only about 2 percent of

INEEL. Introduced annuals, including Russian thistle and cheatgrass, frequently dominate

disturbed areas. These species usually are less desirable to wildlife as food and cover and

compete with more desirable perennial native species. These disturbed areas serve as a seed

source, increasing the potential for the establishment of Russian thistle and cheatgrass in

surrounding less-disturbed areas. Vegetation inside facility boundaries is generally disturbed or

landscaped. Species richness on INEEL is comparable to that of like-sized areas with similar

3-34
Description of the Affected

Environment

terrain in other parts of the ntermountain West. Plant diversity is typically lower in disturbed

and modified areas.

Although no wildfires have occurred recently near INTEC, a study conducted for the DOE Idaho

HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.9) added information about how

large wildfires in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2000 have changed the vegetation cover at

INEEL in the affected areas.

Large wildfires in 1994,1995, 1996, 1999, and 2000 played an important role in the vegetation

cover at INEEL. Figure 3-9 shows the location of the wildfires. In July 1994, the Butte City fire

burned 6,928 ha [17,107 acres] along the western boundary of INEEL (Anderson, et al., 1996).

In August 1995, 2,767 ha [6,831 acres] along a corridor running north and south of the Argonne

National Laboratory-West facility burned (Anderson, et al., 1996). During the summer of 1996,

six fires burned a total of 14,762 ha [36,450 acres] on and adjacent to INEEL. These fires

burned virtually all the aboveground biomass, resulting in severe wind erosion and, therefore,

blowing dust (Patrick and Anderson, 1997). Wildfires in 1999 burned about 16,200 ha

[40,000 acres] more of the INEEL and in the summer and early fall of 2000, three separate

fires burned an additional 14,580 ha [36,000 acres]. The first of these fires in late July 2000

burned about 12,150 ha [30,000 acres] northwest of the Radioactive Waste Management

Complex. A second fire in early August burned about 810 ha [2,000 acres] west of Argonne

National Laboratory-West. A third fire in mid-September burned about 1,620 ha [4,000 acres]

northwest of INTEC.

Although the growth of grasses and forbs that typically follow wildfires in sagebrush-steppe

areas of the INEEL offers food for foraging mule deer, pronghom, and elk (Environmental

Science and Research Foundation, Inc., 1999), those plants do not provide suitable winter

habitat and food for sage grouse. Sage grouse are dependent on sagebrush, particularly for

important winter habitat (ideal winter habitat consists of healthy, mature stands of big

sagebrush). The INEEL contains one of the largest contiguous areas of protected

sagebrush-steppe habitat in the world, and is one of the most important wintering areas for

sage grouse in Idaho (Environmental Science and Research Foundation, Inc., 2000). The

wildfires that burned more than 54,675 ha [135,000 acres] of sagebrush steppe on the INEEL

since 1994 are certainly cause for concern, particularly in view of sage grouse population

declines across the region. DOE is continuing to study the impacts of wildfires on the ecological

resources of the site and the region in attempts to better understand the dynamics of that

ecosystem and to identify ways of preserving the biodiversity at INEEL.

3.6.2 Animal Communities

The terrestrial fauna at and near INTEC has been characterized by previous studies, some for

ElSs related to other projects at INEEL. A detailed description of the terrestrial fauna of the

potentially affected environment near INTEC is provided in the DOE Programmatic SNF EIS

(DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.9).

The INEEL site supports animal communities characteristic of shrub-steppe vegetation and

habitats. More than 270 vertebrate species occur, including 46 mammal, 204 bird, 10 reptile,

2 amphibian, and 9 fish species (Arthur, et al., 1984; Reynolds, et al., 1986). Common

small-mammal genera include mice (Reithrodontomys spp. and Peromyscus spp.), chipmunks

(Tamias spp.), jackrabbits (Lepus spp.), and cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.).

3-35
Description of the Affected

Environment

Figure 3-9. Approximate Location of Wildfires at INEEL (Modified from DOE, 2002a). To

Convert Acres to Hectares, Multiply by 0.405.

3-'36
Description of the Affected

Environment

Songbirds and passerines commonly observed at the INEEL include the American robin

(Turdus migratorius), horned iarkl(Eremophila alpestris), black-billed magpie (Pica pica), sage

thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), Brewer'ssparrow (Spizella brewer), sage sparrow (S. belli),

and western meadowlark (Stumella neglecta), while resident upland gamebirds include the

sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), chukar (Alectoris chukar), and grey partridge (Perdix

perdix). Common migratory bird species, that use INEEL for part of the year include a variety of

waterfowl [e.g., mallard (Anas plaryrhynchos), northern pintail (Anas acuta), Canada goose

(Branta canadensis)] and raptors [e.g., Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), rough-legged hawk

(B. lagopus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius)].

The most abundant big-game species that occur on the INEEL are elk (Cervus elaphus) and

pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), with mule'deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and moose (Alces

alces) present in small numbers as transients. Since 1986, the number of elk wintering and

summering at INEEL has increased, with many being year-round residents. The big-game

populations are dependent on, among other things, populations during the previous year,

severity of winter conditions, and acreage of recently burned land. In the case of elk, the

population is also dependent on any game-control measures taken during a given year. Other

large mammals observed on the INEEL site include coyote (Canis latrans), which is common

across the site, and badger (Taxidea taxus) and bobcat (Felis rufus), both present across the

site but much less abundant.

A more recent study conducted for the DOE Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE,

2002a, Section 4.9) adds that mountain lions have been observed in the area, along with a

variety of snakes and lizards. - -

Numerous researchers have studied effects of radiation exposure from contaminated areas at

INEEL on small mammals and birds. The researchers have concluded that subtle sublethal

effects (e.g., reduced growth rates and life expectancies) can occur in individual animals as a

result of radiation exposure. The researchers, however, can attribute no population or

community-level impacts to such exposures (Halford and Markham, 1978; Evenson, 1981;

Arthur, et al., 1986; Millard, et al., 1990).

The monitoring of radionuclide levels outside the boundaries of the various INEEL facilities and

off the INEEL site has detected radionuclide concentrations above background levels in

individual plants and animals (Craig, et al., 1979; Markham, et al., 1982; Morris, 1993), but

these limited data suggest that populations of exposed animals (e.g., mice and rabbits) as well

as animals that feed on these exposed animals (e.g., eagles and hawks) are not at risk.

3.6.3 Aquatic Fauna

The aquatic fauna near INTEC has been characterized by previous studies, some for ElSs

related to other projects at INEEL. Only intermittent streams cross the INEEL in the vicinity of

INTEC. While streams are active, the INEEL site supports nine fish species (Arthur, et al.,

1984; Reynolds, et al., 1986). A detailed description of the aquatic fauna of the potentially

affected environment near INTEC is provided in the DOE Programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995,

Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.9).

3-37
Description of the Affected

Environment

3.6.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive

species were identified in the applicant's Protected Species

environmental report (FWENC, 2003a, l

Appendix A). These species were identified Endanaered Soecies-Any species in danger of

using the Idaho Department of Fish and extinction throughout all or a significant portion of

Game's list of Species with Special Status in ange.

Idaho (Idaho Conservation Data Center, Threatened Species-Any species likely to become

1997). This species list is included as endangered within the foreseeable future throughout

Table 3-6 and includes Federal- and all or a significant portion of its range.

state-listed species of plants and animals.

To ensure this information is up to date and

in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, NRC obtained the most recent list

of potential threatened, endangered, and sensitive species at INEEL (U.S. Department of the

Interior, 2002).

A detailed description of the threatened and endangered species near INTEC is provided in

Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.9.3, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species, of the DOE

SNF Programmatic EIS (DOE, 1995). Federal and state regulatory agency lists (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.9, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002), the Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Conservation Data Center list, and information from site surveys provided the information to

identify Federal- and state-protected, candidate, and sensitive species that potentially occur on

INEEL. This information identified one Federal-listed threatened (bald eagle), one

Federal-listed nonessential experimental population (gray wolf), and nine special-concern

species (northern sagebrush lizard, ferriginous hawk, long-billed curlew, greater sage-grouse,

long-eared myotis, small-footed myotis, Townsend's big-eared bat, pygmy rabbit, and Merriam's

shrew) as animals that potentially occur on the INEEL site (Table 3-6). Three additional animal

species listed by the state as endangered or species of special concern occur on the site. No

frequent observations of the Federal- or state-listed animal species have occurred near any of

the facilities where proposed actions would occur. This analysis did not identify any Federal- or

state-listed plant species as potentially occurring on the INEEL site. Six plant species identified

by Federal agencies or the Idaho Native Plant Society as sensitive, rare, or unique occur on the

site (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002; DOE, 2002a).

3.6.5 Wetlands

Wetlands

Results of wetland surveys at INEEL have

been reported by DOE (1995, 2002a). The Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by been rep affected D EvIronmen 20at he surface water or groundwater at a frequency and wetlands of the affected environment at the duration sufficient to support, and that under normal

INEEL is described in Wetlands, of the circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation

DOE SNF Programmatic EIS (DOE, 1995, adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.9.4). The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National

Wetlands Inventory has identified more than 130 areas inside the boundaries of INEEL that

might possess some wetlands characteristics. However, recent survey results reported in the

DOE Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.9) indicate that no

wetland areas occur within the INTEC boundary.

3-38
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-6. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, Species of Concern, and Other Unique Species

.That Occur, or Possibly Occur, on INEEL_ _ _ _

Classification Occurrence on

Species Federal' Stateb INEEL b

Amphibians Northern sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus cc Resident

and Reptiles graciosus graciosus)

Birds American peregrine falcon ( Falco . E Winter visitor

peragrinus anaturn) -

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) LT E Occasional wintering

area

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) C P Widespread summer

resident 

Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) - SC Recorded, but not

confirmed

Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) SC Recorded, but not

confirmed

Long-billed curlew (Numenius C P Limited summer

amedcanus) distribution

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus C Upland resident

urophasianus)

Mammals Gray wolf (Canis Lupus) XN E Several sightings since

1993

Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) C Limited onsite .___________ .distribution .________ _ 

Small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) C Resident

Townsend's big-eared bat C SC Resident (Corynorhinus townsendit) . . -_._.

Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) C SC Limited onsite

.____ ____ _____ _____ _____________ _____ _____ _distribution

Merriam's shrew (Sorex merriam) C Resident

Plants Ute's ladies tresses (Spiranthes INPS-GP2 Found near, but not on,

diluvialis) INEEL

Speal-tooth dodder (Cuscuta _ INPS-1 Found near, but not on,

denticulata) INEEL

Spreading ilia (Ipomopsis [GiiaJ - INPS-2 Common in western

polycladon) foothills

Lemhi milkvetch (Astragalus aquilonius) _ INPS-GP3 Limited distribution

Painted milkvetch (Astragalus C Resident

ceramicus var. apus)

Winged-seed evening primrose -I - INPS-S Rare and limited __ _ __.___ (Camissonia pterosperma) - .

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Federal State

ET isted Threatened E Endangered XN Experimental Population P Protected Non-Game Species C Of Concern SC Special Concern

INPS-1 Idaho Native Plant Society-State Priority 1

INPS-2 Idaho Native Plant Society-State Priority 2

INPS-GP2 -Idaho Native Plant Society-Global Prionty 2

INPS-GP3 Idaho Native Plant Society-Global Priority 3

INPS-S Idaho Native Plant Society-Sensitive

* From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list number14-02-SP-921 [U.S. Department of the Interior.

'Department of Energy, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Species List Update.' Letter

(September 3) to R.D. Blew. Boise, Idaho: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002.] DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement.! Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002. c Federal species labeled as "C" are of concern to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but have no legal status on

the Endangered Species Act. In the context of ecosystem-level management, however, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service suggests these species and their habitats be considered in project planning and review.

3-39
Description of the Affected

Environment

3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality

3.7.1 Meteorology and Climatology

The INEEL is located on a mile-high area of the Eastern Snake River Plain in southeast Idaho.

Figure 3-10 provides a simplified topographic map of the area (Clawson, et al., 1989).

Topographic cross sections are presented in FWENC (2003b, Figures 2.3-5 through 2.3-12).

The climate is semiarid and exhibits low relative humidity, large daily temperature swings near

the ground, and large variations in annual precipitation. Average seasonal temperatures

measured onsite range from -7.3 C [18.8 F] in winter to 18.2 C [64.8 F] in summer, with an

annual average temperature of 5.6 C [42 F] (DOE, 1995). Temperature extremes range from

a summertime maximum of 39.4-°C [103 F] to a wintertime minimum of -45 C [-49 F] (DOE,

2002a, p. 4-25). The Centennial and Bitterroot Mountain Ranges restrict most of the cold winter

air masses from entering the Eastern Snake River Plain. More detailed information on

temperature extremes and ranges is available (FWENC, 2003b,Tables 2.3-1 and 2.3-2). A

freeze-thaw cycle {when maximum air temperature exceeds 0 0C [32 F] and minimum air

temperature is 0 C [32 F] or colder) occurs, on average, in 42 percent of the days in the year.

The average midday relative humidity ranges from about 18 percent in summer to about

55 percent in winter. In January (the coldest month), the air temperature averages -8.6 0C

[16.5 'F] and the dewpoint averages -13.6 0C [7.4 0F]. In July (the warmest month), the air

temperature averages 20.6 0C [69.0 F] and the dewpoint averages 0.8 0C [33.5 F].

Annual precipitation is light, averaging 22.1 cm [8.7 in] and ranging from 10 to 35.6 cm [4 to

14 in]. Monthly precipitation extremes are 0 to 12.7 cm [0 to 5 in]. The greatest short-term

precipitation rates are primarily attributable to thunderstorms, which occur about 2 or 3 days per

month during the summer. Maximum storm precipitation amounts for 1-hour and 24-hour time

periods have also been presented (FWENC, 2003b,Table 2.3-16). The maximum 1-hour and

24-hour precipitation is 1.37 and 4.2 cm [0.54 and 1.6 in]. Determinations have been made on

the average number of days with specified amounts of precipitation and snow (FWENC, 2003b,

Tables 2.3-17 and 2.3-18).

Average annual snowfall at INEEL is 70.1 cm [27.6 in], with extremes of 17.3-151.6 cm

[6.8-59.7 in]. The greatest 24-hour snowfall was 23 cm [9 in]. The maximum snow depth is

56.6 cm [22.3 in], and the average snow depth varies from 0 to 16.3 cm [0 to 6.4 in] (FWENC,

2003b, Table 2.3-19). Considerable blowing and drifting up to several feet high occur when

several inches of loose snow are present during moderate to strong winds. Damage from hail

has not been experienced to date at INEEL. Because crops and property have been damaged

from hail in nearby areas, hail damage is possible at INEEL.

Most onsite locations experience the predominant southwest-northeast wind flow of the Eastern

Snake River Plain, although terrain features near some locations cause variations from this flow

regime. The wind rose diagrams in Figure 3-11 show annual wind flow. These diagrams show

the frequency of direction from which the wind blows and the wind speed at three of the

meteorological monitoring sites at INEEL for 1988-1992. Additional wind rose data are also

available (FWENC, 2003b, Figures 2.3-13 through 2.3-16). The orientation of the Eastern

Snake River Plain and surrounding mountain ranges results in the predominance of

southwesterly winds from storms and daily solar heating. The next most frequent winds blow

from the northeast. Winds from this direction are frequently unstable or

3-40
Description of the Affected

Environment

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE INTEC AREA

NTS

4940 - Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

A of ~~~~~/ A'

TOPOGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION A - A' 4900

A

49_ _

- -Idaho Spent Fuel Facility 4g00

TOPOGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION A - A' WITH Ox VERTICAL EXAGGERATION

*Elevation from 1986 flood study datum.

Figure 3-10. General Surface Topography in the Vicinity of the Proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility (Modified from FWENC, 2003b). To Convert Feet to Meters, Multiply

by 0.3048.

3-41
-rgstArea Nz,*A mOn

<C)

o M.

0

CD 

~!Ap~ki ) ~, 2

Figure 3-11. Annual Average Wind Direction and Wind Speed at Meteorological Stations on INEEL (Modified from

DOE, 2002a)
Description of the Affected

Environment

neutral, promote effective dispersion, and extend to a considerable depth through the

atmosphere. At night, cool, stable air frequently drains down the valley in a shallow layer from

the northeast toward the southwest. With these conditions, dispersion is limited until solar

heating mixes the plume the following day. Winds above such stable layers exhibit less

variability and provide the transport environment for materials released from INEEL sources.

More detailed information on the influences of the wind field is available (FWENC, 2003b,

Section 2.3.1.2.1).

Monthly-average and highest hourly average wind speeds have been recorded at heights of 6

and 76 m [20 and 250 ft] (FWENC, 2003b, Table 2.3-10). The monthly average wind speeds at

6 m [20 ft] range from 8.2 km/hr [5.1 mi/hr] in December to 14.9 km/hr [9.3 mi/hr] in April and

May and blow from the southwest or west-southwest. The highest hourly average near-ground

wind speed measured onsite was 82 km/hr [51 mi/hr] from the west-southwest, with a maximum

instantaneous gust of 125 km/hr [78 mi/hr] (FWENC, 2003b, Table 2.3-14; Clawson, et al.,

1989). Strong gusts may result from pressure gradients from large-scale systems or

thunderstorms and can be expected from any direction.

Other than thunderstorms, severe weather is uncommon. Five funnel clouds (vortex does not

reach the ground) and no tornadoes (vortex reaches the ground) were reported onsite between

1950 and 1994 (FWENC, 2003b, Section 2.3.1.3.3). Additional information on the

probabilities of tornadoes occurring in the region have been evaluated (Ramsdell and Andrews,

1986). A design-basis tornado has been specified to bound any tornado expected on the

INEEL site (FWENC, 2003b, Table 2.3-15). The data reported in Ramsdell and Andrews (1986)

indicate the INEEL site area is a low tomado-hazard area. The average annual probability of

any tornado occurring within this geographic region is 6.0 x 10-7 per year. The annual '

probability that a tornado of Category F-2 or higher wind speeds in excess of 181 km/hr

[113 mph] will occur is estimated to be 1.69 x 10-7 per year, and the maximum wind speed that

will occur with a probability of 1 x 10-7 per year [the lowest probability that needs to be

considered (Ramsdell and Andrews, 1986)] is estimated to be 274 km/hr [171 mph]

(Category F-2).

Dust devils are small atmospheric vortices generated over hot land surfaces and are common

during the summer months. The resulting dust clouds can cover up to several hundred yards in

diameter and extend several hundred feet in the air (Clawson, et al., 1989). Neither hurricanes

nor tropical storms occur at INEEL because of the moderating influence of the Pacific Ocean

and isolation provided by the surrounding mountains (FWENC, 2003b, Section 2.3.1.3.5).

Visibility in the region is good because of the low moisture content of the air and minimal

sources of visibility-reducing pollutants. DOE (2002a) provides additional information on

visibility. An average air density of 1.06 x 10-3 g/cm3 [3.83 x 10-5 lb/in3] was computed for an

average temperature of 5.8 0C [42.4 F] and average atmospheric pressure of 64 cm [25 in] of

mercury (Clawson, et al., 1989).

The average daily atmospheric pressure for the entire year averages a high of 63.86 cm

[25.14 in] of mercury and a low of 63.47 cm [24.99 in] of mercury (FWENC, 2003b,

Table 2.3-11). The average daily high atmospheric pressures range from 63.68 to 64.08 cm

[25.07 to 25.23 in] of mercury. The average daily low atmospheric pressures range from

63.25 to 63.60 cm [24.90 to 25.04 in] of mercury. The annual mean daily pressure range

averages to 0.38 cm [0.15 in] of mercury and varies from 0.25 cm [0.10 in] of mercury in the

3-43
Description of the Affected

Environment

summer to 0.51 cm [0.20 in] of mercury in the winter. Although the maximum pressure changes

in 1 hour and 24 hours have not been recorded at INEEL, maximum changes are thought to be

bounded by 0.25 cm [0.1 in] of mercury per hour and 2.5 cm [1 in] of mercury per day based on

synoptic and climatological records (FWENC, 2003b, Section 2.3.1.2.10).

3.7.2 Air Quality and Emissions

3.7.2.1 Introduction to Air Quality

The description of the air quality at INEEL is based on the characterization performed to support

the DOE Programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.7) and the Idaho

HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.7), which provided an update on

changes in air resource conditions since the initial characterization. Air quality regulations have

been established to protect the public from potential harmful effects of air pollution. These

regulations (i) designate acceptable levels of pollution in ambient air, (ii) establish limits on

radiation doses to members of the public, (iii) establish limits on air pollution emissions and

resulting deterioration of air quality due to vehicular and other sources of human origin,

(iv) require air permits to regulate (control) emissions from stationary (nonvehicular) sources of

air pollution, and (v) designate prohibitory rules, such as rules that prohibit open burning.

The Clean Air Act and amendments provide the regulatory framework to protect the nation's air

resources and public health and welfare. In Idaho, EPA and the State of Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality are jointly responsible for establishing and implementing programs that

meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. INEEL activities are subject to air quality

regulations and standards established in the Clean Air Act, the State of Idaho, and the internal

policies and requirements of DOE. Table 3-7 contains an overview of the Federal, state, and

DOE programs for air quality management. Additional background information for air resources

is presented in the Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Appendix C.2).

3.7.2.2 Nonradiological Conditions

Persons in the Eastern Snake River Plain are exposed to a variety of nonradiological air

pollutants. This section summarizes the sources and levels of these pollutants. Types of

pollutants assessed include (i) the criteria pollutants regulated under the National and State

Ambient Air Quality Standards and (ii) other types of pollutants with potentially toxic properties

called toxic or hazardous air pollutants. Criteria pollutants are nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide,

carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, and respirable particulate matter (PM) less than or equal to

10 micrometers {1.0 x 10-6 m [3.9 x 10-7 in]} in size (PM10). PM of that size are small enough to

pass easily into the lower respiratory tract. Normally, ozone is not directly emitted into the

atmosphere. Instead, ozone is formed by the reactions of nitrogen oxides and oxygen in the

presence of sunlight. Volatile organic compounds, sometimes called precursor organics,

contribute to the formation of ozone. It is the release of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic

compounds into the atmosphere that results in the formation of ozone. Therefore, volatile

organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are assessed as precursors leading to the

development of ozone. Toxic air pollutants can be divided into two classifications: carcinogens,

or cancer-causing agents, and noncarcinogens.

3-44
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-7. Overview of Federal, State,-and DOE Programs for Air Quality Management'

Clean Air Act

* State of Idaho DOE Compliance

Federal Program I Administration Program I Program

* National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

Set limits on ambient air

concentrations of sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen dioxide, respirable particulate matter, carbon

monoxide, lead, and ozone

(criteria pollutants).

Primary standards for protection

of public health; secondary standards for protection of public

welfare.

* Prevention of Significant

Deterioration

Limits deterioration of air quality -and visibility in areas that

currently meet the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Requires Best Available Control

Technology on major sources in

attainment areas.

* New Source Performance

Standards

Regulate emissions from specific

types of industrial facilities (e.g.,

fossil fuel-fired steam generators

and incinerators).

* National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants

Control airborne emissions of

specific substances harmful to

human health. Specific provisions regulate hazardous air

pollutants and limit radionuclide

dose to a member of the public

to 0.1 mSv [10 mrem] per year. Control emission of hazardous

air pollutants from combustion of

hazardous waste, as well as

other categories of activities that

may result in hazardous air

pollutant emissions.

* Rules for the Control of Air

Pollution In Idaho

Current Regulations of the State

of Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality include

- Idaho Ambient Air Quality

Standards-Similar to

National Ambient Air Quality

Standards but also include

standards for total fluorides.

- New Source

Program-Permit to

Construct is required for

essentially any construction

or modification of a facility that emits an air pollutant;

major facilities require PSD

analysis and Permit to

Construct.

- Carcinogenic and

Noncarcinogenic Toxic

Air Pollutant

Increments-Define

acceptable ambient

concentrations for many

specific toxic air pollutants

associated with sources

constructed or modified

after May 1, 1994; require demonstration of

preconstruction compliance with toxic air pollutant

increments.

Operating PermitsRequired for nonexempt

sources of air pollutants;

define operating conditions

and emissions limitations as

well as monitoring and

reporting requirements.

Policy to comply with

applicable regulations and

maintain emissions at

levels as low as'

reasonably achievable.

Policy implemented through DOE orders:

DOE (Headquarters)

orders apply to all DOE

and DOE-contractor

operations.

DOE-Idaho Operations Office supplemental

directives provide direction and guidance specific to INEEL.

The most relevant DOE

orders and their

DOE-Idaho Operations Office supplemental

directives are

DOE Order 450.1

establishes general environmental

protection program requirements and

assigns responsibilities for ensuring compliance

with applicable laws,

regulations, and DOE

policies.

DOE Order 5400.5

provides guidelines and

requirements for

radiation protection of

the public.

3-45
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-7. Overview of Federal, State, and DOE Programs for Air Quality

Management' (continued)

Clean Air Act

State of Idaho DOE Compliance

Federal Program Administration Program Program

* Clean Air Act Amendments * Rules and Standards for DOE Order 5480.4

of 1990 Hazardous Waste prescribes the

Sweeping changes to the Clean Include standards for hazardous application of

Air Act, primarily to address acid waste treatment facilities, mandatory

rain, nonattainment of National including limits on emissions. Environment, Safety,

Ambient Air Quality Standards, Consistent with Federal and Health standards

operating permits hazardous air standards. that shall be used by all

pollutants, potential catastrophic DOE and

releases of acutely hazardous DOE-contractor

materials, and stratospheric operations

ozone depletion. (implemented via

Specific rules and policies not yet DOE-Idaho Operations fully developed and implemented Office Supplemental

in all areas (e.g., hazardous air Directive 5480.4).

pollutants). DOE Order 5480.19

provides guidelines and

requirements for plans and procedures in

conducting operations

at DOE facilities

(implemented via

DOE-Idaho Operations Office Supplemental

Directive 5480.19).

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory PSD = prevention of significant deterioration

* DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

3.7.2.2.1 Sources of Nonradiological Air Emissions

The population of the Eastern Snake River Plain is exposed to air pollutants that come from a

variety of sources including agricultural and industrial activities, residential wood burning,

wind-blown dust, and automobile exhaust. Many of the activities at INEEL also emit air

pollutants. Sources such as thermal treatment processes, boilers, and emergency generators

emit both criteria and toxic air pollutants. Nonthermal chemical-processing operations, waste

management activities other than combustion, and research laboratories are potential sources

of toxic air pollutants. Waste management, construction, and related activities such as

excavation also generate fugitive dust.

Background emission rates for existing facilities have been characterized for tvo separate

cases. The actual emissions case represented the collective emission rates of nonradiological

pollutants experienced by INEEL facilities and the maximum emissions case represented a

scenario in which all permitted sources at INEEL are assumed to operate in such a manner that

they emit specific pollutants to the maximum extent allowed by operating permits or applicable

3-46
Description of the Affected

Environment

regulations. This scenario is appropriate because many facilities operate at levels well below

those allowed by operating permits, which set conditions such as' maximum hours of operation

or emission rates.

A total of 26 toxic air pollutants have been identified that are emitted from existing INEEL

facilities in quantities exceeding the screening levels established by the State of Idaho. The

health hazard associated with toxic air pollutants emitted in lesser quantities is considered low

enough by the State of Idaho not to require detailed assessment. For a few toxic air pollutants,

actual 1996 emissions were greater than the levels assessed in the DOE Programmatic SNF

EIS (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.7). These increases were primarily attributable to

decontamination and decommissioning activities (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.7).

3.7.2.2.2 Existing Nonradiological Conditions

The assessment of nonradiological air quality described in the DOE Programmatic SNF EIS

(DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A, Section 4.7) was based on the assumption that the available

monitoring data are not sufficient to allow a meaningful characterization of existing air quality

and that such a characterization must rely on an extensive program of air-dispersion modeling.

The modeling program applied for this purpose utilized computer codes, methods, and

assumptions considered acceptable by EPA and the State of Idaho for regulatory compliance

purposes. The methodology applied in the 'assessments performed is described in the DOE

Programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995, Appendix F-3).

3.7.2.2.3 Onsite Conditions

The DOE Programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995) contains an assessment of existing conditions

for each facility area as a result of cumulative toxic air-pollutant emissions from sources located

within all areas of INEEL. Except for public roads, criteria levels are not assessed for onsite

locations because standards for these pollutants apply only to ambient air locations

(i.e., locations to which the general public has access.) Toxic air pollutants, however, are

assessed because of potential exposure of workers to these hazardous substances. Typically,

the dominant contributors to pollutant levels at each of these areas are sources within that area.

Onsite levels of specific toxics are compared to occupational exposure limits established to

protect workers.

Table 3-8 contains results from the DOE Programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995) for the highest

predicted concentrations of toxic air pollutants at onsite locations for the maximum baseline

case at INEEL. None of these concentration levels at the INTEC area of the INEEL site

exceeded the occupational exposure limits.' Some'estimates presented in Table 3-8 take into

account operation of the New Waste Calciner Facility. DOE placed this facility on'standby in

2000 and submitted a two-phased partial closure plan for the calciner portion of the facility in

August 2000 (DOE, 2002a, Section 2.2.5). The plan is consistent with an April 19, 1999,

modification to the Notice of Noncompliance Consent Order signed by the DOE and the Idaho

Department of Health and Welfare in 1992. 'In publishing the record of decision for the

alternatives evaluated in the INEEL HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS, DOE will decide

whether to upgrade and permit the calciner. If DOE decides to upgrade the calciner, DOE will

modify the closure plan, as necessary, through the permitting process.

3-47
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-8. Highest Predicted Concentrations of Toxic Air Pollutants at Onsite

Locations for the Maximum Baseline Case at INEEL, Including Anticipated Increases to

the Baselinea

Location of Maximum 8-Hour Occupational Percent

Maximum Concentrations Exposure of

Toxic Air Pollutant Concentrationb (prIm3 ) Limit (M/m 3 ) Standard

Carcinogens

Acetaldehyde ANL-W 1.1 102 1.8 x 105 <1

Arsenic CFA 2.8 x 10-1 1.0 X 101 3

Benzene CFA 3.1 x 103 3.0 x 103 103

Butadiene TRA 3.8 x 0 3 2.2 x io 4 17

Carbon Tetrachloride RWMC 2.5 x 102 1.3 x 0 4 2

Chloroform RWMC 1.7 x 101 9.8 x 103 <1

Formaldehyde ANL-W 5.7 x 10' 9.0 x 102 6

Hexavalent Chromium INTEC/TAN 2.4 x 100 5.0 X 101 5

Hydrazine TRA 1.8 x 10-3 1.0 x 102 <1

Methylene Chloride CFA/INTEC 3.2 x 10° 1.7 x 105 <1

Nickel CFA 4.1 x 101 1.0 x 102 41

Perchloroethylene CFA 4.3 x 102 1.7 x 105 <1

Trichloroethylene RWMC 4.0 x 101 2.7 x 105 <1

Noncarcinogens

Ammonia INTEC 9.7 x 102 1.7 x 104 6

Cyclopentane CFA 1.1 x 103 1.7 x 106 <1

Hydrochloric Acid CFA 1.1 x 102 7.0 x 103 2

Mercury INTEC 3.0 x 100 5.0 x 101 6

Naphthalene CFA 2.3 x 103 5.0 x 104 5

Nitric Acid INTEC 7.7 x 102 5.0 x 103 15

Phosphorus TAN 5.5 x 101 1.0 x 102 55

Potassium Hydroxide ANL-W 1.4 x 10' 2.0 x 103 <1

Styrene PBF 3.5 x 102 2.1 x 105 <1

Toluene CFA 2.5 x 104 1.9 x 105 13

3-48
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-8. Highest Predicted Concentrations of Toxic Air Pollutants at Onsite

Locations for the Maximum Baseline Case at INEEL, Including Anticipated Increases to

the Baselinea (continued)

Location of Maximum 8-Hour Occupational Percent

Maximum Concentrations Exposure of

Toxic Air Pollutant Concentrationb (alm3) Limit (pglm3) Standard

Trimethylbenzene CFA 1.3 x 104 1.2 x 105 11

Trivalent Chromium TAN 6.3 x 100 5.0 x 102 1

ANL-W = Argonne National Laboratory-West CFA = Central Facilities Area

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy INEEL = Idaho National Technology and Engineering Center

INTEC = Idaho Nuclear Engineering and Technology Center

PBF = Power Burst Facility RWMC = Radioactive Waste Management Complex TAN = Test Area North

TRA = Test Reactor Area

* DOE. DOE/EIS-0203-F, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final

Environmental Impact Statement.' Vol. 2, Part A, Section 4.7. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

b Occupational exposure limits are 8-hour, time-weighted averages established by the American Conference of

Govemmental Industrial Hygienists or Occupational Safety and Health Administration; the lower (most restrictive) of the two limits is used.

NOTE: To convert to pg/i 3 to ozft, multiply by 1 x 10

3.7.2.2.4 Offsite Conditions

Estimated maximum offsite pollutant

concentrations were calculated in the DOE

Programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995) for

locations along the INEEL site boundary,

public roads within the site boundary, and

at Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area

and Preserve. Table 3-9 contains the

results for criteria pollutant levels

associated with facilities that existed or

were projected to operate before mid-1995.

These results indicate that all

concentrations of criteria pollutants in all

areas are well within the ambient air quality

standards. Table 3-10 contains the results

for carcinogenic toxic air-pollutant levels at

INEEL site boundary locations including

anticipated increases to the baseline. All

carcinogenic air-pollutant levels are below

the ambient air quality standards.

Table 3-11 contains the results for

noncarcinogenic air-pollutant levels at

INEEL site boundary locations and public

Air Quality Terms

PM is dust, smoke, other solid particles and liquid

droplets in the air. Particle size is important and is

measured in micrometers (pm). A micrometer is

I millionth of a meter (3.9 x 1 0- in).

Criteria Pollutants are pollutants for which the EPA has

set National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The

criteria pollutants are sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide,

carbon monoxide, PM,0 and PM2 (PM,o and PM2 are

PM with a diameter less than 10 pm and 2.5 pm,

respectively), lead, and ozone.

Background is an air concentration value, based on

measured pollutant data, that accounts for the impact

of emissions from existing facilities.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards are set for the

criteria pollutants. The primary standards set

maximum limits on outdoor air concentrations of these

pollutants to protect public health with an adequate

margin of safety. Secondary standards specify

maximum concentrations that would protect the public.

If both a primary and a secondary standard exist, the

more restrictive standard is normally used for

assessment purposes.

3-49
Table 3-9. Ambient Air Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants from the Combined Effects of Maximum Baseline Emissions and Projected Increases'

Maximum Projected Concentration (plm)b Percent of Standard

Craters of the Craters of the

Moon Applicable Moon Averaging Wilderness Standard' Wilderness Time Site Boundary Public Roads Area (p/i ) Site Boundary Public Roads Area

Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 530 1,300 140 40.000 1 3 0.3 8 hours 170 310 30 10,000 2 3 0.3

Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 7.3 11 0.6 100 7 11 1

Sulfur Dioxide 3 hours 220 600 62 1,300 17 46 5 24 hours 53 140 11 370 15 38 3 Annual 2.5 6.2 0.3 80 3 8 0.4

Respirable Particulates' 24 hours 20 35 3.2 150 13 24 2 Annual 0.77 3.5 0.12 50 2 7 0.2

Lead Quarterly 2.0 x 10" 2.0 x 10 ' 10 x 10- 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.01

m C

< n :;. 0

0 .

3 o

''0

rCD

:::

CD

CD

0.

0

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

DOE. Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement.' Section 4.7. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002. b Includes contribution from existing sources and projected increases.

All standards are primary air quality standards (designed to protect public health), except for 3-hour sulfur dioxide, which is a secondary standard (designed to protect public welfare).

d Assumes all particulate matter emissions are of respirable size (i.e., less than 10 microns). Particulate matter concentrations do not include fugitive dust from activities such as construction. Additional standards for smaller sized particles (2.5 microns and less) have been promulgated. Current air quality levels are well within the proposed standards.

NOTE: To convert to pg/rm to oz/1f1

, multiply by 1 x 10'9.
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-10. Highest Predicted Concentrations of Carcinogenic Air Pollutants at Site

Boundary Locations for tiee Maximum Baseline Case at INEEL, Including Anticipated

Increases to the Baselinea

Annual Average

Concentrations Standardb Percent of

Toxic Air Pollutant (glm 3) (lm 3)Standard

Acetaldehyde 1.1 x 10-2 4.5 x 10-1 2

Arsenic 9.0 x O-5- 2.3 x 1O- 39

Benzene 2.9 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-' 24

Butadiene 1.0 x 10-3 3.6 x 10-3 28

Carbon Tetrachloride 6.0 x 10-3 6.7 x 10-2 9

Chloroform 4.0 x i0 . 4.3 x 102<1

Formaldehyde 1.2 x 10-2 7.7 x 10-2 16

Hexavalent Chromium 6.0 x 10-5, 8.3 x 10-5 72

Hydrazine 1.0 x 10-6 3.4 x 10-4 <1

Methylene Chloride 6.0 x 10-3 2.4 x 10-' 3

Nickel 2.7 x 10- 4.2 x 10- 65

Perchloroethylene 1.1 X 10- 2.1 x 10-0 5

Trichloroethylene 9.7 x 10- 7.7 x 10-2 1

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory -

* DOE. DOEIEIS-0203-F, 'Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement.!

Vol. 2 Part A, Section 4.7. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1995.-

b Acceptable ambient concentrations for carcinogens listed In Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho. Acceptable ambient

concentrations for carcinogens are increments that apply only to n'ew (not existing) sources and are used here only as reference

levels.

NOTE: To convert to pg/m3 to ozlft. multiply by I x O-". :

3-51
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-11. Highest Predicted Concentrations of Noncarcinogenic Air Pollutants at

Site Boundary and Public Road Locations for the Maximum Baseline Case at INEEL,

Including Anticipated Increases to the Baselinea

Annual

Average

Toxic Air Concentration Standard Percent of

Pollutant Location (//glm3) uIm3 ) Standardb

Ammonia Public Road 6.0 x 100 1.8 x 102 3

Site Boundary 4.1 x 10-' <1

Cyclopentane Public Road 2.7 x 100 1.7 x 104 <1

Site Boundary 3.9 10-2 <1

Hydrochloric Acid Public Road 9.8 x 10- 7.5 x 100 13

Site Boundary 9.7 x 10-2 1

Mercury Public Road 4.2 x 10-2 1.0 X 100 4

Site Boundary 1.3 x 10-2 1

Naphthalene Public Road 1.8 X.10' 5.0 x 102 4

Site Boundary 1.9 x 10-3 <1

Nitric Acid Public Road 6.4 x 10-' 5.0 X 0 '

Site Boundary 2.6 x 10- <1

Phosphorus Public Road 3.0 x 10-' 1.0 x 100 30

Site Boundary 8.9 x 10-3 <1

Potassium Public Road 2.0 x 10.' 2.0 x 10' 1

Hydroxide Site Boundary 2.0 x 10' 1

Proprionaldehyde Public Road 3.0 x 10.' 4.3 x 100 7

Site Boundary 6.4 x 10-3 <1

Styrene Public Road 1.3 x 100 1.0 x 103 <1

Site Boundary 2.4 x 10-4 <1

Toluene Public Road 3.7 x 102 3.8 x 103 10

Site Boundary 6.2 x 10-2 <1

Trimethylbenzene Public Road 1.0 x 102 1.2 x 103 8

;: Site Boundary 1.0 x 10-2 <1

Trivalent Public Road 3.6 x 10-2 5.0 X 100 <1

Chromium Site Boundary 2.2 x10-3 <1

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

* DOE. DOEEIS-0203-F. Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement.'

Vol. 2. Part A. Section 4.7. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE. Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

b Acceptable ambient concentrations listed in Rules of the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho. Acceptable ambient concentrations

are increments that apply only to new (not existing) sources and are used here only as reference levels.

NOTE: To convert to pg/m3 to oz/ft3.multiply by 1 x 10'9.

3-52
Description of the Affected

Environment

road locations including anticipated increases to the baseline. All noncarcinogenic air-pollutant

levels are below the ambient air quality standards. Levels at sofi6lpublic road locations, which

are closer to emission sources, are higher than site boundary locations but still below the

ambient air quality standards.

Concentrations of certain criteria pollutants from existing INEEL sources were also compared to

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations, which have been established to

ensure that air quality remains good in those areas where-ambient air quality standards are not

exceeded. The Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Appendix C.2,

Section C.2.2.2) contains a detailed description of PSD regulations. The PSD regulations use

criteria called increments. These increments are allowable increases over baseline conditions

from sources that have become operational after certain baseline dates. Increments have been

established for sulfur dioxide, respirable particulates, and nitrogen dioxide. Separate PSD

increments are established for pristine areas, such as national park or wilderness areas (termed

Class I areas) and for the nation as a whole (termed Class II areas). Craters of the Moon

Wilderness Area is the Class I area nearest to the INEEL site, while the site boundary and

public roads are the applicable Class II areas. Federal land managers (e.g., BLM or National

Park Service) are responsible for the protection of air quality values, including visibility, in land

areas under their jurisdiction. The Clean Air Act requires the prevention of any future

impairment and the remedying of any existing impairment in Class I Federal areas.

Section 3.10 of this EIS contains information concerning Visual/Scenic descriptions.

The amount of increment consumed by existing sources subject to PSD regulation described in

this EIS is based on estimates presented in the Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE,

2002a). The DOE used two air-dispersion models to generate the estimates in the Idaho HLW

and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Appendix C.2, Section C.2.3.3). Selection of the

air-dispersion model was based on the distance from the emission source to the monitoring site.

The National Park Service recommends using an air-dispersion model called CALPUFF to,

assess conditions at receptor locations greater than 50 km [31 mui from the emission source.

The other air-dispersion model, ISCST3, was used to assess conditions at receptor locations

less than 50 km [31 mi] from the emission source. Table 3-12 contains the CALPUFF

model-estimated maximum increment consumption at the Class I area locations for western

portions of Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area and Preserve, Yellowstone National Park, and

Grand Teton National Park. Tables 3-13 and 3-14 cbntain the ISCST3 model estimated

maximum increment consumption for the eastern portion of the Craters of the Moon Class I area

and the Class II area on and around INEEL. The Craters of the Moon area appears in the

estimate for both CALPUFF and ISCST3 models because portions of the area were closer than

50 km [31 mi] from the INTEC emission source and portions of the area were farther than 50 km

[31 mi] from the emission source. The amount of increment consumed at all Class I and Class

11 areas remains well within allowable levels.

3.7.2.2.5 Summary of Nonradiological Air Quality

The air quality on and around INEEL is good and within applicable guidelines. The area around

the INEEL is either in attainment or unclassified for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Portions of Bannock and Power Counties in Idaho, near the region of influence, are in a*

nonattainment area for PM. For toxic emissions, all INEEL boundary and public road levels

have been found to be well below reference levels appropriate for comparison. Current

emission rates for some toxic pollutants are higher than the baseline levels assessed in the

3-53.
Table 3-12. PSD Increment Consumption at Distant Class I Areas by Sources Subject to PSD Regulation"b

Craters of the Moon National

Monument' Yellowstone National Park' Grand Teton National Park

Allowable Maximum Percent of Maximum Percent of Maximum Percent of

PSD Predicted PSD Predicted PSD Predicted PSD

Averaging Increment Concentration Increment Concentration Increment Concentration Increment

Pollutant Time (pglm3 ) (pglm3 ) Consumed (MIm3) Consumed (Alm') Consumed

Sulfur 3 hours 25 11 44 2.7 11 4 16

Dioxide' 24 hours 5 3.4 68 0.66 .13 0.99 20

Annual 2 0.23 12 0.026 1.3 0.045 2.3

Respirable 24 hours 8 0.61 7.6 0.22 2.8 0.25 3.1

Particulates Annual 4 0.032 0.8 4.7 x 10-3 0.12 7.4 x 10-3 0.19

Annual 2.5 0.27 11 6.6 x 10-3 0.26 0.022 0.88

M ~0

CD

C D

0.

.U

I 10

E !=

CD

CD

0l

n DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental impact statement

INTEC = Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

PSD = prevention of significant deterioration

S DOE. DOEIEIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement.' Section 4.7. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations

Office. 2002.

b Modeled assuming maximum emission rates and full utilization (8,760 hr/yr) for each source.

The results for Craters of the Moon National Monument represent the Impacts predicted 65 km [39 mi] from INTEC, which correspond to the western portion of Craters of the Moon

irrespective of direction. d The results for Yellowstone National Park represent the impacts predicted 160 km [100 mil from INTEC, which correspond to the closest (southwestern) boundary of Yellowstone,

irrespective of direction.

* The results for Grant Teton National Park represent the impacts predicted 160 km [100 mi] from INTEC, which correspond to the closest (westemmost) boundary of Grand Teton,

irrespective of direction.

Based on fuel sulfur content of 0.3 percent.

NOTE: To convert to pg/m3 to oz/ft3, multiply by 1 x 10-'.
Description of the Affected

A .. Environment

Table 3-13. PSD Increment Consumption at the Craters of the Moon Class I Areas by

Sources Subject to PSD Regulationab

Maximum

Allowable PSD Predicted Percent of PSD

Averaging Incrementc Concentration Increment

Pollutant Time IM) (MgIm 3) Consumed

Sulfur Dioxided 3 hours 25 8.1 32

24 hours 5 1.9 37

Annual 2 0.12 6

Respirable 24 hours 8 0.57 7.2

Particulates Annual 4 0.025 0.6

Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 2.5 0.40 16

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental Impact statement

IDAPA = Idaho Administrative Procedures Act

PSD = prevention of significant deterioration

* DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement." Section 4.7. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

b Assumes maximum emission rates and full utilization (8,760 hr/yr) for each source.

c Increments specified are State of Idaho standards (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. IDAPA 58,

Title 1, Chapter 1, Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho." Sections 549-581. Boise, Idaho: Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. http:/www.state.id.hs/adm/adminrulesIrules/IDAPA58/010.pdf>

(April 15,2003)

e Sulfur dioxide results have been modified from the original results by a factor of 0.6 to reflect a change in fuel

sulfur content from 0.5 to 0.3 percent.

NOTE: To convert to pg/m3 to Oztf3, multiply by 1 x 10-9.

DOE Programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995),

but resulting ambient concentrations are

expected to remain below reference levels. What Is a Sievert?

Similarly, all toxic pollutant levels at onsite The effects of radiation exposure on humans depend

locations are expected to remain below the on the kind of radiation received, the total amount of

lower of two occupational limits established radiation energy absorbed, and the sensitivity and

by either the Occupational Safety and Health mass of tissues involved. A sievert (Sv) is a unit of

Administration or the American Conference of radiation dose calculated by a formula that takes

Governmen Industral Hygieists forthese three factors into account. Another common Government Industrial Hygienists for unit of radiation dose i the rem [ Sv = 100 rem].

protection of workers. - The average annual radiation dose to an individual in

the United States from natural background and

3.7.2.3 Radiological Air artificial sources is about 0.0036 Sv [0.36 rem] or

Qu. .^. f3.6 .alitygl ~a. millisievert (mSv) [360 millirem (mrem)]. This Quality average quantity represents the summation of

external and internal doses.

This section provides information concerning

the levels of airborne radiological exposure to

the population of the Eastem Snake River Plain.

'3-55
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-14. PSD Increment Consumption at Class II Areas at INEEL by Sources Subject

to PSD Regulationa

Maximum Predicted Concentrationb

Allowable Amount of Percent of

PSD INEEL Public Increment PSD

Averaging Increment' Boundary Road Consumed Increment

Pollutant Time (pgfm3 ) (Igm 3 ) (IgIm3) (MgIm 3 ) Consumedd

Sulfur 3 hour 512 80 120 120 23

Dioxidee 24 hour 91 16 27 27 29

Annual 20 1.1 3.6 3.6 18

Respirable 24 hour 30 4.9 10 10 34

Particulates Annual 17 0.19 0.53 0.53 3.1

Nitrogen Annual 25 3.3 8.8 8.8 35

Dioxide

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy EIS = environmental impact statement

IDAPA = Idaho Administrative Procedures Act

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

PSD = prevention of significant deterioration

* DOE. DOEIEIS-0287-F, 'Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement.'

Section 4.7. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE. Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

b Modeled assuming maximum emission rates and full utilization (8,760 hours per year).

Increments specified are State of Idaho standards [Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. IDAPA 58. Title 1, Chapter 1,

Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho. Section 579-581. Boise, Idaho: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.

2001. <httpJ/www.state.id.hs/admadminrules/ruleslDAPA58/0101.pdf> (April 15, 2003)].

d The amount of increment consumed is equal to the highest value of either the site boundary or public road locations.

* Sulfur dioxide results have been modified from the original results by a factor of 0.6 to reflect a change in fuel sulfur content from

0.5 to 0.3 percent.

NOTE: To convert to ljg/m3 to oz/ft3, multiply by 1 x 1 0-9

3.7.2.3.1 Sources of Radiation

The population of the Eastern Snake River Plain is exposed to radiation that comes from natural

background sources and artificial sources. Both of these radiation sources are described in

detail in Section 3.13.

3.7.2.3.2 Existing Radiological Conditions

Monitoring and assessment activities are conducted to characterize existing radiological

conditions at INEEL and the surrounding environment. Table 3-15 provides a summary of the

principal types of airborne radioactivity emitted from INEEL facilities during 1999 and 2000.

An indication of onsite radiological conditions is also obtained by comparing measured levels on

and near INEEL with measured levels from locations near the site, but at a distance sufficient

not to be affected by the site. Figure 3-12 shows the offsite dosimeter locations, as well as

locations where various food products are collected for radioactivity analysis. Results from

locations on and near INEEL include contributions from natural background conditions and

3-56
c4

Table 3.15. Summary of Airborne Radlonuclide Emissions (in Curies) for 1999 and 2000 from Facility Areas at INEEL

.ritiumi~arbon-1 Mixed Fission and TritiumlCarbon.14 .lodines | Noble Gases Activation Productsb UrThlTransuranice Area 1999 2000 1999 | 2000 | 1999 T 2000 1999 | 2000 1999 | 2000

Monitored Sources

Argonne National 11 2.5 Id 1.9 X 10 400 Laboratory-West .

Central Facilities Area - - _

INEEL 8.9 13 2.6 x 10' 6.1 x 10 _ 6.9 x 10' 7.2 x 10-' 2.4 x 10 . 2.8 x 10-6

Naval Reactors Facility. _ - _ .- Power Burst Facility 55 - 2.6 x 10 ' 4.2 x 10.2 6.1 x 10-' 2.8 x 10'

Radioactive 

Management 

Waste - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Complex

.Test Area North 93 7.9 x 10 920 2.7 x 10 ' 3.4 x 10'1. _ Test Reactor Area _ . .. ._ _ _

INEEL Total - - 75 110 2.6 x 10-3 0.014 1.9 x 10' 1.3 x 103 7.0 x 10- 7.2 10-4 2.4 x 10-' 2.8 x 10.6

Other Release Points

Argonne National 0.014 0.010 = Laboratory-West __.._._..___ .. ._._._____ Central Facilities Area - . - - _ 2.7 x 10-. 6.6 x 10'8 3.1 x 105 1.0 x lo"

INEEL 1.1 x o-, 150 1.6 x 10'7 6.1 x 10-11 - 1.2 x 10i 1.4 x 10 ' 4.4 x 10-3 2.9 x 10-6 8.2 x 10' Naval Reactors Facility 0.67 0.69 5.0 x 10.0 9.0 x 10.6 0.047 0.68 1.5 x 104 1.1 X 10 ' 6.0 x 10.6 Power Burst Facility 7.1 x 10-o 0.018 3.3 x 10-10 1.6 x 10-.1 1.5 x 10" 2.8 x 10-13 7.0 x 10-' 9.8 x 10- 5.6 x 10-' 4.4 x 10-

Radioactive 

Management 

Waste 0.021 0.011 _ _ _ _ 4.6 x 10' 3.1 x 10- 1.0 o-, 7.2 x 10.6 Complex . _ . . . . Test Area North 5.3 x 10 1.4 x 10' - - 2.7 x 10 4.4 x 10 5.7 x 10 t 1.1 X 10-6 CD

Test ReactorArea 170 200 0.13 0.38 1.2 x 10' 1.5 10 0.45 2.3 7.4 x 10.' 1.3 x 10*' INEELTotal 170 350 0.13 0.38 1.2 x 10' 2.7 x 101 0.45 2.3 4.3 x 10' 8.5 10' 

O

0

ITI

< CD

3i

CD ~CD
Table 3-15. Summary of Airborne Radionuclide Emissions (in Curies) for 1999 and 2000 from Facility Areas at INEEL' (continued)

Mixed Fission and TritiumlCarbon-14 lodines Noble Gases Activation Productsb U/ThlTransuranic

Area 1999 | 2000 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000

Fugitive Sources

Argonne National - - - Laboratory-West

Central Facilities Area 3.5 3.7 2.9 x 10.6 1.9 x 10 2.6 x 10' 1.4 x 1010 1.5 x 10- INEEL 8.9 0" 0.092 3.8 x 101 8.0 x 10" 7.1 9.2 x 10- 0.22 5.9 o" 1.2 10 Naval Reactors Facility - - - - 39 x 10" 4.9 x 10-s Power Burst Facility 0.018 - - 5.6 10- 5.6 x 10-' 2.7 x 10" 2.8 x 10 Radioactive Waste 55 130 - 3.7 x 10- 3.7 x 10- 9.5 x 10-" 9.5 X 10-9 Management Complex

TestArea North 0.060 0.15 - 1.1 104 8.8 x 10' 9.4 x 10. 9.8 x 10' Test ReactorArea 87 100 1.2 x 10- 9.3 x 10" 5.0 x 05 2.0 10 1.0 x 10, 1.6 x 10'3 7.4 x 10. 9.9 x INEEL Total 150 230 1.2 x 103 0.017 5.0 x 10- 7.1 1.2 x 103 0.22 5.1 x 10-' 1.2 x 10

Total INEEL Releases

Argonne National 11 2.5 19 x 103 400 _ I _ Laboratory-West _

Central Facilities Area 3.5 3.7 - 2.9 x 10- 1.9 x lo' 2.6 x 10" 3.1 x 105 1.5 X 10N INEEL 8.9 160 2.6 x 10' 0.014 - 1.2 x 103 2.1 x 10- 0.23 5.5 x 10.6 2.0 x 10' Naval Reactors Facility 0.67 0.69 5.0 10 9.0 x 10- 0.047 0.68 1.5 10, 1.5 10 . 6.0 10'

Power Burst Facility 55 0.018 3.3 x 1010 1.6 x 10°10 1.5 x 10.- 2.8 x 101 1.3 x 104 1.5 x 10- 2.8 10.' 7.2 x 10

Radioactive Waste 55 130 - 4.2 x 10 6.8 x 10' 1.0 10.6 7.2 x 10.6 Management Complex 10_4 _ Test Area North 0.061 93 - 7.9 x 0- 920 1.1 10 1.3 x 10' 6.6 x 10' 1.2 x 10.6

Test ReactorArea 260 300 0.13 0.39 1.2 10 1.5 x10 0.45 2.3 7.5 x 106 2.3 x 10-

INEEL Total 1 400 690 0.13 0.41 3.1 x I0 4.0 10 0.45 2.5 4.6K 10 2.1 10 DOE = U.S. Department of Energy EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Technology and Engineering Center

' DOE. DOEIEIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement. Section 4.7. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002. D Mixed fission and activation products that are primarily particulate in nature (e.g., cobalt-60, strontium-90, and cesium-137) U/Th/Transuranic = Radioisotopes of heavy elements such as uranium, thorium, plutonium, americium, and neptunium d Dash indicates amount is negligibly small or zero

mc:) =CD < n

o -.

B -c

0

CD

0

CD

CL

Ull co
Co~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

Mft. <mpln"rns . rng'

| 3°n~~~~~~~~~~

Ca: .- m.t. r ,,cat;m_

eI~Q -2 PbaOfafsienvrnetlRdooiaMoiongndSmln oaln MdfdfomDE20a, CD4 Fiur 312 aioogca OfsteEnirnmntl Mniorngan Smpin Lctins(Mdiie fomDO, 0-oC

Section 4.7) CL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Description of the Affected

Environment

INEEL site emissions. Results from distant

locations represent only natural background Radiation and Radioactivity

conditions because distant locations are not

influenced by INEEL emissions. These data Radioactivity or Radioactive Decay is the process by

show that for the 5-year period 1995-1999, which unstable atoms emit radiation to reach a more

average radiation exposure levels for the stable state.

boundary locations were no different from Radiation is the movement of energetic particles or

those at distant stations. The average waves through matter and space. Radiation comes

annual external dose from natural from radioactive material or from equipment such as

background sources measured by the x-ray machines. Radiation may either be ionizing or

Environmental Surveillance, Education and nonionizing radiation.

Research Program during 1999 was 1.22 Ionizing Radiation is radiation that has enough

mSv 122 mremj for distant locations and energy to cause atoms to lose electrons and

1.24 mSv (124 mrem] for boundary become ions.

community locations (DOE, 2002a, Radiation Dose is the quantity of radiation that is

Section 4.7). These differences are well deposited in a material. The radiation dose to

within the range of normal variation. On humans, commonly referred to as a dose equivalent,

INEEL, dosimeters around some facilities is measured in units of sieverts (Sv). One Sv is

may show slightly elevated levels, because equivalent to 100 rem.

many are intentionally placed to monitor the Collective Dose is the sum of the individual doses dose rate in areas adjacent to the received in a given period of time by a specified

radioactive material storage areas or areas population. The unit of collective dose is personof known soil contamination (DOE, 2002a, sieverts or person-rem. For example, 1,000 people

Section 4.7). who each receive a 0.01 Sv [1 rem] dose, receive a collective dose of 10 person-Sv [1,000 person-rem].

3.7.2.3.3 Summary of Radiological

Conditions

Radioactivity and radiation levels resulting from INEEL site emissions are low, well within

applicable standards, and negligible when compared with doses received from natural

background sources.

3.8 Noise

As discussed in this section of the EIS, noise is used to indicate unwanted sound that can be a

byproduct of activities at INEEL. A common sound measurement used to indicate sound

intensity is the A-weighted sound level (decibel-A or dBA). Sounds reported in these units are

intended to take into account the sensitivity of the human ear for sounds of different pitches.

At INEEL, noises that affect the public are dominated primarily by vehicle traffic, including

buses, private vehicles, delivery trucks, construction trucks, aircraft, and freight trains. During a

normal work week, a majority of the employees at the INEEL site are transported to various

work areas at INEEL by a fleet of buses covering 72 routes. Approximately 1,200 private

vehicles also travel to and from INEEL daily (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.10). There is no airport at

INEEL, and noise from an occasional commercial aircraft crossing INEEL at high altitudes is

indistinguishable from the natural background noise of the site. Rail transport noises originate

from diesel engines, wheel and track contact, and whistle warnings at rail crossings. Normally

no more than one train per day, and usually fewer than one train per week, service INEEL via

the Scoville spur (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.10).

3-60
Description of the Affected

Environment

Noise measurements taken about 15 m [50 ft] from U.S. Highway 20 during a peak commuting

period indicate that the sound levels from traffic at INEEL range from 69 to 88 dBA (Leonard,

1993). Buses are the primary source of this highway noise with a sound level of 82 dBA at 15 m

[50 ft] (Leonard, 1993). Industrial activities (i.e., shredding) at the Central Facilities Area

produce the highest noise levels measured at 104 dBA. Noise generated at INEEL is not

propagated at detectable levels offsite, since all primary facilities are at least 4.8 km [3 mi] from

site boundaries. INEEL buses operate offsite, but are part of the normal levels of traffic noise in

the community. In addition, previous studies on effects of noise on wildlife indicate that even

high intermittent noise levels at INEEL (more than 100 dBA) would not affect wildlife productivity

(Leonard, 1993).

The noise level at INEEL ranges from 10 dBA (rustling grass) to 115 dBA, the upper limit for

unprotected hearing exposure established by the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration from the combined sources of industrial operations, construction activities, and

vehicular traffic. The natural environment of INEEL has relatively low ambient noise levels

ranging from 35 to 40 dBA (Leonard, 1993). In conducting its industrial operations and

construction'activities, INEEL complies with Occupational Safety and Health Administration

regulations (29 CFR 1910.95). These regulations require that any INEEL personnel exposed to

an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA or greater must be issued hearing protection (DOE,

2002a, Section 4.10). The regulations also require that any exposure to impulse or impact

noise should be limited to 140-dBA peak sound pressure level.

3.9 Cultural, Historical, Archaeological, Ethnographical, and

Paleontological Resources

3.9.1 Cultural Resources

To date, more than 100 cultural resource surveys have been conducted at INEEL through the

auspices of DOE. These surveys and investigations have identified many archaeological and

historic sites within the INEEL boundaries. Prehistoric settlement and use of the area date back

12,000 years, as evidenced in archeological investigations that have been conducted. Historic

uses of the area include attempts at homesteading, cattle drives, as well as a route for settlers

traveling west. The most recent use of the area has facilitated the nuclear technology age

with research and development of nuclear power and the subsequent storage of SNF. The

information these'surveys has yielded provided baseline data that have been used to develop a

predictive model that aids in the identification of areas where densities of sites are highest and

also where the potential impacts to significant archaeological resources would increase (Ringe,

1993a,b). Although this'model'does not replace inventories required by the compliance

requirements, this predictive model is crucial to the identification and early mitigation of areas

highly likely to be archaeologically sensitive. Other cultural resources, such as those

associated with settlement (remnants of homesteads), emigration (historic trails), cattle drives

(remnants of camps), scenic vistas (landscapes and viewsheds significant to the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes), military, and nuclear technology (buildings and structures) have

been, and are in the process of being, identified and evaluated for historical significance and

eligibility for listing on the Natiorial Register of Historic Places.

3-61
Description of the Affected

Environment

3.9.2 Historical Resources

The southeastern portion of Idaho where INEEL is located is rich with cultural resources that

reflect the settlement and development of the region by aboriginal people and the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, as well as Euroamerican explorers and settlers. As the westward

expansion entered the region, resources were left behind that provide a record of historic uses

and development of the area. Many of these cultural resources exist within the INEEL

boundaries. The region is etched with historic trails used by settlers who attempted to

homestead the area. Many of these trails were also used for cattle drives and, in the late

1800s, as stage and freight routes to support mining towns in central Idaho (Miller, 1995). As

homesteaders attempted to settle and farm the area along the Big Lost River in the late

1800s and early 1900s, irrigation efforts in the high desert climate failed. Homesteads

were abandoned, and Euroamerican settlement and development of the region ceased.

At the start of World War II, terrain of the desert region proved to be useful to the Federal

government. The military used different areas, such as the Central Facilities Area, as test-firing

and bombing ranges. The most significant development of the area occurred in 1949 when the

National Reactor Testing Station, later to become INEEL, was established by the government.

INEEL was instrumental in the development of nuclear power, with 52 first-of-a-kind reactors

constructed since 1949 (Miller, 1995). Many historic sites within INEEL document early

development of nuclear power, including the Experimental Breeder Reactor-I, which is listed on

the National Register of Historic Places and is a national historic landmark. INTEC, originally

named as the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, was one of the first facilities constructed at

INEEL in the 1950s. INTEC was instrumental in the early development of processes and

facilities for managing nuclear fuels and waste products. Among the first-in-the-world

accomplishments at INTEC are the reprocessing of highly enriched pure uranium on a

production scale and solidification of liquid HLW on both plant and production scales (DOE,

2002a, Section 4.4). INTEC comprises many structures and buildings that supported the

nuclear waste processing and storage operations. Of the buildings and structures used in this

period of nuclear technology, 38 are of historical significance and are potentially eligible for

listing on the National Register of Historic Places (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.10) for their

association with nuclear reactor testing or postnuclear reactor test research. The location of the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is just outside the INTEC complex on an open, previously

disturbed 3.2-ha [8-acre] parcel of land immediately east of the INTEC perimeter fence, north of

its coal-ash bury pit, and northeast of the coal-fired power plant. The new proposed facility and

its associated construction laydown area would be located within a small group of office

buildings, warehouses, and trailers built in the 1980s, which are not considered historic

structures. An associated construction laydown area would be located on a previously

disturbed 4.1-ha [10-acre] lot east of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site.

3.9.3 Archaeological Resources

Archaeological surveys and investigations conducted in southeastern Idaho have provided

evidence of human use of the Eastern Snake River Plain for at least 12,000 years.

Investigations at a cave about 3 km [2 mi] from the INEEL boundary provided evidence of the

earliest human occupation, which was radiocarbon-dated at 12,500 years before present.

Furthermore, scattered remains of Euroamerican settlement sites, as well as campsites

associated with livestock drives, are located in areas throughout INEEL. Archaeological survey

coverage in the vicinity of INTEC is expansive. In 1979, 45 ha [111 acres] of the area now

3-62
Description of the Affected

Environment

enclosed by the INTEC perimeter fence were investigated with 'no identification of any cultural

resources. In 1981, a cultural resource inventory of about 3.6 ha' [9 acres] proposed for the

coal-fired steam generation plant was conducted immediately south of the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility construction area on the east side of the facility, as well as several additional

project areas to the south and west. No cultural resources were identified in any of these areas.

However, one historic homestead was identified in an undisturbed area some distance to the

north. In 1985, survey coverage was significantly expanded with more than 405 ha

[1,000 acres] surrounding INTEC being surveyed. Six cultural resources were identified during

this survey phase, most of which were related to agricultural pursuits spurred by the Carey Land

Act of 1894.

Three archaeological sites were identified in the vicinity of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility project. Two of the sites contain isolates, are both unlikely to yield any additional

information, and are evaluated as ineligible for nomination to the National Register. The other

site is the archaeological remains of an historic homestead site that has been evaluated as -

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. However, these archaeological

resources are outside the areas of potential effect for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

project (Pace, 2001). Archaeological surveys previously conducted indicate that the area in the

vicinity of INTEC contains only limited evidence of prehistoric use. The proposed construction

and laydown areas of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility have been subject to intensive

ground disturbance during the past five decades. Nonnative plant species are dominant, and

no unique topographic features (buttes, river channels, sand dunes, for example) are present.

These factors, along with the absence of any cultural resources, decrease the likelihood that

these areas contain resources of special importance to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

(Pace, 2001).

3.9.4 Ethnographical Resources

Ethnography, a component of cultural anthropology, is concerned with the people of an area,

with their cultural systems or ways of life, and with the related technology, sites, structures,

other material features, and natural resources. In'addition to traditional regimes for resource

use and family and community economic and social features, cultural systems include

expressive elements that celebrate or record meaningful events and may carry considerable

symbolic and emotional significance.(National Park Service, 1998). Ethnographic resources are

cultural and natural features including structures, objects, sites, landscapes, flora, and fauna

that have traditional significance to contemporary people and communities.

Within the area of the proposed action, the ethnographic group that has been identified and

recognized is the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (DOE, 2002a). These people have a long and

traditional association with this portion of Idaho, as detailed in the following sections. It is

unknown whether other groups or individuals have ethnographic ties to INTEC and the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility areas. Because these areas are located in restricted and

secure land ownership and management, it is unlikely that people using the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility area for traditional or other purposes would remain undetected.

3.9.4.1: Early Native American Cultures

The prehistoric archaeological record does not make clear when the ancestors of the Shoshone

and Bannock people arrived in southeast Idaho; however, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

believe that native people were created on the North American continent and, therefore, regard

3-63
Description of the Affected

Environment

all prehistoric resources at INEEL as ancestral and important to their culture. Prehistoric sites

are located throughout INEEL, and all demonstrate the importance of the area for aboriginal

subsistence and survival. The ethnographic studies completed by early anthropologists

describe the seasonal migration of the Shoshone-Bannock people across the Eastern Snake

River Plain (Miller, 1995). The area now occupied by INEEL served as a travel corridor for

these groups, with the Big Lost River, Big Southern Butte, and Howe Point serving as temporary

camp areas providing fresh water, food, and obsidian for tool making and trade. The

Shoshone-Bannock people relied on the environment for all subsistence needs and depended

on a variety of plants and animals for food, medicines, clothing, tools, and building materials.

The importance of plants, animals, water, air, and land resources in the Eastern Snake River

Plain to the Shoshone-Bannock people is reflected in the sacred reverence in which they hold

the resources. Specific places in the Eastern Snake River Plain have sacred and traditional

importance to the Shoshone-Bannock people, including buttes, caves, and other natural

landforms on or near INEEL.

3.9.4.2 Native American and Euroarnerican Interactions

The influence of Euroamerican culture and loss of aboriginal territory and reservation land

severely impacted the aboriginal subsistence cultures of the Shoshone-Bannock people.

Settlers began establishing homesteads in the valleys of southeastern Idaho in the 1860s,

increasing the conflicts with aboriginal people and providing the impetus for treaty-making by

the Federal government (Murphy and Murphy, 1986). The Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 and

associated Executive Orders designated the Fort Hall Reservation for mixed bands of

Shoshone-Bannock people. A separate reservation established for the Lemhi Shoshone was

closed in 1907, and the Native Americans were forced to migrate to Fort Hall Reservation

across the area now occupied by INEEL.

The original Fort Hall Reservation, consisting of 729,000 ha [1.8 million acres], has been

reduced to about 220,320 ha [544,000 acres] through a series of cessions to accommodate the

Union Pacific Railroad and the growing city of Pocatello. Other developments, including the

flooding of portions of the Snake River Bottoms by the construction of the American Falls

Reservoir, have also reduced the Shoshone-Bannock land base (Murphy and Murphy, 1986).

The creation of INEEL also had an impact on the Shoshone-Bannock subsistence culture.

Land withdrawals initiated by the U.S. Navy during World War II and continued by the Atomic

Energy Commission during the Cold War all but eliminated Tribal access to traditional and

sacred areas until recent years. In addition, development of facilities at INEEL during the past

50 years has impacted cultural resources of importance to the Tribes, including traditional and

sacred areas and artifacts.

3.9.4.3 Contemporary Cultural Practices and Resource Management

The efforts of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to maintain and revitalize their traditional cultures

are dependent on having continual access to aboriginal lands, including some areas on INEEL.

DOE accommodates Tribal member access to areas on INEEL for subsistence and religious

uses. Tribal members continue to hunt big game, gather plant materials, and practice religious

ceremonies in traditional areas that are accessible on public lands adjacent to INEEL. In this

respect, INEEL continues to serve as a travel corridor for aboriginal people, although traditional

3-64
Description of the Affected

Environment

routes have changed due to INEEL access

restrictions. DOE recognizes the unique

interest the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have

in the management of INEEL resources and

continues to consult with the Tribes.

The maintenance of pristine environmental

conditions, including native plant

communities and habitats, natural

topography, and undisturbed vistas, is critical

to continued viability of the

Shoshone-Bannock culture. Contamination

from past and ongoing operations at INEEL

has the potential to affect plants, animals,

and other resources that tribal members

continue to use and deem significant.

Excavation and construction associated with

environmental restoration and waste

management activities have the potential to

disturb archaeological resources as well as

plant cormunities and habitats. However,

the proposed location of the Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility and its associated construction

laydown area would occur on highly

disturbed areas. Due to the degree of

previous disturbance and the lack of

archaeological resources, it is unlikely that

any sensitive tribal resources are present at

the proposed construction locations

(Pace, 2001).

BLM Visual Resource

Management Objectives

Class I-Preserve the existing character of the

landscape. This class provides for natural

ecological changes and does not preclude

limited management activity. The level of

change to the characteristic landscape should

be very low and must not attract attention.

Class II-Retain the existing character of the

landscape. The level of change to the

characteristic landscape should be low.

Management activities may be seen but should

not attract the attention of the casual observer.

Any changes must repeat the basic elements of

form, line, color, and texture found in the

predominant natural features of the

characteristic landscape.

Class Ill-Partially retain the existing character

of the landscape. The level of change to the'

characteristic landscape should be moderate.

Management activities may attract attention but

should not dominate the view of the casual

observer. Changes should repeat the basic

'elements found in the predominant natural

features of the characteristic landscape.

Class IV-Provide for management activities

that require major modification of the existing

character of the landscape. The level of change

to the characteristic landscape can be high.

These management activities may dominate the

view and be the major focus of viewer attention.

'Every attempt should be made, however, to ' ,

minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and

repeating the basic elements.

I I

3.9.5 Paleontological

Resources

Survey and evaluation for paleontological ' ' remains within the INEEL boundaries have

identified several fossils that suggest that the

region contains varied paleontological I

resources. Analyses of these materials and

site locations suggest that these types of

resources are found in areas of basalt flows, particularly in sedimentary interbeds or lava tubes

within local lava flows, and in some wind and sand deposits. Other and more specific areas that

these resources are likely to occur are in the deposits of the Big Lost River, Little Lost River,

Birch Creek, and Lake Terreton and playas. Vertebrate and invertebrate animal, pollen, and

plant fossils have been discovered in caves, in lake sediments, and in alluvial gravels ,along the

Big Lost River. Twenty-four paleontological localities have been identified in published data

(Miller, 1995). Vertebrate fossils have included mammoth and camel remains, while a horse

fossil was identified in a gravel pit near the Central Facilities Area. None of the types of

resources have been identified at the proposed construction location for the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility and its associated construction laydown area.

3-65
Description of the Affected

Environment

3.10 Visual/Scenic Resources

The baseline visual characteristics of the INEEL and the surrounding area, including

designated scenic areas, are described in the DOE Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS

(DOE, 2002a, Section 4.5).

INEEL is situated on the northwestern edge of the Eastern Snake River Plain. Volcanic cones,

domes, and mountain ranges are visible from most areas on INEEL. Features of the natural

landscape have a special importance to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and some prominent

features of the INEEL landscape are within the visual range of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.

The Bitterroot, Lemhi, and Lost River mountain ranges are visible to the north and west of

INEEL. East Butte and Middle Butte can be seen near the southern boundary, while Circular

and Antelope Buttes are visible to the northeast. Smaller volcanic buttes dot the natural

landscape of INEEL, providing a striking contrast to the relatively flat ground surface. The

viewscape in general consists of terrain dominated by sagebrush with an understory of grasses.

Juniper is common near the buttes and foothills of the Lemhi range, while crested wheatgrass is

scattered throughout INEEL.

Nine primary facility areas, which resemble commercial or industrial complexes, are located on

the INEEL (Figure 3-2). Structures generally range in height from 3 to 30 m [10 to 100 ft], with a

few emission stacks and towers that reach 76 m [250 ft].

Although many INEEL facilities are visible from public highways, most are located more than

8 km [0.5 mi] from public roads. Approximately 145 km [90 mi] of public highways cross INEEL.

U.S. Highway 20, which is traveled the most by the INEEL workforce, runs east to west across

the southern portion of the site. U.S. Highway 26 runs southeast and northwest intersecting

Highway 20, and State Highways 22, 28, and 33 cross the northeastern portion of INEEL

(Figure 3-1).

Lands within and adjacent to INEEL are subject to the BLM Visual Resource Management

Guidelines (1986a). Adjacent lands are designated as a visual resource Class II area, which

allows for moderate industrial growth, preserving and retaining the existing character of the

landscape. Lands within the boundaries of INEEL are designated as Class IlIl and Class IV

areas, allowing for partial retention of existing character and major modifications, respectively

(BLM, 1984).

Craters of the Moon National Monument is located southwest of INTEC. A wilderness area is

located within the boundary of the monument and its eastern boundary is about 43 km [27 mi]

from the INTEC main stack. The wilderness area must maintain Class I visual resource

management objectives. Emission sources proposed for location near Class I areas must

exercise consideration that the proposed source would not adversely impact values such as

visibility and scenic views. The BLM is considering the Black Canyon Wilderness Study Area,

located adjacent to NEEL, for wilderness designation, which, if approved, would result in an

upgrade of the BLM Visual Resource Management class for the area from Class II to

Class I (1986b).

3.11 Socioeconomics

Information in this section is drawn primarily from the DOE (2002a, Section 4.3). This overview

of current socioeconomic conditions includes a seven-county region of influence: Bannock,

3-66
Description of the Affected

Environment

Bingham, Bonneville, Butte, Ciark, Jefferson, and Madison. Alsiincluded are the Fort Hall

Reservation and the Trust Lands, home of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Figure 3-1 shows

towns and major transportation routes in the region of influence.

3.11.1 Population and Housing

Population growth in the region of influence paralleled statewide growth from 1960 to 1990, with

approximate average annual rates of 1.3 and 1.4 percent, respectively (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.3). However, from 1990 to 2000, state population growth accelerated to 2.9 percent a

year, compared with a region of influence growth of 1.4 percent (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.3).

Table 3-16 contains population estimates for the region of influence through 2000, as well as

projections for 2005 through 2025. Such projections are not certain due to variability over time

of birth, death, emigration and immigration rates, and other unanticipated factors in the region.

But trends indicate that region of influence population would reach almost 269,000 by 2005 and

339,700 by 2025 (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.3). For the longer time period of 2000 to 2025, the

region is projected to grow by 26 percent, comparing closely with a projected growth of

25 percent for the state as a whole.

Bannock and Bonneville Counties alone accounted for 63 percent of the total region of influence

population in 2000. Butte and Clark, in contrast, contain only 1.6 percent of the total. Pocatello

(in Bannock County) and Idaho Falls (in Bonneville County), each with 2000 populations of

about 51,000, comprise the largest cities. During 2000, INEEL employees and their families

accounted for 17 percent of the Bonneville County population and comprised almost 22 percent

of the Idaho Falls population (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.3). In Bannock and Madison Counties,

INEEL employees and their families represent only 2 percent of the population.

Of the 90,000 housing units in the region of influence during 2000, about 6.6 percent were

vacant. Included in this number are dwellings used for seasonal, recreational, or other

occasional purposes. In the region of influence, rental vacancy rates ranged from 5.9 percent in

Bonneville County to 14.7 percent in Butte County. Owned housing vacancy rates ranged from

1.6 percent in Madison and Bonneville Counties to 4.4 percent in Butte County

(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000a). The-average rental vacancy rate for the State of Idaho

was 7.6 percent, and the average owned housing vacancy rate was 2.2 percent

(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000b). Twenty-six percent of the occupied housing units in

the region of influence were rental. This number compares with 25.9 percent for the state as a

whole. Bonneville and Bannock Counties, which include the cities of Idaho Falls and Pocatello,

had 66 percent of the housing units in the region (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000a).

Housing characteristics for the region of influence are shown in Table 3-17.

3.11.2 Employment and Income

During the 1990s, the region of influence experienced an average annual growth rate in the

labor force of just under 2.4 percent (from 105,837 to 131,352), while the State of Idaho's labor

force grew at an annual rate of 3.4 percent (from 100,074 to 126,058). Employment in the

region of influence grew at an average annual rate of about 2.6 percent, while for the state the

figure was 3.5 percent (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). Tables 3-18, 3-19, and 3-20

depict historical trends in labor force, employment, and unemployment. The region of influence

experienced the lowest unemployment rate (4.0 percent) in a decade in 2000. This rate was

3-67
Table 3-16. Population of the INEEL Region of Influence and Idaho: 1980-2025'

County 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Bannock 65,421 66,026 72,043 75,565 81,303 84,474 90,894 96,802 102,710

Bingham 36,489 37,583 40,950 41,735 46,214 48,016 51,666 55,024 58,382

Bonneville 65,980 72,207 79,230 82,522 89,415 92,902 99,963 106,460 112,958

Butte 3,342 2,918 3,097 2,899 3,495 3,631 3,907 4,161 4,415

Clark 798 762 841 1,022 948 985 1,060 1,129 1, 1 98

Jefferson 15,304 16,543 18,429 19,155 20,798 21,609 23,251 24,763 26,274

Madison 19,480 23,674 23,651 27,467 26,692 27,733 29,841 31,780 33,720

Region of 206,814 219,713 238,241 250,365 268,865 279,350 300,582 320,119 339,657 Influence

Idaho 944,127 1,006,749 1,164,887 1,293,953 1,277,000 1,335,000 1,395,000 1,514,000 1,725,000

m 

< cn

o n.

B D ~0c . CD D

-_ 0

CD

CD

0

CD

a)

Co

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EISS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

' DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement. Section 4.3. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-17. Region of Influence Housing Characteristics (Year 2000)a

Owned

Number of Housing Rental

Total Owner- Vacancy Vacancy

Housing Occupied Rates Number of Rates

County Units Units (Percent) Rental Units (Percent)

Bannock 29,102 19,628 2.1 8,705 8.4

Bingham 14,303 10,746 1.7 3,038 9.4

Bonneville 30,484 -21,817 1.6 7,739 5.9

Butte 1,290 878 4.4 293 14.7

Clark 521 239 - 3.3 127 14.2

Jefferson 6,287 5,107. .1.9 960 7.0

Madison 7,630 4,286 1.6 3,133 7.0

Region of 89,617 62,701 NA 23,995 NA

Influence

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental impact statement

NA = Not applicable

DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement.' Section 4.3. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

Table 3-18. Historical Trends In Region of Influence Labor Force'

County | 1980 | 1985 - 1990 | 1995 2000

Bannock 30,488 33,684 31,342 36,310 39,502

Bingham 15,582 16,892 18,383 20,507 21,908

Bonneville 26,966 -35,103 38,632 43,422 46,479

Butte 1,862 1,579 - 1,447 1,542 - 1,596

Clark 325- 538 -- 549 623 -577

Jefferson - 4,865 7,131 - 8,078 - 9,158 10,269

Madison 9,103 7,802 - 7,406 9,695 11,021

Region of Influence -89,191 102,729 - 105,837 121,257 - 131,352

Idaho 429,000 466,000 492,619 - 600,493 657,712

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental impact statement

a DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement.' Section 4.3. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

3-69
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-19. Historical Trends in Region of Influence Employment'

County | 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Bannock 28,207 31,064 29,051 34,183 37,533

Bingham 14,419 15,534 17,320 19,363 20,896

Bonneville 25,432 33,267 37,127 41,563 44,921

Butte 1,780 1,491 1,381 1,479 1,537

Clark 295 511 533 596 549

Jefferson 4,480 6,600 7,633 8,685 9,873

Madison 8,683 7,366 7,029 9,373 10,479

Region of Influence 83,296 95,833 100,074 115,242 126,058

Idaho 395,000 429,000 463,484 568,138 625,798

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental impact statement

a DOE. DOEIEIS-0287-F, 'Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement." Section 4.3. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

Table 3-20. Historical Trends in Region of Influence Unemployment Rates'

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

County (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)

Bannock 7.5 7.8 7.3 5.9 5.0

Bingham 7.5 8.0 5.8 5.6 4.6

Bonneville 5.7 5.2 3.9 4.3 3.4

Butte 4.4 5.6 4.6 4.1 3.7

Clark 9.2 5.0 2.9 4.3 4.9

Jefferson 7.9 7.4 5.5 5.2 3.9

Madison 4.6 5.6 5.1 3.3 2.5

Region of Influence 6.6 6.7 5.4 5.0 4.0

Idaho 7.9 7.9 5.9 5.4 4.9

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental impact statement

a DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement." Section 4.3. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

3-70
Description of the Affected

Environment

lower than the 4.9 percent for the state, though rates varied widely in the region of influence

from 2.5 percent in Madison County to 5.0 percent in Bannock Cournty (U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 1997, 2002).

Three sectors of the economy-service, government, and retail and wholesale trade-are the

largest sources of employment in the INEEL region of influence. These sectors accounted for

70 percent of the jobs in the region in 1995. This employment is against the backdrop of the

area's rural character and an economy that was historically based on natural resources and

agriculture. As has been the case in most regions 6f the country, nonagricultural sectors have

fueled economic growth during the past several decades. In 1995, farming and agricultural

services, though important to the region of influence economy, accounted for less than

8 percent of jobs. Manufacturing and construction are also important to the area economy,

accounting for about 13 percent of employment in 1995 (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.3). The State

of Idaho reflects similar trends, with the service, government, and retail and wholesale trade

sectors being the largest employers-62 percent of total employment. This number is followed

by 19 percent in manufacturing and construction. Figure 3-13 depicts employment levels by

major sectors for the region of influence.

The INEEL influence on the regional economy is apparent from the fact that in fiscal year 2001,

INEEL accounted for 8,100 jobs, or about 6 percent of the total in the region of influence (DOE,

2002a, Section 4.3). INEEL is among the top five employers in the State (the state government

is the largest) and is the largest in southeast Idaho. Consolidation of contracts and reduction of

defense-related activities have reduced the workforce from the 12,500 employee peak -

experienced in 1991. The job force was projected to stabilize to about 8,000 after fiscal year

2000 (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.3). Idaho State University, American Microsystems, Inc., and

local school districts are also major employers in the region.

Per capita income in the region of influence rose 17 percent between 1990 and 1995, from

$14,136 to $16,550. Income levels within the area varied from $11,758 for Madison County to

$22,444 in Clark County. The per capita income for Idaho in 1995 was $18,895 (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.3). Median household income also varied widely, ranging from $23,000 in Madison

County to $30,462 in Bonneville County. Median household income for the state as a whole

was $25,257 and for the nation $30,056.

3.11.3 Community Services

Key community services in the region of influence include education, law enforcement, fire

protection, and medical services.

The 57,000 school-age children in the region are served by 17 public school districts and

5 private schools. Idaho State University/University of Idaho Center of Higher Education, Ricks

College, and the Eastern Idaho Technical College are institutions of higher education.

Fifteen county and municipal police departments employ 373 sworn officers and 149 civilians

(1995 figures) to provide law enforcement. Departments range in size from those in Idaho Falls

and Pocatello that employ 82 police officers to those in Clark County and the Firth Police

Department with 2 officers each (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.3).

3-71
Description of the Affected

Environment

Figure 3-13. 1995 Employment by Sector in the Seven-County Region of Influence

(Modified from DOE, 2002a, Section 4.3)

3-72
Description of the Affected

Environment

Eighteen municipal fire districts with about 500 firefighters (of whom about 300 are volunteers)

serve the region of influence,(DOE, 1995). In addition, the INEELfire department provides

24-hour coverage for the site. Its staff includes 50 firefighters, with no less than 16 on each

shift. Gingham, Bonneville, Butte, Clark, and Jefferson Counties, which surround INEEL, have

developed emergency plans to be implemented in event of a radiological or hazardous materials

emergency. Each emergency plan identifies facilities, including those of the INEEL, that have

extremely hazardous substances and defines routes for transportation of these substances.

The emergency plans also include procedures for notification and response, listings of

emergency equipment and facilities, evacuation routes, and training programs.

Seven hospitals with a 1,012-bed capacity, averaging 48-percent occupancy, are in the region

of influence (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.3). More than 65 percent of the hospital beds are in

Bannock and Bonneville Counties. No hospitals are located in either Clark or Jefferson

Counties. Although 283 physicians practice in the region, no primary-care physicians are

located in Butte or Clark Counties (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.3).

3.11.4 Public Finance

INEEL employees' tax support to southeastern Idaho counties is presented in Table 3-21.

These taxes help fund such local services as public schools, libraries, ambulance and other

emergency services, road and bridge repairs, police, fire protection, recreational opportunities,

and waste disposal. In 1998, INEEL contracts paid $1.4 million to the State of Idaho in Idaho

sales taxes and an additional $0.9 million in Idaho franchise tax.

Table 3-21. INEEL Tax Support to Southeastern Idaho Counties (in Millions of 1998

Dollars) Rates'

Idaho Sales Property

County Federal Tax State Tax Tax Tax Total

Bannock 5.8 2.4 1.2 0.7 10.2

Bingham 10.2 4.2 2.1 1.0 17.6

Bonneville 51.0 21.0 10.7 5.9 88.6

Butte" 1.7 0.7 0.4 0.1 2.9

Custer 0.7, 0.3 . 0.2 0.04 1.2

Jefferson 5.4 2.2 1.1 0.5 9.1

Madison 1.3 0.5 ' 0.3 0.2 2.3

DOE U.S. Department of Energy EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

' DOE. DOEIEIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement. Section 4.3. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

3-73
Description of the Affected

Environment

3.12 Environmental Justice

Information in this section is drawn primarily from the DOE Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition

EIS (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.12). Executive Order 12898 (The White House, 1998) directs

Federal agencies to make the achievement of environmental justice part of their mission. This

goal is accomplished by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental effects of Federal programs, policies, and activities on

minority and low-income populations. Where appropriate, Federal agencies would also

indicate the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects on low-income populations, minority populations, and Indian tribes. The following

analysis is in accordance with the guidelines and procedures for compliance with the Executive

Order promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (Council on Environmental

Quality, 1997).

Demographic information from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992, 2000) was used to identify

minority populations and low-income populations within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of INTEC.

The 80-km [50-mi] radius was selected because it was consistent with the region of influence for

air emissions and because it includes portions of the seven counties that constitute the region

for influence for socioeconomics. INTEC occupies the center of the circle, because the actions

proposed in this EIS would be accomplished at INTEC.

3.12.1 Community Characteristics

In accordance with Council of Environmental Quality guidelines, demographic maps were

prepared using the latest available census data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census

tracts are designated areas that encompass from 2,500 to 8,000 people. Block Numbering

Areas follow the same basic criteria as census tracts in counties without formally defined tracts.

Both are derived from the U.S. Bureau of the Census TIGER/Line files. Figures 3-14 and 3-15

illustrate census tract distributions for minority populations and low-income populations.

Council on Environmental Quality guidelines define minority as individual(s) who are members

of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific

Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997).

The Council defines these groups as minority populations when either the minority population of

the affected area exceeds 50 percent, or the percentage of minority population in the affected

area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population

or other appropriate unit of geographical analysis.

In identifying low-income populations, a community may be considered either as a group of

individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant

workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of

environmental exposure or effect.

3.12.2 Distribution of Minority and Low-Income Populations

According to year 2000 U.S. Bureau of the Census data for census blocks wholly contained

within the 80-km [50-mi] region of influence for INTEC and the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility, 129,670 people resided in the area (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Of this number,

3-74
Description of the Affected

Environment

12 percent (15,546 people) were classified as minority individuals. If the major urban areas of

Idaho Falls and Pocatello are excluded from the analysis, the respective figures are a

population of 78,486, with minority individuals comprising 15 percent of the total. Thus, outside

the primary urban areas, the population is sparse, and minority representation tends to be

higher. Figure 3-14 depicts the percent of minority population by census block including those

only partly contained within the 80-km [50-mi] radius of INTEC and the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility. Minority composition was primarily Hispanic, Native American, and Asian peoples.

The Fort Hall Reservation of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes lies largely within the region

of influence.

With regard to low-income population data, Figure 3-15, based on census tract-level

information, reveals that only the Fort Hall area has a population of greater than 25 percent

below the poverty level. Table 3-22 reveals data for all incorporated cities and

census-designated places within the region of influence in comparison with the state as a

whole. The data indicate wide differences in median household income levels-from a low of

$9,375 in Atomic City (population 25) to a high of $49,135 in Lewisville (population 467). The

median household income for the State of Idaho in 1999 was $37,572. Approximately

13 percent of the total population within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed facility live below the

1999 poverty levels ($8,501 for unrelated individuals) compared to about 12 percent for the

State of Idaho.

3.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety

3.13.1 Public Health

The final EIS for disposition of HLW at INEEL (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.11) describes

background radiological and nonradiological conditions in the region of the INEEL facility. The

population of the Eastern Snake River Plain is exposed to radiation that comes from natural

background sources and industrial

sources. The major source of radiation Latent Cancer Fatality

in this region is natural background

radiation. Sources of radioactivity Latent cancer fatalities are a measure of the calculated

related to INEEL activities contribute a number of additional cancer deaths anticipated in a

small amount of additional exposure. population as a result of exposure to radiation. Latent

cancers can occur from one to many years after the

exposure takes place. Natural or background sources of

radiation include radiation from radon (a The EPA has suggested a conversion factor that for every

naturally occurring airborne 100-person-Sv [10,000-person-rem] of collective dose, radonatural ocri rays, and about 0.06 individuals would develop a cancer induced by radionucide), cosmic rays, and - radiation exposure. If the conversion factor is multiplied by

radioactivity naturally present in soils, .the collective dose to a population, the result is the number

rocks, and the human body. of latent cancer fatalities In excess of what would be

Radioactivity still remaining in the expected without the radiation exposure.

environment as a result of worldwide Because these results are statistical estimates, values

atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons for expected latent cancer fatalities can be, and often are,

also contributes to the background less than 1 for cases involving low doses or

radiation level, although in very small small populations.

amounts. The natural background

radiation dose that Eastern Snake River

Plain residents receive is estimated at 3.6 mSv/yr [360 mrem/yr]. More than half {about

.3-75
Arno

.F. (D0

< c

0 ~

CCD M 

I i

-9'

CD

.t X0

CD

C.

0)

CY)

1i 1less zhan I % 4~~~~t ~ * 

Wm. US. -1m4 (MR inotol ni Wo

Figure 3-14. Minority Population Distribution within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility
- -

-4

:

m 0

< tn

-4.

= 'a

30

CD =

30

CD

0

(D

C7

Figure 3-15. Low-Income Population Distribution within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility
Table 3-22. Population and Selected Socioeconomic Statistics for All Incorporated Cities and Census-Designated Places within 80 km 150 ml] of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility'

4

co

Nonminority Median Household Individuals Below Families Below

Census-DesIgnated Incorporated City or Total Population Population Minority Population Income (1999) Poverty Level (1999) Poverty Level (1999) Places Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Aberdeen 1,840 NA 1,220 66.3 620 33.7 $28,625 NA 375 20.5 65 14.9 American Falls 4,111 NA 3,353 81.6 758 18.4 $30,955 NA 702 17.3 134 12.7 Ammon 6.187 NA 5,930 95.8 257 4.2 $47,820 NA 340 5.6 54 3.4 Arbon 

Designated 

Valley Census- 627 NA 548 87.4 79 12.9 $36,818 NA 78 13.5 13 8.0 Places

Arco 1.026 NA 976 98.1 50 4.9 $27,993 NA 232 22.6 55 19.6 Atomic City 25 NA 24 96 1 4.0 $9,375 NA 12 57.1 5 62.5 Basalt 419 NA 356 85.0 63 15.0 $36,719 NA 53 10.9 9 7.1 Blackfoot 10,419 NA 9,040 86.8 1,379 13.2 $33,004 NA 1.478 14.6 312 11.5 Butte City 76 NA 69 90.8 7 9.2 $17,250 NA 23 30.7 4 25.0 Chubbuch 9,700 NA 8,905 91.8 795 8.2 $41,688 NA 1,160 12.0 232 9.1 Firth 408 NA 287 70.3 121 29.7. $23,239 NA 93 25.7 16 20.0 Fort Hall Census-Designated 3,193 NA 965 30.2 2,228 69.8 $30,313 NA 847 27.2 172 22.6 Places

Hamer 12 NA 5 41.7 7 58.3 $24,167 NA 0 0.0 0 0.0 Idaho Falls 50,730 NA 46,717 92.1 4,013 7.9 $40,512 NA 5,403 10.9 1,028 7.8 Lewisville 467 NA 406 86.9 61 13.1 $49,135 NA 38 7.5 12 9.6 Lost River 26 NA 22 84.6 4 15.4 $31,667 NA 2 6.9 0 0.0 Mackay 566 NA 558 98.6 8 1.4 $23,807 NA 106 18.4 20 13.0 Menan 707 NA 616 87.1 91 12.9 $34,406 NA 85 11.9 14 7.3 Moore 196 NA 192 98.0 4 2.0 $28,984 NA 27 13.1 6 10.0 Mud Lake 270 NA 209 77.4 61 22.6 $28,194 NA 62 27.8 13 21.7 Pocatello 51.466 NA 47,513 92.3 3,953 7.7 $34,326 NA 7,688 15.4 1,398 10.7 Roberts 647 NA 322 49.8 325 50.2 $31,071 NA 132 18.9 17 12.6 Shelly 3,813 NA 3.429 89.9 384 10.1 $39,318 NA 369 9.6 79 7.9 Ucon 943 NA 899 95.3 44 4.7 $39,375 NA 96 9.8 17 7.2 State of Idaho 1,293.953 100.0 1,177,304 91.0 116,649 9.0 $37,572 NA 148,732 11.8 28,131 8.3

NA = not applicable

* U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000 Census of Population and Housing.' Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000.

m 0

cn 8. 0 0 .

CD 

.- 0

=C

CD

CD

0. (D

mL
Description of the Affected

Environment

2 mSv/yr [200 mrem/yr]} of this natural radiation dose (Table 3-23) is attributed to the inhalation

of radioactive particles formed;by radon decay (DOE, 2002a).

Industrial sources of radiation include radiationreleased from activities occurring within the

INEEL site. These activities can release radioactivity either directly, such as through stacks or

venting, or indirectly, such as resuspension of radioactivity from disturbing contaminated soils.

Previous environmental documentation on the site indicates airborne emissions represent the

primary pathway of concern for potential public health impacts (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.11).

While a potential exists for groundwater contamination, significant public health impacts are not

expected because of the long distances between the site and public areas. Both

nonradiological and radiological emissions are described in detail in Section 3.7.

While ongoing health impact studies are being conducted by the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (DOE, 2002a), prior environmental documentation (DOE, 2002a) has included

estimates of radiological and nonradiological impacts from facility operations to the population in

the vicinity of the site. Table 3-24 provides dose and latent cancer fatality probability results

from annual exposure to routine airborne releases in 1995, 1996, and 1999 for the maximally

exposed offsite individual. The estimated doses are well below the 0.1 mSv/yr [10 mrem/yr]

limit provided in 40 CFR Part 61. The estimated dose to the surrounding population and

number of latent cancer fatalities from annual exposures in 1995, 1996, and 1999 are provided

in Table 3-25. The number of latent cancer fatalities estimated in the population for the next

70 years from the annual estimated exposure levels is less than 1. Lifetime increased fatal

Table 3-23. Sources and Contributions to the U.S. Average Individual Radiation Doseab 

Effective Dose Equivalent Effective Dose Equivalent

Source (mSv/yr) j (mremlyr)

Natural Background Radiation

Cosmic radiation 0.27 27

Rocks and soil (extemal) 0.28 28

Internal to body 0.40 40

Radon (internal/inhalation) 2.0 200

Subtotal -2.95 =295

Hurnanmade Background Radiation

Weapons test fallout <0.01 <1

Consumer products 0;10 10

Diagnostic X-rays 0.39| 39

Nuclear medicine 0.14 14

Subtotal 0.64 64

TOTAL =3.6 =360

a Amett and Mamatey. Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 2000." WSRC-TR-2000-0329. Aiken,

South Carolina: Westinghouse Savannah River Company. 2001. '

b National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of

the United States: Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.' NCRP

Report No. 93. Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 1987.

3-79
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-24. Annual Dose to Individuals from Exposure to Routine Airborne Releases

at NEEL'

Latent Cancer

Maximally Exposed Individual Annual Dose (mrem) Fatality Probability

Onsite Worker (1998)b 0.27 1.1 x 10-7

Offsite Public Individual (1995) 0.018 9.0 x 10-9

Offsite Public Individual (1996) 0.031 1.5 x 10-8

Offsite Public Individual (1999) 0.008 4.0 x 10-9

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

a DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, 'Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement.' Section 4.11. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

b Maximum dose at any onsite area from permanent facility emissions for noninvolved onsite worker.

NOTE: To convert millirems (mrem) to millisieverts (mSv), multiply by 0.01.

I

Table 3-25. Estimated Increased Health Effects Because of Routine Airborne Releases

at NEEL'

Population Dose Estimated Number of Latent

Year (person-Sv) Cancer Fatalities

1995 8 x10-4 4.0 x 10-5

1996 2.4 x10-3 1.2 x10-4

1999 3.7 x10-4 1.8 x 10-5

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

* DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement.' Section 4.11. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

NOTE: To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100.

cancer risk to the offsite population from groundwater pathway exposures was also estimated in

a prior EIS to be 1 in 170 million (DOE, 1995).

Health risks to the public from routine nonradiological airborne emissions at INEEL have been

previously estimated (DOE, 1995). These estimates considered exposures to a maximally

exposed offsite individual and the population within 80 km [50 mi] of the site. With EPA dose

response values (EPA, 1993, 1994) being used in the calculations, no adverse health impacts

for noncarcinogenic constituents in air emissions (including fluorides, ammonia, and

hydrochloric and sulfuric acids) were projected. Offsite excess cancer risk from carcinogenic

emissions (e.g., arsenic, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and formaldehyde) ranged from 1 in

1.4 million to 1 in 625 million. Consideration of potential health impacts from drinking water from

INTEC wells and distribution systems indicates EPA maximum contaminant levels and State of

I

3-80
Description of the Affected

Environment

Idaho drinking water limits have not been exceeded for volatile.organic compounds. Risks from

chemical carcinogens were estimated at less than 1 occurrence in 1 million (DOE, 2002a) and 0

for noncarcinogenic chemical contaminants.

3.13.2 Occupational Health and Safety

Occupational health conditions at the INEEL facility have been previously described in DOE

(2002a). Occupational radiological exposures are typically maintained at levels well below DOE

occupational exposure limits through the implementation of radiation protection procedures that

emphasize maintaining exposures as low as is reasonably achievable (DOE, 2002a). Effects of

long-term occupational exposures are also the subject of ongoing investigations conducted by

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health'

and Human Services.

Routine exposure measurements of workers have been used to assess potential health effects.

Radiation workers at INEEL can be exposed to radiation internally (from inhalation and

ingestion) and externally (from direct exposure). In general, the largest fraction of occupational

dose received by INEEL workers is external radiation from direct exposure (DOE, 2002a). The

average occupational dose at INEEL between 1997 and 2000 was 0.84 mSv [84 mrem], a value

well below the annual occupational dose limits of 50 mSv [5,000 mrem] in 10 CFR Part 20.

Nonradiological occupational exposures are controlled through the implementation of industrial

hygiene and occupational safety programs., Recordable case rate for injury and illness

incidences at INEEL varied from an annual average of 3.1 to 3.7 per 200,000 work hours from

1992 to 1996. During this time, lost workday cases ranged from 1.3 to 1.8 per 200,000 work

hours (DOE, 1997b). The recordable case rate for injury and illnesses for INEEL workers is less

than that for DOE and its contractors at other facilities, which varied from 3.5 to 3.8 per

200,000 work hours. Two fatalities occurred at INEEL between 1992 and July 1998, one

occurred in a construction fall and the other resulted from carbon dioxide asphyxiation caused

by a misactivation of fire-suppression systems during maintenance.

3.14 Waste Management

Waste generated during the construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility will be handled under the existing waste management system at INEEL. Existing waste

management activities at INEEL have been described in previous environmental documentation

(DOE, 2002a). The following paragraphs describe sources, generation rates, and volumes for

wastes, including solid waste, hazardous waste, mixed low-level radioactive waste, low-level

radioactive waste, transuranic radioactive waste,'and HLW.

INEEL has programs and physical or engineered processes in place to reduce or eliminate

waste generation and to reduce the hazard,'toxicity, and quantity of waste generated. Waste is

also recycled to the extent practicable before, or in lieu of, its storage or disposal. In addition,

INEEL has reduced the'volume of radioactive wastes through more intensive surveying, waste

segregation, and administrative and engineering controls. These programs and their results

have been described in various documents including site-treatment plans (DOE, 1998) and

annual progress reports (DOE, 1997c).

A variety of wastes are generated at INEEL. Table 3-26 provides a summary of waste volumes

for individual waste types at NEEL. Industrial and commercial solid waste is disposed of at the

3-81
Description of the Affected

Environment

Table 3-26. Summary of Waste Volumes Awaiting Treatment and Disposal at INEELab

Waste Type Current Inventory Annual Generation (M3)

Industrial Solid 43,000

Hazardous Waste Noned 120

Mixed Low-Level Waste 2,100 m3 160

Low-Level Waste 980 m3 2,900

Transuranic Wastee 65,000 m3

High-Level Waste (calcine) 4,400 m3

Mixed Transuranic 3,785,000 L

Waste/Sodium-Bearing Waste

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

' DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement. Section 4.7. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

b Does not include waste already disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex or other locations.

¢ Dash indicates no information available.

d Waste is shipped offsite before any significant inventory buildup.

' A portion of the 65.000 n3 of transuranic waste retrievably stored at the Radioactive Waste Management

Complex may be reclassified as alpha mixed low-level waste. It has been estimated that about 40 percent of the

65,000 m3 is alpha mixed low-level waste, and 60 percent is actually transuranic waste.

NOTE: To convert meters cubed (m3 ) to yards cubed (yd'), multiply by 1.3079; to convert liters (L) to gallons (gal),

multiply by 0.264.

INEEL Landfill Complex in the Central Facilities Area. About 91 ha [225 acres] are available for

solid-waste disposal at the landfill complex. The capacity is sufficient to dispose of INEEL

waste for 30 to 50 years. Recyclable materials are segregated from the solid-waste stream at

each INEEL facility. The average annual volume of waste disposed of at the landfill complex

from 1988 through 1992 was 52,000 m3 68,000 yd3] (EG&G, Idaho, Inc., 1993). For 1996 and

1997, the volume of waste was about 45,000 and 54,000 M3 [58,850 and 70,625 yd3],

respectively. The average annual volume of waste disposed of from 1998 through 2001 was

about 43,000 m3 [56,240 yd3] (DOE, 2002a).

The INEEL hazardous waste management strategy is to minimize generation and storage and

use private sector treatment and disposal. Approximately 120 M3 [157 yd3] of hazardous waste

are generated at the site each year. Hazardous waste is treated and disposed at offsite

facilities and is transported there by the commercial treatment contractor. The waste is

packaged for shipment according to waste acceptance criteria at the receiving facility. The

waste generator normally holds waste in a temporary accumulation area until it is shipped

directly to the offsite commercial treatment facility.

About 2,100 M3 [2,750 yd3] of mixed low-level waste are presently at the INEEL site (DOE,

2002b). In addition to the current volume of mixed low-level waste in inventory at the site, about

160 M3 [209 yd3] of mixed low-level waste are generated annually (DOE, 2002b). Several mixed

waste treatment facilities exist at the INEEL.

I

3-82
Description of the Affected

Environment

About 170,000 m3 [222,340 yd3] of low-level waste have been disposed at the Radioactive

Waste Management CompleR'(DOE, 1995, 1997d). Currently, ab6ut 980 m3 [1,280 yd3]

of low-level waste are in inventory at INEEL (DOE, 2002a). All onsite-generated low-level waste

is stored temporarily at generator facilities until it can be shipped directly to the Radioactive

Waste Management Complex for disposal. DOE expects to stop accepting contact-handled and

remote-handled low-level wastes at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex in 2020

(DOE, 2002a).

Approximately 65,000 m3 [85,000 yd3j of transuranic and alpha-contaminated mixed low-level

wastes are retrievably stored, and 60,000 m3 [78,500 yd3] of transuranic waste have been

buried at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (DOE, 1995). The Radioactive Waste

Management Complex is composed of seven -Type II storage modules, each of which can hold

up to 4,465 m3 [5,840 yd3] of waste in drums or boxes. The total storage capacity is 31, 255 m3

40,878 yd31. The processing capacity of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Facility is

6,500 m3/yr [8,500 yd3/yr], and the expected duration of facility operation is 30 years (DOE,

1999). All 65,000 m3 [85,000 yd3] of the retrievably stored wastes were considered to be

transuranic waste when first stored at INEEL. In 1982, DOE Order 5820.2 changed the

definition of transuranic waste. The new definition excluded alpha-emitting waste less than

100 x 10' curies/g [3.5 x 10-9 curies/oz] at the time of assay. Because all the waste was

initially considered to be transuranic waste, the alpha-emitting wastes were co-mingled in the

same containers as the transuranic waste.

DOE has not determined the final disposition of the buried transuranic waste (DOE, 1995).

However, DOE currently plans to treat and repackage the retrievably-stored transuranic and

alpha-contaminated low-level waste so that all the resulting waste qualifies as transuranic

waste. This waste would then be certified and shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New

Mexico for final disposition. The Record of Decision from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was issued in January

1998 (DOE, 1998), and the first shipments of transuranic waste from the INEEL to the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant occurred in-April and August 1999. Since the October 1988 ban by the

State of Idaho on shipments of transuranic waste to INEEL, DOE has shipped only small

amounts of transuranic waste generated on the site to the Radioactive Waste Management

Complex for interim storage.

From 1952 to 1991, DOE processed SNF and irradiated targets at the INTEC. The resulting

liquid mixed HLW was stored in the Tank Farm. Mixed transuranic waste/sodium-bearing waste

generated from the cleanup of solvent used to recover uranium and from decontamination

processes at the INTEC is also stored in the Tank Farm. Although not directly produced from

SNF processing, mixed transuranic waste/solid sodium-bearing waste at INEEL has been

historically managed as HLW because of some of its physical properties. For purposes of

analysis, INEEL has assumed that solid sodium-bearing waste is mixed transuranic waste in

prior ElSs (DOE, 2002a).

At present, about 4,400 m3 [5,750 yd3] of HLW calcine are stored at INTEC. INEEL no longer

generates liquid mixed HLW because SNF processing has been terminated (DOE, 1995). All

liquid mixed HLW produced from past processing has been blended and reprocessed, through

calcination, to produce granular calcine. Mixed transuranic waste/solid sodium-bearing waste is

generated from incidental activities associated with operations at INTEC (DOE, 1996b).

Currently, about 3,800,000 L [1,000,000 gal] of mixed transuranic waste/solid sodium-bearing

3-83
Description of the Affected

Environment

waste are in storage at INTEC, and this amount is expected to be reduced to about 3,028,000 L

[800,000 gal] by the time waste processing begins (Barnes, 1999).

3.15 References

Anderson, J.E. Final Report: Vegetation Studies to Support the NPR Environmental Impact

Statement." Subcontract No. C34-110421. Task Order No.72. Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G

Idaho, Inc. 1991.

Anderson, J.E., K.T. Ruppel, J.M. Glennon, K.E. Holte, and R.C. Rope. Plant Communities,

Ethnoecology, and Flora of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory." ESRF-005. Idaho

Falls, Idaho: Environmental Science and Research Foundation. p. 8. 1996.

Arthur, W.J., J.W. Connelly, D.K. Halford, and T.D. Reynolds. DOE/ID-12099, "Vertebrates of

the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations

Office. 1984.

Arthur, W.J., O.D. Markham, C.R. Groves, B.L. Keller, and D.K. Halford. Radiation Dose to

Small Mammals Inhabiting a Solid Radioactive Waste Disposal Area." Journal of Applied

Ecology. Vol.23. pp.13-26. 1986.

Barnes, C.M. Process Assumption Description, Diagrams, and Calculations for P111

(Non-Separations Options, Sodium Bearing Waste Processed)." INEEL-EXT-00323

(EDF-PDS-D-009). Rev. 1. Idaho Falls, Idaho: INEEL. 1999.

Barraclough, J.T., B.D. Lewis, and R.G. Jensen. Hydrologic Conditions at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory, Idaho-Emphasis: 1974-1978." U.S. Geological Survey Water

Resources Investigations Report 81-526. 1981.

Berenbrock, C. and L.C. Kjelstrom. DOE/ID-22148, "Preliminary Water-Surface Elevations and

Boundary of the 100-Year Peak Flow in the Big Lost River at the Idaho National Engineering

and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho." U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations

Report 98-4065. 1998.

. Estimated 100-Year Peak Flows and Flow Volumes in the Big Lost River and Birch

Creek at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho." U.S. Geological Survey Water

Resources Investigations Report 96-4163. 1996.

Beyer, W.N. Evaluating Soil Contamination." Biological Report 90(2). Washington, DC:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990.

Bhamidipaty, S. Plan of Study Big Lost River Diversion System." Walla Walla, Washington:

U.S. Department of the Army, Walla Walla District, Corps of Engineers. 1997.

BLM. Medicine Lodge Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho

Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Idaho Falls District. 1984.

. Visual Resource Contrast Rating." BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1. Idaho Falls, Idaho:

U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Idaho Falls District. 1986a.

3-84
Description of the Affected

Environment

"Final Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Idaho Wilderness Study." Idaho Falls,

Idaho: U.S. Department of the Interior, Idaho Falls District. 1986b.

Bowman, A.L. Seismic and Volcanic Hazard Maps." Engineering Design File

SNF-EISS-0001-95. Rev. 2. Idaho Falls, Idaho: LMITCO. 1995.

Cecil, L.D., T.M. Beasley, J.R. Pittman, R.L. Michel, P.W. Kubrik, P. Sharma, U. Fehn, and

H.E. Gove. Water Infiltration Rates in the Unsaturated Zone at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory Estimated from Chlorine-36 and Tritium Profiles and Neutron Logging." Volume 1:

Low Temperature Environments. Proceedings of the 7 International Symposium on

Water-Rock Interaction, Park City, Utah, July 13-18, 1992. Rotterdam, Netherlands:

A.A. Balkima. pp. 709-714. 1992.

Clawson, K.L., G.E. Start, and N.R. Ricks. DOE/ID-12118, Climatography of the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory." Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Research Laboratories, Air Resources

Laboratory, Field Research Division. 1989.

Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National

Environmental Policy Act." Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. 1997.

Craig, T.H., D.K. Halford, and O.D. Markham. Radionuclide Concentrations in Nestling Raptors

Near Nuclear Facilities." Wilson Bulletin. Vol. 91. pp. 71-77. 1979.

DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final

Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002a.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Site Treatment Plan." Idaho

Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002b.

. DOE/ID-1 0930, Rev. 0, Annual INTEC Groundwater Monitoring Report for

Group 5-Snake River Plain Aquifer (2001)." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Operations Office.

2002c.

DOE/13-10967, Rev. 0, Phase I Monitoring Well and Tracer Study Report for Operable

Unit 3-13, Group 4, Perched Water (Draft)." Idaho Falls, Idaho DOE, Idaho Operations

Office. 2002d.

DOE/ID-I0431, INEEL Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Industrial Activities."

Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2001a.

"2000 Environmental Monitoring Program Report." INEEL/EXT-01-00447. Idaho Falls,

Idaho: DOE,IdahoOperationsOffice. 2001b.

DOE/EIS-0290, "Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project Final Environmental Impact

Statement." Vol. 1. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1999.

3-85
Description of the Affected

Environment

. Record of Decision for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WIPP SEIS II), Carlsbad, New Mexico."

Washington, DC: DOE. 1998.

* DOE/ID-10514, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Comprehensive Facility and Land Use Plan." [Approval Letter. # OPE-OIM-99-028, July 19,

1999] Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1997a.

. DOE and Contractor Injury and Illness Experience By Year and Quarter 1992 Through

1997 3d Quarter." Washington, DC: DOE. 1997b.

. DOE/EM-0334, "Annual Report of Waste Generation and Pollution Prevention

Progress." Washington, DC: DOE, Office of Pollution Prevention, Office of Environmental

Management. 1997c.

. DOE/EIS-0200-F, Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous

Waste." Vol. 4 of 5, Appendix I. Washington, DC: DOE, Office of Environmental Management.

p. 1-38. 1997d.

. DOEISTD-1023-95. "Change Notice #1-Natural Phenomena Hazards Assessment

Criteria." Washington, DC: Office of Environment, Safety, and Health. 1996a.

. DOE/EM-0290. The 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Report." Vol. 2.

Washington, DC: DOE, Office of Environmental Management. June 1996b.

DOE/EIS-021 -F. Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Conceming

Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel EIS." Vol. 1. Washington, DC: DOE, Office of

Environmental Management. 1996c.

" 'Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed

Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear

Fuel; Notice." Federal Register. Vol. 61, No. 97. p. 25092. May 17, 1996d.

. DOE/EIS-0203-F. Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho:

DOE. 1995.

. DOE/ID-10440. Rev. 1. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Long-Term Land Use

Future Scenarios." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. June 1993.

EG&G Idaho, Inc. Projected INEL Waste Inventories." Engineering Design File,

ER&WM-EDF-0015-93. Rev. 6a. Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1993.

Environmental Science and Research Foundation, Inc. "An Animal of the High

Desert-Coyote." Newsletter: Vol. 7, Issue 1. Idaho Falls, Idaho: Environmental Science and

Research Foundation, Inc. 2000.

3-86
Description of the Affected

Environment

. "Plant Recovery After a Fire: Does Mother Nature Need Our Help?" Newsletter:

Vol. 6, Issue 4. Idaho Falls, Idahio: Environmental Science and Research Foundation,

Inc. 1999.

EPA. "Region 9 PRGs Table Users Guide/Technical Background Document." San Francisco,

California: EPA Region 9. hftn://www.eDa.gov/reionO9/waste/sfund/brol

files/02userquide.df> 2002.

' "Region 4 Waste Management Division Soil Screening Values for Hazardous Waste

Sites." Atlanta, Georgia: EPA Region 4. -hft:/l/vww.epa.gov/reaion04/waste/

ots/epatab4.pdf> 1999.

"Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Multi-Sector

General Permit for Industrial Activities." Federal Register. Vol. 60,' No. 189. pp. 50803-51319.

September 29, 1995.

" Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)-Selected Chemicals Database."

Washington, DC: EPA. 1994.

"Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables." EPA540-R-93-058. Washington, DC:

EPA. 1993.

Evenson, L.M. "Systemic effects of radiation exposure on rodents inhabiting liquid and solid

radioactive waste disposal areas." Master's Thesis. University of Idaho. Moscow,

Idaho. 1981.

FWENC. "Environmental Reportldaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0032. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003a.

"Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003b.

"License Application, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0127. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New'Jersey: FWENC. 2003c.

"Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Response

to NRC Request for Additional Information Related to Environmental Review." Letter (March 7)

from R.D. Izatt to NRC. NRC Docket No. 72-25. TAC No. L20768. FW-NRC-ISF-03-0048.

Richland, Washington: FWENC. 2003d. [The preceding document is available for public

review through the NRC electronic reading room at hftn://www.nrc.aov/readina-rm/adams.html.]

Gaia Northwest, Inc. Drinking Water Consumption and Alternative Sources for the Eastern

Snake River Plain, Idaho." Seattle, Washington: Gaia Northwest, Inc. 1988.

Guenzler, R.C. and V. W. Gorman. "The Borah Peak Idaho Earthquake of October 28,

1983-Industrial Facilities and Equipment at INEL." Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 2, No. 1. 1985.

3-87
Description of the Affected

Environment

Hackett, W.R. and R.P. Smith. "Quaternary Volcanism, Tectonics, and Sedimentation in the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Area." Field Guide to Geologic Excursions in Utah and

Adjacent Areas of Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming. Geological Society of America Rocky

Mountain Section Guidebook. J.R. Wilson, ed. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous

Publication 92-3. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Geological Survey. pp. 1-18. 1992.

Halford, D.K. and O.D. Markham. Radiation Dosimetry of Small Mammals Inhabiting a Liquid

Radioactive Waste Disposal Area." Ecology 59. pp. 1,047-1,054. 1978.

Hoblitt, R.P., C.D. Miller, and W.E. Scott. Volcanic Hazards with Regard to Siting

Nuclear-Power Plants in the Pacific Northwest." U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 87-297. 1987.

Hoff, D.L., R.G. Mitchell, G.C. Bowman, and R. Moore. DOEIID-12082(89), "The Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1989." Idaho

Falls, Idaho: DOE, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory. June 1990.

Hortness, J.E. and J.P. Rousseau. DOEIID-22181, Estimating the Magnitude of the 100-Year

Peak Flow in the Big Lost River at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory, Idaho." U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4299.

2003.

Idaho Conservation Data Center. Species with Special Status in Idaho. Idaho Department of

Fish and Game. Updated August 1997.

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. IDAPA 58, Title 1, Chapter 8, Rules for Public

Drinking Water Systems." Boise, Idaho: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

<httc)://www.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa58/0108.pdf> 2001 a.

. IDAPA 58, Title 1, Chapter 17, Wastewater-Land Application Permit Rules." Boise,

Idaho: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. httD://www.state.id.us/adm/adminrulesI

rules/idapa58/0117.vdf> 2001b.

DOE/ID-10660, Rev. 0, "Final Record of Decision, Idaho Nuclear Technology and

Engineering Center, Operable Unit 3-13, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho." Idaho Falls, Idaho: Idaho Department of Health and Human

Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, DOE, and EPA. October 1999.

Idaho Department of Water Resources. Geothermal Investigations in Idaho, Part 9, Potential

for Direct Heat Application of Geothermal Resources." Water Information Bulletin No. 30.

Boise, Idaho: Idaho Department of Water Resources. 1980.

Irving, J.S. Environmental Resource Document for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory."

EGG-WMO-10279. Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1993.

Jackson, S.M. "Acceleration Data from 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, Earthquake Recorded at the

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory." Proceedings of Workshop XXVIII on the Borah Peak,

Idaho, Earthquake. R.S. Stein and R.C. Buckham, eds. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 85-290. pp. 385-400. 1985.

3-88
Description of the Affected

Environment

Jackson, S.M., .G. Wong, G.S. Carpenter, D.M. Anderson, and S.M. Martin. "Contemporary

Seismicity in the Eastern Snake;kiver Plain, Idaho, Based on Microearthquake Monitoring."

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 83. pp. 680-695. 1993.

Kaminsky, J.F. In-Situ characterization of unsaturated Hydraulic properties of surficial

sediments adjacent to the Radioactive'Waste management Complex, Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory, Idaho." Master's thesis, ISU-91-000. Idaho State University.

Pocatello, Idaho. 1991.

King, J.J., T.E. Doyle, and S.M. Jackson. "Seismicity of the Eastern Snake River Plain region,

Idaho, Prior to the Borah Peak, Idaho, Earthquake: October 1972-October 1983." Bulletin of

the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 77.' pp. 809-818. 1987.

Koslow, K.N. and D.H. Van Haaften. Flood Routing Analysis for a Failure of Mackay Dam."

EGGEP-7184. Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1986.

Kramber, W.L., R.C. Rope, J. Anderson, J. Giennon, and A. Morse. Producing a Vegetation

Map of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Using Landsat Thematic Mapper Data."

Proceedings of the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 1992 Annual

Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 1992. Bethesda, Maryland: American Society for

Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 1992.

Kuntz, M.A., B. Skipp, M.A. Lanphere, W.E. Scott, K.L. Pierce, G. Dalrymple, L.A. Morgan,

D.E. Champion, G.R. Embree, R.P. Smith, W.R. Hackett, and D.W. Rodgers. Revised

Geologic Map of the INEL and Adjoining Areas, Eastern Idaho." U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 990-333. W.R. Page, compiler. Scale 1:100,000. 1990.

Kuntz, M.A., B. Skipp, M.A. Lanphere,' W.E. Scott, K.L. Pierce, G.B. Dalrymple, D.E. Champion,

G.F. Embree, W.R. Page, L.A. Morgan, R.P. Smith, W.R. Hackett, and D.W. Rodgers.

"Geologic Map of the INEL and the Adjoining Areas, Eastern Idaho." U.S. Geological Survey

Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map 2330. Scale 1:100,000. 1994.

Leonard, P.R. "Estimated Radiological Doses Resulting from Airbome Radionuclides Released

by Facilities at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory." EGG-WTD-10676. Idaho Falls,

Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1993.

LMITCO. "1998 LMITCO Internal Report, Big Lost River Diversion Dike Foundation

Investigation." INEEUINT-98-0090. Idaho Falls, Idaho: LMITCO. 1998..

"1996 LMITCO Environmental Monitoring Program Report for the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory." INEEUEXT-97-0132(96). Idaho Falls, Idaho:

LMITCO. 1997.

"Executive Summary for Background Dose Equivalent Rates and Surficial Soil Metal

and Radionuclide Concentrations for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.,

INEL-94/0250. Rev. 1. Idaho Falls, daho: LMITCO. 1996.

"Report of 1993/1994 Tank Farm Drilling and Sampling Investigation at the Idaho

Chemical Processing Plant." INEL-95/0064. Idaho Falls, Idaho: LMITCO. 1995.

3-89
Description of the Affected

Environment

Markham, O.D., R.E. Authenrieth, and R.L. Dickson. "Radionuclides in Pronghom Resulting

from Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and Worldwide Fallout." Journal of Wildlife Management.

Vol. 46. pp. 30-42. 1982.

Millard, J.B., F.W. Whicker, and O.D. Markham. Radionuclide Uptake and Growth of Barn

Swallows Nesting by Radioactive Leaching Ponds. Health Physics. Vol. 58.

pp. 429-439. 1990.

Miller, S.J. DOE/ID-10361, Rev. 1, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Management Plan

for Cultural Resources (Final Draft)." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

Mitchell, V.E., W.B. Strowd, G.S. Hustedde, and E.H. Bennett. Mines and Prospects of the

Dubois Quadrangle, Idaho." Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology: Mines and Prospects Map

Series, MPM-7. Scale 1:250,000. 1981.

Morris, R.C. Radioecology of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Draft." Idaho Falls,

Idaho: DOE. 1993.

Murphy, R.F. and Y. Murphy. "Northern Shoshone and Bannock." Handbook of North

American Indians. Vol. 11. W.C. Sturtevant, gen. ed. Washington, DC: Smithsonian

Institution. 1986.

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Management Guideline." NPS-28. Washington,

DC: National Park Service. http://www.cr.nps.aov/historv/online books/

nos28/28contents.htm> (June 11, 1998).

NRC. NUREG-1626, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and

Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation to Store the Three Mile Island

Unit 2 Spent Fuel at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory."

Washington, DC: NRC. March 1998.

Ostenaa, D.A., D.R. Levish, R.E. Klinger, and D.R.H. O'Connell. Phase 2 Paleohydrolgic and

Geomorphic Studies for the Assessment of Flood Risk for the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory, Idaho." Report 99-7. Denver, Colorado: Geophysics,

Paleohydrology, and Seismotechonics Group, Technical Service Center, Bureau of

Reclamation. 1999.

Pace, B.R. Cultural Resource Investigations for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory." INEEUEXT-2001-457. Idaho Falls,

Idaho: INEEL, Cultural Resource Management Office. 2001.

Ramsdell, J.V. and G.L. Andrews. NUREG/CR-4461, "Tornado Climatology of the Contiguous

United States." Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. May 1986.

Patrick, S. and J.E. Anderson. Fire Ecology of the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory." Annual Technical Report to DOE-ID-Calendar Year 1996.

R.C. Morris and R.D. Blew, eds. ESRF-017. Idaho Falls, Idaho: Environmental Science and

Research Foundation, Inc. pp. 144-145. 1997.

3-90
Description of the Affected

Environment

Pelton, J.R., R.J. Vincent, and N.J. Anderson. Microearthquakes in the Middle Butte/East Butte

Area, Eastern Snake River Plairi, Idaho." Bulletin of the Seisrnioogical Society of America.

Vol. 80. pp. 209-212. 1990.

Peterson, P.M. 1995 Reconciliation of INEL Land." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho

Operations Office. 1995.

Reynolds, T.D., J.W. Connelly, D.K. Halford, and W.J. Arthur. "Vertebrate Fauna of the Idaho

National Environmental Research Park." Great Basin Naturalist. Vol. 46, No. 3.

pp.513-527. 1986.

Ringe, B.L. Locational analysis and preliminary predictive model for prehistoric cultural

resources on the INEL." Masters thesis. Idaho State University. Pocatello, Idaho. 1993a.

Locational Analysis and Preliminary Predictive Model for Prehistoric Cultural

Resources on the INEL (Draft)." EGG-CS-10706. Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho,

Inc. 1993b.

Rodriguez, R.R., A.L. Shafer, J. McCarthy, P. Martian, D.E. Burns, D.E. Raunig, N.A. Burch,

and R.L. VanHom. DOE/ID-10534, Comprehensive RI/FS for the Idaho Chemical Processing

Plant OU3-13 at the INEEL-Part A, RI/BRA Report (Final)." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho

Operations Office. 1997.

Rope, R.C., N.L. Hampton, and K.A. Finely. "Ecological Resources." Environmental Resource

Document for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. EGG-WMO-12079. Vols. and 2.

Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1993.

Scott, W.E. "Holocene Rhyodacite Eruptions on the Flanks of South Sister Volcano, OregonThe Emplacement of Silicic Domes and Lava Flows." Geological Society of America Special

Paper 212. J.H. Fink, ed. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America.

pp.35-54. 1987.

Strowd, W.B., V.E. Mitchell, G.S. Hostedde, and R.H. Bennett. "Mines and Prospects of the

Idaho Falls Quadrangle, Idaho." Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology: Mines and Prospects

Map Series, MPM-11. Scale 1:250,000. 1981.

The White House. "Executive Order 12898-Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice

in Minority and Low-Income Populations." Federal Register. Vol. 59. pp. 7629-7633.

February 1998.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics." Washington, DC:

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Division. 2002.

. "1990-1996 Annual Average Labor Force Data." Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Division. 1997.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. "1990 Census of Population and Housing." Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992.

3-91
Description of the Affected

Environment

. 2000 Census of Population and Housing." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000.

U.S. Department of Commerce. "General Housing Characteristics: 2000." Census 2000

Summary File (SF1) 100-Percent Data. QT-H1. Washington, DC: Economics and Statistics

Division, Bureau of the Census. 2000a.

- . "General Housing Characteristics: 2000." Census 2000 Summary File (SF1)

100-Percent Data. GCT-H5. Washington, DC: Economics and Statistics Division, Bureau of

the Census. 2000b.

U.S. Department of the Interior. "Department of Energy, Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory Species List Update". Letter (September 3) to R.D. Blew,

Environmental Science Research Foundation. Boise, Idaho: U.S. Department of the Interior,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002.

Volcanism Working Group. "Assessment of Potential Volcanic Hazards for the New Production

Reactor Site at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory." EGG-NPR 10624. Idaho Falls,

Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1990.

Wilhelmson, R.N., K.C, Wright, and D.W. McBride. Annual Report-1992 Environmental

Surveillance for EG&G Idaho Waste Management Facilities at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory." EGG-2679(92). Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1993.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Earthquake Strong Ground Motion Evaluations for the

Proposed New Production Reactor at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory."

EGG-GEO-10304. Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1992.

. Earthquake Strong Ground Motion Estimates for the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory: Final Report." EGG-BG-9350. Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1990.

3-92
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This section presents the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. For the proposed action, the environmental impact statement (EIS)

considers impacts from construction activities, normal operational events, reasonably - - I

foreseeable accidents, and cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts are discussed separately

in Section 4.14. Impacts from the no-action alternative are presented in Section 4.15. The

safety aspects of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will be evaluated by the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) in more detail in the safety evaluation report to be prepared

by NRC (see Section 1.4).

In constructing the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, Foster Wheeler Environmental

Corporation (FWENC) would prepare the site adjacent to the Idaho Nuclear Technology and

Engineering Center (INTEC). This preparation would include clearing and grading, extension

and realignment of existing utilities, and addition of any necessary roads. After site preparation,

there would be excavation for the foundations and below-grade facilities, erection of the

buildings, connection of the INTEC utilities to the facility, and addition of any final landscaping.

Potential operational impacts would include emissions from routine operations, transfer from

current storage locations, and occurrence of credible accidents and external events. Because

the current storage location for the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is at the INTEC facility, the transfer

distances would be short and conducted according to existing U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE) procedures.

4.1 Land Use Impacts

If the FWENC construction authorization is approved, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

would be constructed on a previously

disturbed site currently in use as a l

construction laydown area adjacent to the NRC Environmental and Safety Reviews southeast corner of INTEC. This property is

classified as least productive (FWENC, The focus of an EIS is a presentation of the

2003a). Construction equipment would be environmental impacts of the proposed action. In

used to grade the site and excavate the addition to meeting its responsibilities under the

foundation for the facility. Explosives would National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NRC arfrhs d es . prepares a safety evaluation report to analyze the not be used to establish below-grade areas. safety of the proposed action and assess its

During construction, equipment delivering compliance with applicable NRC regulations.

cement and other construction materials

would access the site. In addition to the The safety and environmental reviews are conducted

3.2-ha [8-acre] site for the facility, a 4.1 -ha the Content of asafety evealastiome Overlap between'S

[10-acre] plot northeast of the site would be the intent of the documents is different. To aid in the

used as a construction laydown area. decision process, the EIS provides a summary of the

Because it is not part of the proposed Idaho more detailed analyses included in the safety

Spent Fuel Facility, the only construction evaluation report. The EIS does not address accident activities here would be some grading and scenarios, rather it addresses the environmental activities ere would be some grading and impacts that would result from the accident. Much of

leveling, as for a parking lot. The the information describing the affected environment

construction laydown area would have similar in the EIS also is applicable to the safety evaluation

restrictions and effects on land use as the report (e.g., demographics, geology, and

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site itself., meteorology).

4-1
Environmental Impacts

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility does not have an independent electrical transmission

corridor for power distribution. Electrical power for operations would be supplied from the

INTEC distribution system. The INTEC distribution system would be connected to the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site boundary through a small substation. The final leg of the

connection would route underground supply cables about 61 m [200 ft] to the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility. Because the connection to the distribution system and routing path is on

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site, the impact of the transmission corridor on land use

is small.

Once the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is completed, access to the site would be

restricted, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 73, to activities in support of facility operations. By

terms of this restricted access, the property would be unavailable for other uses such as

exploration of mineral resources. No mineral resources have been found at the proposed site

(Section 3.4.3). As described in Section 3.2, livestock grazing is already prohibited within

3.2 km [2 mi] of INTEC, so there would be no significant impact on grazing and hunting. Also,

the nearest boundary of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)

Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystem Reserve is located more than 17.6 km [11 mi] to the north of

INTEC and would not be affected by the proposed facility.

Construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would physically change the 3.2-ha

[8-acre] tract. Because the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site (i) is only a small portion of

the 2,580-km2 [890-mi 2] INEEL and (ii) has been previously disturbed, the physical changes are

minor. As outlined previously, these changes would restrict land use and would have a small

impact during construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

4.2 Transportation Impacts

Potential transportation-related impacts can be caused by construction activities, SNF transfer

from interim storage to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, and the eventual transfer of SNF

to a geologic repository for final disposal. Transportation of solid radioactive waste to an

approved disposal site is also an option under the proposed action that is the responsibility of

DOE. DOE has already assessed the potential impacts of such transfers in a prior

environmental impact assessment (DOE, 2002a) and record of decision (DOE, 2000). The

peak workforce for construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is estimated at

250 workers (FWENC, 2003b). These additional workers would not increase the total NEEL

workforce beyond previous levels when the facility had greater numbers of employees (FWENC,

2003b). Given available road capacity (discussed in Section 3.3) and the relatively small

number of additional construction workers, the impacts to the local transportation infrastructure

from construction are expected to be small. Potential impacts from SNF transfer and geologic

disposal are discussed in the following sections.

4.2.1 SNF Transfer from Interim Storage to the Proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility

Most SNF for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is presently being stored at the adjacent

INTEC, which is inside the boundary of the INEEL facility. The SNF for the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility that remains to be shipped to INTEC consists of about 500 fuel elements

from training, research, and isotope reactors built by General Atomics (TRIGA). The

environmental impacts of transporting these remaining TRIGA elements from their foreign sites

4-2
Environmental Impacts

of origin to United States ports of entry were previously assessed by DOE (1996a) and

summarized in a record of decision (DOE, 1996b). The environimental impacts of shipping the

same fuel from the United States ports of entry to INEEL were also previously assessed by

DOE in a separate EIS (DOE, 1995). Both-assessments found small environmental impacts

from planned transportation of TRIGA fuel.' Because transportation impacts have been

previously evaluated, no new assessment of impacts associated with SNF shipments is

necessary for this EIS.

Details of proposed systems and operations for fuel transfer to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility from INTEC are provided in the applicant's Safety Analysis Report (FWENC, 2003c).

Fuel transfer is expected to occur using the DOE-supplied casks (Peach Bottom PB-I and

PB-2 casks) loaded onto trailers (flatbed and lowboy, depending on cask type) over a distance

less than 800 m [2,600 ft] between the two facilities (FWENC, 2003c, Appendix A). The casks

are expected to provide the necessary geometric control and configuration, confinement, and

shielding of the SNF to ensure the radiation protection and criticality safety requirements are

met at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Detailed descriptions of cask design, testing,

and prior certification information also are provided in the applicant's Safety Analysis Report

(FWENC, 2003c, Appendix A). A conservative shielding analysis using a Peach Bottom cask

loaded with TRIGA fuel (highest photon flux of all fuel types included in the proposed action)

estimated the dose rate at contact surface'of the package to be less than 0.1 mSv/hr

[10 mrem/hr] and 0.034 mSv/hr [3.4 mrem/hr] at 0.3 m [1 ft] (FWENC, 2003c, Appendix A).

Dose estimates that include transfer operations are provided in the occupational health impacts

section (4.12.1.2.2). That section indicates worker dose estimates would be below the annual

occupational dose limit in 10 CFR Part 20 {50 mSv/yr [5,000 mrem/yr]). Although dose

estimates provide insight for potential radiation exposures during operations, all occupational

radiation exposures would be maintained below the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 by implementing a

compliant radiation protection program (FWENC, 2003c, Section 3.3) l

The transporter is a tractor with administratively controlled petroleum fuel content and speed of

travel to reduce the chance of fire or transport accidents (FWENC, 2003c, Appendix A).

Scenarios and estimated consequences for potential off-normal events and accidents, including

those that could impact transfer operations, are discussed in Sections 4.12.2 and 4.12.3.

Because the transfer of fuel from INTEC to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility occurs

completely within the boundaries of the site (i.e., INEEL), there are no significant offsite dose or

transportation impacts from proposed normal transfer operations.

Factors such as the restricted access onsite location, limited speed and distance traveled, low

dose rate from the shielded packages, and administrative controls (including a radiation

protection program that addresses 10 CFR Part 20 requirements) provide confidence that

transfer operations can be conducted safely with small adverse environmental impacts.

4.2.2 Shipment of SNF to a Proposed Geologic Repository

In accordance with the 1995 Settlement Agreement among DOE, the State of Idaho, and the

U.S. Navy, it is anticipated that SNF would be transferred from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility to a geologic repository by 2035. -The specific timing of the removal would depend on

DOE having a repository constructed and ready to receive SNF and on the schedules

developed by DOE to ship SNF from current storage locations throughout the United States to

a repository.

4-3
Environmental Impacts

General aspects of the removal would require transfer of the SNF from its interim storage at the

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and loading the SNF either onto trucks or specially designed railroad

cars for transport to a geologic repository. As part of the DOE contract with FWENC, the

storage containers for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are to be designed for direct

shipment to a repository, and no intermediate fuel repackaging is anticipated. Generic

environmental impacts of transporting SNF to a geologic repository are analyzed in a series of

DOE ElSs (DOE, 1999a, 2001a, 2002b) prepared for a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada. As necessary, the EIS is to be updated by DOE to support a license application to

NRC. As described by requirements in 10 CFR 51.109, NRC is required to adopt the DOE EIS

to the extent practicable. At the time of publication of this EIS, there is no license application

before NRC for a geologic repository.

4.3 Geological and Soils Impacts

The waste processing activities for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would take place in a

new facility adjacent to INTEC, an area dedicated to industrial use at INEEL for more than 40

years. No mineral deposits or unique geologic resources have been found in or adjacent to the

INTEC area. Thus, no impacts are expected to these resources during construction or normal

facility operations. Most impacts to soils are expected to be associated with routine

construction activities such as excavating, earthmoving, and grading. Waste management

facilities would be designed with safeguards to minimize impacts (e.g., spills of toxic

substances) to soils during normal facility operations. Because the facilities would be enclosed,

no significant operational impacts to geologic resources are anticipated.

4.4 Water Resources Impacts

4.4.1 Water Quality Impacts

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be constructed on the edge of the Big Lost River

flood plain southeast of the main channel. The nearest boundary of the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility is about 1,200 m [4,000 f] from the Big Lost River. Other nearby surface water

bodies include sewage treatment lagoons in the INTEC area and two percolation ponds south of

INTEC. Because the treatment lagoons and percolation ponds are artificial and not intended to

support aquatic life, the impact on water quality is not examined for purposes of this section.

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site is 140 to 146 m [460 to 480 ft] above the Snake

River Plain Aquifer.

Construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would involve preparing the land,

erecting buildings, and grading. These phases of construction would have small impact on the

surface and subsurface hydrology. Site preparations include scraping and excavating to

establish grade and foundations. Each of these phases creates different impacts (direct and

indirect) for the surface and subsurface hydrology. Removal of surface material would typically

establish conditions for erosion. However, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site is in a

high, cool desert environment with aeolian, alluvial, and lacustrine sediments overlying basaltic

lava flows. Therefore, rainwater is unlikely to erode subsurface soil. The surface soils removed

would be staged onsite for use in establishing the final grade. This soil stockpile could erode

and be carried to the Big Lost River or into the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Migration of soils into

the aquifer is not likely because the loose soil would fill in the natural pathway through the

alluvium and underlying rock.

4-4
Environmental Impacts

Migration of loose soils to the Big Lost River could add to existing sediments and affect the

natural flow of the river. This is Unlikely, however, because the riv6r is about 1,200 m [4,000 ft]

from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility boundary, and the soil would settle on the surface

before reaching the river. During construction, water would be distributed to control fugitive

dust. This water, like other small amounts of water on the site, would evaporate or seep into the

ground, probably not reaching the Big Lost River, and would have no significant effect on

the aquifer.

During construction, physical changes of the land could affect the nearby water bodies and the

subsurface aquifer. These effects, however, would be mitigated for construction activities

through the implementation of a generic storm water pollution prevention plan (DOE, 1998) and

a site-specific plan, written in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Administered Permit Programs, The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(40 CFR Part 122), and site-specific requirements. The generic storm water pollution

prevention plan (DOE, 1998) includes an assessment of drainage and runoff, an evaluation

of the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act impacts, identification

of erosion and sediment'controls during construction, assessment of permanent storm Water

management controls, and identification and control of other potential'sources of pollution.

Once construction is complete, unpaved areas of the property would be covered with gravel or

similar material to minimize erosion and the need for excess' pesticides and fertilizers to

maintain adequate erosion control and minimize combustible vegetation buildup. The industrial

operations at the 'proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are exempt from storm water permit

requirements because the proposed facility is not included in sectors or subsectors identified by

EPA as requiring a permit (FWENC, 2003a).

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility does not require construction of any new groundwater

wells or percolation ponds. During operation, the facility would use water from existing NEEL

wells. There are no planned process discharges, and storm water discharge from industrial

operations would be regulated by the existing INEEL storm water pollution prevention plan

(DOE, 2001b). Accordingly, there would be no discharge of radionuclides into the planned

process discharge. It is anticipated that impacts on surface and groundwater resources would

be small.

4.4.2 Water Use impacts

Construction activities at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site would require a supply of

water for making concrete, controlling fugitive dust, and potable water for consumption and

sanitary facilities. For dust suppression, one water truck is estimated to use an average of one

full tank every 2 days to maintain the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site and 4.1-ha [10-acre] construction

laydown area grounds sufficiently wet to minimize fugitive emissions. Average water truck

capacity is 15,000 L [4,000 gal].- Assuming that water would be needed for about 200 work days

per year, construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is estimated to require

1.5 million L [396,300 gal] of water during the first year. It is also estimated that during the

second year of construction, this water usage will be reduced by half because the building

foundation and principal structures will have been erected, and need for the entire construction

laydown area will diminish. :

The estimated concrete needed for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is about 9,260 m3

[12,115 yd3]. Adding 5 percent for discarded concrete results in an estimated concrete quantity

4-5
Environmental Impacts

of 9,725 m3 [12,720 yd3]. Based on a typical concrete mix design, 136 L [36 gal] of water is

required for 0.8 m3 [1 yd31 of concrete. Given these assumptions, the estimated water needed

for concrete is about 1.74 million L [460,000 gal]. Adding 10 percent for cleaning equipment,

waste, and such results in an estimated water quantity of 1.91 million L [502,000 gal]. The

average INEEL annual site water consumption from 1987 to 1991 was 7.4 billion LUyr [2.0 billion

gal/yr] (DOE, 1995, Volume 1, Appendix B, Section 4.13.1). A Water Rights Agreement

between DOE and the State of Idaho allows up to 43 billion Uyr [11.4 billion gal/yr] (FWENC,

2003b). This means that the total estimated water usage for dust suppression and concrete

during construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is less than 0.05 percent of the

average annual INEEL water consumption and about 0.008 percent of the allowed water

use limits.

During operations, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would consume about 142,028 L

[37,520 gal] of potable water each month (FWENC, 2003a). Because this water consumption is

limited to drinking water, hygiene, and sewage disposal, the quantity would remain relatively

constant during the year. This quantity represents a small amount (0.1 percent) of the water

consumption relative to the more than 7.4 billion L [2.0 billion gal] used each year at the INEEL

facility, and the water use impacts are expected to be small.

4.5 Ecological Impacts

Construction and operation of the proposed facility are not expected to have a significant

adverse impact on the immediate and surrounding ecological resources. There are no known

wetlands, endangered species, or critical habitats at the proposed facility location, so, no

important or unique species habitats, both terrestrial and aquatic, would be lost or impacted by

construction or operation of the proposed facility (FWENC, 2003a, Appendix A). Secondary

impacts on wildlife would be small, including those from noise, heat release, radionuclide

release, construction traffic, human activity, and the presence of new buildings. A discussion of

the potential environmental impacts is included as part of the license application in

FWENC (2003a).

The proposed activities are not expected to disturb any benthic communities or habitats.

Potential increases in surface runoff would be mitigated through good construction practices.

The proposed action does not involve dewatering any wetlands or using dredge spoils as fill

material, so, guidelines for appropriate actions associated with such activities are not

applicable. No wetlands and streams or associated vegetation would be disturbed by

construction or operation of the proposed facility.

It is anticipated that normal construction practices to minimize soil erosion would be followed.

The proposed facility would potentially impact 7.3 total ha [18 acres]; 3.2 ha [8 acres] at the

proposed site and 4.1 ha [10 acres] at the nearby construction laydown area. Both the

proposed facility site and construction laydown area would use previously disturbed lands that

do not presently support native vegetation (FWENC, 2003a).

In preparing this EIS, the NRC completed consultation as required by Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act (see Appendix B). In letters dated April 21, 2003 (NRC, 2003a) and

June 3, 2003 (NRC, 2003b), the NRC requested the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence

on the NRC finding of 'no effect" on endangered and threatened species or critical habitat. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this finding in a letter dated June 10, 2003

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003).

4-6
Environmental Impacts

4.6 Air Quality Impacts

The description of impacts to air quality from the construction and operation of the facility is

found in several documents. One source for this information is the applicant's Environmental

Report (FWENC, 2003a). Two other sources include the DOE programmatic SNF EIS (DOE,

1995) and Belanger, et al. (1995). Frequently, the impact of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility was n'ot examined individually, but as part of Alternative B of the DOE SNF

management activities at INEEL (DOE, 1995). The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is one of

eight projects that compose Alternative B. The equivalent name for the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility in the DOE programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part B, Appendix C) is

the Dry Fuel Storage Facility, Fuel Receiving, Canning/Characterization, and Shipping Facility.

Any impacts to air quality from the construction and operation of the proposed facility are

expected to be small and below regulatory limits. This proposed facility is exempt from the need

for a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants application because the State of

Idaho regulations do not classify the proposed facility as a major facility for nonradioactive

pollutants, and expected radionuclide emissions represent less than 1 percent of the site

boundary dose limit and would not exceed regulatory constraints (FWENC, 2003a,

Section 12.2). INEEL occupies parts of five counties that are either in attainment or unclassified

with respect to the EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (DOE, 2002a, Section 4.7.2).

Therefore, a conformity determination is not required under Section 176(c)(1) of the Clean Air

Act. As appropriate, FWENC will provide documentation of the calculated emissions to the

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality' and the EPA to demonstrate compliance and to

address requirements of the INEEL operations permit under Title V of the Clean Air Act.

4.6.1 Construction

4.6.1.1 Nonradiological Impacts

Potential impacts to nonradiological air quality from construction activities would include fugitive

dust and exhaust emissions from support equipment. Modeling assessments from the DOE

programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A) showed that the construction-related air

quality impact should be small, temporary, and localized.

Estimates from FWENC (2003a, Section 4.1) are that 13.6 metric tons [15 tons] of dust and

particulates would be generated during the construction phase. Watering, routinely and

effectively used in construction projects to reduce fugitive dust generation, would mitigate

construction dust. Watering is expected to reduce the estimated 13.6 metric tons [15 tons] of

fugitive dust and particulates to about 8.2 metric tons [9 tons] (FWENC, 2003a, Section 4.1).

Fugitive dust estimates for Alternative B of the projects described in the DOE programmatic

SNF EIS (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A) can be used to demonstrate that fugitive dust

emissions from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be less than the appropriate

standards. Table 4-1 contains the estimated particulate concentration emission levels for all

eight projects that constitute Alternative B. The annual average concentrations of both PM10

and total particulates are below the applicable standard at the INEEL site boundary and public

road locations. Similarly, the 24-hour average concentrations of both PM10 and total particulates

are below the applicable standard at the INEEL site boundary and public road locations

(Belanger, et al., 1995, Section 7-2).

4-7
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-1. Impacts at Public Access Locations from Projected Construction Fugitive

Dust Emissions for Alternative B Spent Nuclear Fuel Program, Including the Proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facilitya

Construction Fugitive Dust

Emissions (pglm 3)

Averaging Public Applicable Standard

Pollutant Time Site Boundary Roads (pgIm3)

PM10 24 hours 3.5 49 150

PM10 Annual 0.007 0.09 50

Total 24 hours 5.4 77 150

Particulates

Total Annual 0.1 0.1 50

Particulates

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

a Belanger, R., J. Raudsep, and D.A. Ryan. DOE/11- 0497, 'Technical Support Document for Air Resources

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs."

Section 7-2. Idaho Falls, Idaho: Science Applications International Corporation. 1995.

NOTE: To convert tjg/M3 to ozlf 3 , multiply by 1 x 10 9.

Construction vehicle emissions estimates for Alternative B can be used to demonstrate that

construction vehicle emissions from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be less than

the appropriate standards. Table 4-2 contains the estimated construction vehicle emissions for

all eight projects that compose Alternative B. All the average concentrations for carbon dioxide,

nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide are below the applicable standards at the INEEL site

boundary and public road locations (Belanger, et al., 1995, Section 7-2).

Mobile source impacts, including the INEEL fleet light- and heavy-duty vehicles, privately owned

vehicles, heavy-duty commercial vehicles, and the INEEL bus fleet operations were also

evaluated by DOE. It was concluded that increased vehicular traffic due to any of the

alternatives for SNF management at INEEL would be negligible compared to existing traffic.

The peak cumulative impacts from any alternative, which includes existing conditions plus

alternative impacts, were predicted to occur at the INEEL gate. These peak estimated impacts

were estimated to be about 5-30 percent of the applicable standards and are due almost

entirely to existing traffic conditions (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A, Section 5.7).

4.6.1.2 Radiological Impacts

No significant impacts to radiological air quality from construction activities are expected. The

soil at the site is not considered radiologically contaminated (see Section 3.4). Therefore, no

resuspension of radioactivity would occur from construction activities that would disturb the soil.

Sources of radiation exposure during construction are limited to background radiation and

potential accidents or abnormal operations exposure from other facilities at INEEL (FWENC,

2003a, Section 4.5).

4-8
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-2. Impacts at Public Access Locations from Projected Construction Vehicle

Emissions for Alternative' B Spent Nuclear Fuel Program,' Inluding the Proposed Idaho

Spe'nt Fuel Facilitya

Construction Fugitive Dust

Emissions (pglm3 )

Averaging Public Applicable Standardb

Pollutant Time Site Boundary Roads (pgm 3)

Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 10 125 40,000

Carbon Monoxide 8 hours 7.3 88 10,000

Nitrogen Dioxide Annual ',0.003' 0.03 100

Sulfur Dioxide 24 hours 4.1 50 - 365

Sulfur Dioxide 3 hours 9.3 113 1,300

Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.0002 - 0.003 80

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

a Belanger, R., J. Raudsep, and D.A. Ryan. DOEIID-10497, 'Technical Support Document for Air Resources

Idaho National Engineerng Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs.'

Section 7-2. Idaho Falls, Idaho: Science Applications Intemational Corporation. 1995.

b Applicable Standards based on National Ambient Air Quality'Standards, except 3-hour sulfur dioxide standard,

which is a secondary standard. '

NOTE: To convert pg/m3 to oz/ft3 , multiply by I x 0-9.'

4.6.2 Operations

4.6.2.1 Nonradiological Impacts ; 

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would have only trace chemical air discharges, with no

discernible environmental effects (FWENC, 2003c, Section 5.3). Sources for incidental'

nonradiological airborne emissions include testing or.operation of the emergency diesel

generator, emissions from vehicles, and use of herbicides and pesticides.

The only stationary nonradiological emission source at the facility would be a standby diesel

generator for use during loss of normal electrical power (FWENC, 2003b, Section 3.1). This

generator would be located outside the facility, so combustion products produced during

generator operation would be discharged directly to the atmosphere. As appropriate, FWENC

will provide documentation of the calculated emissions to the Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality and the EPA to demonstrate compliance and to address requirements of

the INEEL operations permit under Title V of the' Clean Air Act.

During transport operations, vehicular traffic would increase between INTEC and the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. This activity would add to the cumulative amount of exhaust at''

INEEL. The vehicular exhaust is within regulatory limitations (FWENC, 2003a, Section 5.6).

Mobile source impacts, including the INEEL fleet light- and heavy-duty vehicles, privately owned

vehicles, heavy-duty commercial vehicles, and the INEEL bus fleet operations were evaluated.

4-9
Environmental Impacts

It was concluded that increased vehicular traffic because of any of the alternatives would be

negligible compared with existing traffic. The peak cumulative impacts from any alternative,

which include existing conditions plus alternative impacts, were predicted to occur at the INEEL

gate. These maximum impacts were estimated to be about 5-30 percent of the applicable

standards and are due almost entirely to existing traffic conditions (DOE, 1995, Volume 2,

Part A, Section 5.7).

4.6.2.2 Radiological Impacts

Facility operations are not expected to result in significant amounts of gaseous radioactive

effluents. Because of the nature and condition of the SNF to be packaged at this proposed

facility, most radioactive gases from the SNF are expected to have been released already and

concentrations reduced through radioactive decay (FWENC, 2003c, Section 6.2). Therefore,

the volume of releasable fission gases remaining is not expected to be significant. It is possible,

however, that initial SNF handling and repackaging operations could result in the release of

small amounts of radioactive gases. Initial SNF receipt and repackaging operations are

scheduled to occur during the first 3 years of proposed facility operation. After the SNF is

repackaged and placed into storage, it would be contained within redundant confinement

boundaries. Subsequent to the initial receipt and repackaging of SNF, there would be minimal

generation of gaseous radioactive waste (FWENC, 2003c, Section 6.1).

The proposed facility would be a fully enclosed building complex. Airborne contamination

control zones throughout the facility would ensure that contamination is minimized and

controlled. The proposed facility would be divided into four airborne contamination control

zones based on varying degrees of potential contamination. The ventilation systems are

designed to ensure that room pressures would establish airflow from areas of least expected

contamination to most expected contamination. The ventilation system would serve to prevent

accidental release of radioactive material to the environment and to help keep personnel

exposure to radiological hazards as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Gases released

within the facility would be passed through high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters before

being discharged through the facility ventilation exhaust stack to remove airborne particulates

and provide monitoring of gaseous effluents. The HEPA filters, housed in metal enclosures,

would be type B nuclear grade and meet the requirements of American National Standards

Institute (ANSI) N509 and ANSI N510 (FWENC, 2003c, Section 3.3). The applicant's Safety

Analysis Report (FWENC, 2003c, Section 4) provides a detailed description of the ventilation

system and its components.

4.7 Noise Impacts

Because the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is to be located more than 13 km [8 mi] from

the nearest INEEL boundary and more than 16 km [10 mi] from the nearest community, noise

generated during its construction is not likely to travel off the site at levels that would affect the

general population. Noise impacts would be small and limited to those resulting from the

transportation of personnel and materials to and from the site that would affect nearby

communities and from onsite sources that could affect wildlife near those sources. The vehicles

that transport workers, INEEL employees, and materials on roads and rails would represent only

a small portion of the current noise levels of traffic (FWENC, 2003a; DOE, 2002a). In addition,

noise generated during construction of the facility would be temporary.

4-10
Environmental Impacts

Most potential impacts on noise would occur during construction-of the facility. Because the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Fability is enclosed, the potential iipacts of noise from operations

would be substantially the same as or less than those for construction of the facility.

As described in Section 3.8, INEEL complies with Occupational Safety and Health

Administration regulations (29 CFR 1910.95) in conducting industrial operations and

construction activities. Any INEEL personnel exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of

85 dBA or greater must be issued hearing protection (DOE, 2002a). The regulations also

require that any exposure to impulse or impact noise should be limited to 140 dBA peak sound

pressure level. Studies of the effects of noise on wildlife indicate that intermittent noise levels

over 100 dBA do not affect wildlife productivity [Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1986;

Lehto, 1993]: Therefore, the impacts of noise on both'humans and wildlife would be small.

4.8 Cultural, Historical, Archaeological, Ethnographical, and

Paleontological Resources.

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be located within INEEL boundaries, adjacent to

INTEC. Types of resources analyzed in the area include archaeological and historic resources,

as well as paleontological sites. Ethnographic concernms focused on resources significant to the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, who have long inhabited the area. Cultural resources in the area

related to the Tribes are mainly archaeological: The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes place cultural

and religious significance on all components 'of the natural setting, and this philosophy must be

respected in the analysis of impacts. Nontraditional uses of the area have an impact on the

natural and cultural settings traditionally used by the 'Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for cultural and

religious purposes. Because these settings continue to be important to the Tribes,

nontraditional uses of the land/area'affect the purity'of the natural and sacred environment.

Impacts to the cultural resources within the project area were assessed by identifying known

and potential cultural resources in the areas that would be affected by the actions of the

alternative. Furthermore, construction-related activities that could directly or indirectly affect

cultural resources were evaluated to determine if these' activities would have an adverse impact.

There are no known cultural resources identified within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

site and its associated construction laydown area. However, the adjacent INTEC facility

contains 38 buildings and structures that are potentially eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places. The construction activities at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility site may have some impacts, and the subsequent relocation of the SNF from locations

within INTEC could also have impacts to sonie' cultural resources.

In preparing this EIS, NRC completed consultation as required by Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation'Act (see Appendix B).' In aetter dated December 4, 2002 (NRC, 2002),

NRC requested the State Historic Preservation 'Offiicer views on identification efforts. In a letter

dated April 17, 2003 (NRC, 2003c), NRC presented its finding of no historic properties

affected," and the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer agreed with this finding in a letter

dated June 4, 2003 (Idaho State Historical Society,'2003).

4-11
Environmental Impacts

4.8.1 Impacts to Historical Resources

There are no historic resources within the boundaries of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

and its associated construction laydown area that would be affected by the construction of the

support buildings and the associated road system. Thus, because there are no historic

resources, there would be no direct or indirect impacts within the area of construction for the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

The adjacent INTEC site contains 38 buildings and structures that have been evaluated as

potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The construction

activities of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and the subsequent transfer of SNF from the

current INTEC storage location will not affect these potentially historic structures, with the

exception of one, which currently stores some of the SNF that will be transferred to the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The Fuel Receiving and Storage building (CPP-603) was

constructed in 1951 to receive and store SNF and waste fission products. Construction of the

proposed facility will provide updated and safer storage for the SNF, so the existing Fuel

Receiving and Storage building will be in a more ready state for decontamination and removal

once transfer of the SNF has been completed. A Memorandum of Agreement between the

Idaho Field Office of DOE, Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (signed in 1998), pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, stipulated the procedures

required to meet compliance requirements in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act (16 USC §47 OF) for removal of the Fuel Receiving and Storage building.

4.8.2 Impacts to Archaeological Resources

Extensive archaeological surveys and investigations have been conducted in the area for the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Three sites in the vicinity have been identified and

recorded, one of which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. All three

sites, however, are located outside areas that would be affected by construction activities for the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Ground disturbance associated with the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility and other temporary support facilities would be extensive but localized. The

proposed construction sites have had a high degree of previous ground disturbance and no

known archaeological sites have been identified in the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

location or its associated construction laydown area. Thus, there would not be any impacts to

archaeological resources at the proposed construction site and associated laydown area

because of construction activities. Furthermore, because the area has been subject to intensive

archaeological survey with negative results, it is highly unlikely that archaeological resources

would be discovered during construction activities. Within the boundaries of INTEC, the ground

has been subject to intensive disturbance during the past 50 years. It is unlikely that any

archaeological sites exist in the heavily disturbed areas that would be used during the transfer

of SNF to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, so it is unlikely that there would be any

impacts to archaeological resources caused by activities related to the proposed facility.

All ground disturbing activities would be monitored. If archaeological resources were

discovered, work would cease until the site could be evaluated and mitigation measures

applied, which would include notification of and consultation with the State Historic Preservation

Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (if necessary), and the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. In the unlikely event that human remains were found, provisions

4-12
Environmental Impacts

would apply as outlined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

(Pace, 2001).

4.8.3 Impacts to Ethnographical Resources

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes believe the resources of the natural world have a spiritual and

sacred significance in the traditional and contemporary ways that land is used and respected.

The Tribes view all elements of the environment such as earth, water, air, plants, and animals,

to be one entity as they relate to the protection of Native American cultural resources and land.

Nontraditional uses of the area are considered to be infractions of the natural and cultural

settings when these uses can be seen or heard from sacred or traditional-use areas. The open

topographic nature of the Eastern Snake River Plain permits uninterrupted viewsheds, providing

the potential for visual impacts to many sacred and traditional use areas. The location of the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and its associated construction laydown area is adjacent to

INTEC, a highly developed area constructed 50 years ago. Hence, placement of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would not introduce a built environment into a pristine natural setting.

The tallest structures {24 m [80 ft]} would be similar to or smaller than existing structures at

INTEC, so the effects on the viewshed would be small.

The area has been subject to intensive ground disturbance throughout the past 50 years. The

lack of archaeological resources and the highly disturbed nature of the areas indicate that no

sensitive tribal resources are present. Vegetation is sparse and nonnative plant species are

dominant. Also, no unique topographic features are present. These factors indicate the

improbability that these areas contain resources significant to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

Therefore, it is unlikely there would be impacts to archaeological resources significant to the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

Access to this area by Tribal members would continue to be restricted. Construction of the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would not change'the status of restricted access, so there

would not be any new impacts that would occur from the proposed action. The construction of

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and the subsequent transfer of SNF would occur on

restricted and secure property that currently facilitates the same type of land use. For these

reasons, it is improbable that any ethnographic resource other than the Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes would continue to be affected by restricted access.

4.8.4 Impacts to Paleontological Resources

The area closest to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site where paleontological remains

were'discovered was in the alluvial gravels of the Big Lost River. This site, however, is some

distance from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility construction areas. The likelihood of the

existence of paleontological resources at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility location is

extremely low, because this area has had a high level of ground disturbance. Furthermore, no

paleontological resources have been discovered within the areas of INTEC that are associated

with the proposed action. There has been a high level of ground disturbance within the INTEC

boundaries'during the past 50 years, and it is unlikely any paleontological resources are

present. In the unlikely event that resources are'discovered during the construction phase of

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility or in the course of loading and transporting SNF at

these areas, work would cease until consultations with the appropriate entities and proper

4-13
Environmental Impacts

mitigation measures are complete. Because there are no known paleontological resources at

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site and its associated construction laydown area, or

within the areas of INTEC relevant to this project, it is unlikely that there would be any

significant impacts to paleonotological resources.

4.9 Visual/Scenic Impacts

Most of the proposed action would take place inside a perimeter security fence adjacent to

INTEC, an area that has been highly altered by development and dedicated to industrial use for

almost 50 years. Two potential impacts to aesthetic and scenic resources include the addition

of buildings and construction and process emissions that could alter the view.

The industrialized area of INTEC has a BLM Visual Resource Management rating of Class IV

(DOE, 2002a, Section 5.2.4). The tallest structure planned for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility would be the exhaust emissions stack at about 24 m [80 ft] (FWENC, 2003c). The

height of this stack is approximately the same order or less than existing stacks at INTEC

(FWENC, 2003a).

Construction activities at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would produce fugitive dust

and exhaust emissions from construction equipment that could affect visibility temporarily in

localized areas; however, these emissions would not be visible from lands adjacent to INEEL or

beyond and would not exceed the Class IlIl objectives. Construction activities would be limited

in duration, and FWENC would use water to minimize both erosion and dust. After construction,

roads would be graded and disturbed land would be landscaped to further reduce dust

(FWENC, 2003a). Fuel-handling and storage operations would be contained in an enclosed

building and are not anticipated to produce dust particulate emissions. For this reason,

operations are likely to have less of a visual impact than are construction activities. In addition,

the proposed facility would be constructed next to INTEC, an existing industrial complex. DOE

previously evaluated visual and aesthetic impacts for planned waste management activities at

INTEC and determined the impacts would not be significant (DOE, 2002a, Section 5.2). The

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is about 13.7 km [8.5 mi] from the nearest INEEL boundary.

The proposed facility is also much smaller than INTEC, so it is unlikely there would be

significant visual impacts.

4.10 Socloeconomical Impacts

No permanent residents or communities are within 16 km [10 mi of the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility site, but several INEEL facilities are within this distance (Figure 4-1). Institutional

control would continue to restrict access to INEEL lands, thus, the population within 16 km

[10 mi] of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site is unlikely to change throughout the life of

the facility.

The DOE programmatic SNF EIS (1995) presented the environmental impacts of implementing

the SNF management approach, including a generic analysis of the activities associated with a

facility similar to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. This environmental analysis indicates

the impacts of a dry fuel storage facility, fuel receiving, canning/characterization, and shipping

facility would be small in most areas, including impacts to land use, socioeconomics, water and

air resources, ecology, cultural and historical resources, and cumulative impacts.

4-14
Environmental Impacts

Figure 4-1. INEEL Facilities and Surrounding Communities (Modified from FWENC,

2003a, Section 8)

4-15
Environmental Impacts

The 2-year construction phase would employ a maximum of 250 workers. These employees

constitute about 3 percent of the current INEEL workforce of about 8,100. Thus, proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility construction would not have significant economic or social impacts,

because most workers would likely come from the existing INEEL workforce.

Operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would require nearly 60 employees for the

first 3 years-when fuel receipt and packaging occur. Once this phase of operations is

completed, storage operations would likely require fewer staff. Most operations personnel

would come from the local workforce.

Impacts on small and isolated communities will vary in socioeconomic and demographic

characteristics and future connection to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. In the case of

employment opportunities, the facility would be but one of many employers, implying a lack of

dependence on any one facility within the region of influence.

4.11 Environmental Justice Impacts

As addressed in Section 3.12 of this EIS, Executive Order 12898 (The White House, 1998)

directs Federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission and to

identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects

of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.

The minority population near INEEL is predominately Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian. On

the basis of 2000 census data for blocks wholly contained within the region of influence, these

groups constitute 12 percent of the population. The low-income population composes

13 percent of the total population within the 80-km (50-mi radius, based on analysis at the tract

level (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000).

The earlier 1995 DOE programmatic SNF EIS regarding the agency SNF management and

environmental restoration and waste management programs assessed the environmental

justice issue for the area surrounding INEEL (DOE, 1995). The DOE EIS Project Office

reviewed concerns expressed by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on the Fort Hall Reservation

and engaged in consultations with Tribal officials and INEEL officials ... to fully understand,

evaluate, and consider these comments" (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part B, Section 5.20). The

concerns included

* Tribal values as they relate to nature, ties to the land, and religious beliefs; and

* Potential impacts not only to such resources on INEEL (once inhabited by the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes) as Native American archaeological sites important to

religious and cultural heritages, but also features of the natural landscape, air, water, or

animal resources that remain of special significance.

Impacts could occur from disturbing the land or changing the environmental setting of sacred or

traditional-use areas, pollution, noise, and contamination. Potential mitigation measures

discussed in the DOE programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995) included

* Involving Tribal representatives in project planning to avoid sensitive areas;

4-16
Environmental Impacts

* Locating new facilities in areas with similar visual settings;,

* Avoiding Native American archaeological sites and traditional-use and sacred areas;

* Monitoring gathering areas and game animals for operational effects; and

* Restoring native vegetation to areas of ground disturbance.

In the event that avoidance was ... not feasible, data recovery at archaeological sites (for

example, archiving artifacts) and restoration of alternative hunting or gathering areas may be

substituted after consultation with the Tribes" (DOE, 1995, Section 5.20).

Another initiative included DOE and the U.S. Navy working with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

to impart clearer understanding of potential impacts of various alternatives, including postulated

facility and transportation accidents and those from normal operations. A management

agreement among the DOE Idaho Operations Office,-the Federal Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, the State of Idaho, and the Tribes with respect to cultural resources at INEEL was

an outgrowth of the consultations.

The conclusion of the DOE programmatic SNF EIS was "... the potential impacts calculated for

each discipline under each of the proposed INEEL environmental restoration and waste

management alternatives, including spent nuclear management, are small and do not constitute

a disproportionately high and adverse impact on any particular segment of the population,

minorities or low-income communities included; thus,'they do not present an environmental'

justice concem" (DOE, 1995, Section 5.20). Noted elsewhere in the report are environmental

justice implications of low-probability accident scenarios. Whether or not such [accident]

impacts would have disproportionately high and adverse effects with respect to any particular

segment of the population, minority and low-income populations included, would be subject to

natural motive forces including random meteorological factors" (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A,

Section 5.20). In the case of the Fort Hall Reservation, both weather and geologic features

favor low probability of receipt of adverse effects, though higher probability when compared with

more distant locations.

The summary of DOE (2002a) cites recognition of concems of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

and consequently reports early and frequent involvement of the Tribes with DOE during

preparation of the EIS. This involvement included ensuring that Tribal issues and concerns

were considered in hearings before and during the scoping period, briefings and open

discussions at Tribal facilities, and a public hearing-on the Fort Hall Reservation. DOE entered

into an Agreement in Principle with the'Tribes that provided a consultation process under NEPA

auspices. The agreement also included a commitment for the Tribes to 'obtain resources 'and

expertise to enable effective review or involvement in DOE activities.

Construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would have some local

and regional economic benefits, such as using regional workers for construction 'of the proposed

facility and increasing sales of materials for regional suppliers throughout construction.

Minorities and low-income populations would benefit to the extent they are linked to this

economy. Because the construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

would be consistent with current and anticipated activities at INEEL,' the social and economic

impacts associated with the proposed facility are not significant.

4-17
Environmental Impacts

DOE determined that facility operations and foreseeable accidents associated with a dry fuel

storage facility (proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility) present no significant risk or impact to any

surrounding population, including minority and low-income populations (DOE, 1995, Volume 1,

Appendix L). In a larger context, the proposed facility would be a step in the process of

preparing the SNF for removal from Idaho. If the SNF is placed in dry storage, it would be in a

more stable environment independent of support systems needed to maintain storage. This

would benefit all people in the region of influence by ensuring that the SNF would not harm the

environment and people in the area. For these reasons, it is unlikely there will be any

disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects on low-income or

minority populations.

4.12 Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts

Potential impacts to radiological air quality were examined for normal, off-normal, and accident

conditions. For off-normal operations and accidents, the various structures, systems, and

components (SSCs) of the facility were evaluated for postulated internal accidents or natural

phenomena associated with the facility for both the repackaging and storage phases. Table 4-3

summarizes the criteria for radiological protection design for normal, off-normal, and accident

conditions applicable for the restricted area (area enclosed by the facility peripheral fence), the

controlled area (INEEL site), and outside the controlled area (outside INEEL) (FWENC, 2003c,

Section 3.3). Personnel at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility that supervise and/or operate

equipment or controls will be trained in accordance with applicable NRC regulations (FWENC,

2003c, Appendix B). A summary of the results of the public and occupational health and safety

impacts of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is provided in this EIS. The impacts are

described in more detail and evaluated against the NRC regulatory limits in the safety

evaluation report being prepared by NRC as part of its evaluation of the FWENC

license application.

There are potential hazards that may affect safe operation of the proposed facility because of

the transport, handling, storage, and disposal of radioactive materials. These hazards are

classified into off-normal events and accidents based on frequency of occurrence

(NRC, 2000a). Off-normal events are expected to occur with moderate frequency or once per

calendar year [Design Event 11, according to ANSI/American Nuclear Society (ANS) 57.9

(ANSI/ANS, 1984)]. Accidents occur more infrequently, if ever, during the lifetime of the facility.

Effects of natural events such as earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and such are considered to

be accidents.

Off-normal operations and accidents potentially could expose members of the general public to

additional levels of radiation or radiological effluents beyond those associated with routine

operations. The analyses presented in this EIS are not intended to substitute for the detailed

evaluation of safety issues that will be presented in the NRC safety evaluation report. The NRC

staff, as documented in the safety evaluation report, are currently evaluating the effects of

natural phenomena and human-induced hazards on the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Natural phenomena being considered include earthquake, flood, volcanic hazards, wildfire, high

wind, tornado, and tornado-generated missiles of the maximum severity expected at the

proposed site during the lifetime of the proposed facility. These events bound the natural

phenomena expected to occur at the proposed facility. Similarly, human-induced events include

a potential aircraft crash and explosion at the proposed site and are considered bounding for

the proposed facility during its lifetime.

4-18
Environmental Impacts

* . t ,

Table 4-3. Radiological Protection Design Criteriaa

Normal and Off-Normal

Location Conditions Accident Conditions

Restricted Area ALARA in accordance with ALARA in accordance with

10 CFR 72.126(d) 10 CFR 72.126(d)

50 mSv/yr [5,000 mrem/yr]

TEDE in accordance with

10 CFR 20.1201

10 mSv/yr [1,000 mrem/yr]

TEDE in accordance with

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility administrative

control limits

Controlled Area 1 mSv/yr [100 rmrem/yr] 50 mSv [5,000 mrem] TEDE

TEDE in accordance with for any design basis accident

10 CFR 20.1301 in accordance with

10 CFR 72.106(b)

Outside of Controlled Area 0.25 mSv/yr [25 mrem/yr] 50 mSv [5,000 mrem] TEDE

TEDE in accordance with for any design basis accident

10 CFR 72.104(a) in accordance with

10 CFR 72.106(b)

ALARA = as low as is reasonably achievable

FWENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

TEDE = total effective dose equivalent

* FWENC. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." Section 3.3. NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003.

The probability that the natural phenomena would be more severe than those events evaluated

in the safety evaluation report and in this EIS is extremely low. Such events at the proposed

facility are not credible during its lifetime. Because these events are not credible, they are not

considered in this EIS or the safety evaluation report. Information evaluated in this section is

based on data provided by the applicant. The analyses summarized in this EIS are intended

only to identify and bound the types of environmental impacts that could result from off-normal

events or credible accidents.

I

4.12.1 Normal Operations, -

Nonr.. ogi .di .I.mpact

4.12.1.1 Nonradiological Impacts ' - . . - . . . .... i ..

Worker safety for nonradiological exposures would be maintained at the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility through implementation of a health and safety program in accordance with

applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards in 29 CFR Part 1910 and

29 CFR Part 1926. The health and safety program includes an integrated safety management

4-19
Environmental Impacts

system (conforming to 48 CFR 970.5204-2) that provides a graded approach to environmental

safety and worker health and safety. The program would include review, approval, and control

measures for all chemicals introduced into the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Chemical usage at the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is shown in Table 4-4. Herbicides and

pesticides will be present in small volumes and applied in accordance with manufacturer

recommendations (FWENC, 2003a, Section 5.3). The chemicals listed can be used safely by

applying standard chemical safety practices, and, therefore, no significant environmental

impacts are expected. For normal operating conditions, no chemical discharges are planned

from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (FWENC, 2003a). Therefore, no public chemical

exposures are expected from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, and no additional

chemical monitoring programs are necessary to ensure safety and protect the environment.

Chemical wastes associated with the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are discussed in

Section 4.13 on waste management impacts.

4.12.1.2 Normal Operations-Radiological Impacts

In general, radiation can deliver a dose through external or internal pathways. Direct radiation

from a radioactive source, irradiation from radioactive fallout on the ground surface, and

immersion in a passing airborne radioactive material are external radiation pathways. Inhalation

of airborne radioactive material and ingestion of contaminated food and water are internal

radiation pathways. The radiological dose assessments consider these external and

internal pathways.

Mitigation measures for radiological impacts would be in place during facility operations. Areas

where loose radioactive contamination can be generated would be maintained at a negative

pressure relative to other areas of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. In these areas, air

would flow from clean areas into areas of potential contamination to confine any radioactive

contamination. In addition, ventilation airflow would be channeled through HEPA filters to

remove radioactive particulates from the air stream before it is exhausted into the atmosphere

through the stack. An atmospheric release of radioactivity diffuses as air moves with the wind.

This natural process of diffusion reduces the radioactive concentration in air as it travels

downwind. The applicant's Safety Analysis Report (FWENC, 2003c, Section 2.3.4) provides a

more detailed discussion of the local and regional diffusion estimates.

Radiological impacts are addressed separately for the public and workers in the next

two subsections.

4.12.1.2.1 Public Health and Safety Impacts

The primary pathway for offsite exposure to radiation is from air emissions during operations of

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The INEEL site boundary serves as the controlled area

boundary per 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 72. Using the EPA CAP-88 model for

atmospheric dispersion, the highest offsite dose was calculated to be 3 x 10-7 mSv/yr

[3 x 10-5 mrem/yr] at the southern boundary of the INEEL site (FWENC, 2003a, Section 5.2.2).

Tables 4-5 and 4-6 present the estimated doses to the maximally exposed individual (MEI),

based on the applicant's safety analysis report (FWENC, 2003c, Section 7.4.2). The estimated

dose to the hypothetical MEI is an insignificant fraction (less than 0.00063 percent) of the

4-20
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-4. Proposed Chemical Uses and Quantities forrthe Proposed Idaho Spent

- ~ Fuel Facilitya

I

I

Chemical Use at Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Annual Quantity

Propylene Glycolb Chilled water anti-freeze 568 L

Refrigerant (R-22)b HVAC systems. 147 kg

Sodium nitrite Chilled water corrosion inhibitor 95 L

Herbicides and pesticides Weed and pest control Indeterminate

Liquid nitrogen Laboratory 95 L

Argon (compressed gas)b Purging - 28 m3

Helium (compressed gas)b Purging and backfilling of SNF 28 m3

canisters and storage tubes

Miscellaneous lubricants and Various 568 L

hydraulic fluidsb -

Oxy-acetylene welding Miscellaneous welding/repairs 14 m3 each gas

gasesb

Diesel fuel Standby generator/Cask delivery 3,785 L

truck

Transformer fluidb Transformers 2,270 L

Sulfuric acidb Batteries < 455 kg

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

FWENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

* FWENC. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.' NRC Docket No. 72-25. ISF-FW-RPT-0003.

Rev. 2. Morris Plains, New Jersey. FWENC. 2003.

b Quantity reflective of system volume capacity, not actual usage

NOTE: To convert liters (L) to gallons (gal), multiply by 0.244; to convert kilogram (kg) to pounds (lb), multiply by

2.205; to convert m3 to ft3, multiply by 0.0283.

0.1-mSv/yr [10-mrem/yr] regulatory dose limits and natural background of about 3.6 mSv/yr

[360 mrem/yr].

After transfer operations are complete, direct radiation from the storage vault is the primary

source of radiation dose to the public. The annual dose during the storage period is

conservatively estimated (by neglecting the attenuation of the external radiation) to be

6 x 10-7 mSv [6 x 10-5 mrem] at the INEEL site boundary.

.~ .- 

I

I

I

I

4-21
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-5. Comparison of the Estimated Annual Dose to the Public with the Relevant

Regulatory Limits and Natural Background

Quantity Dosea (mSv) Dosea (mrem)

Estimated annual dose to maximally exposed individual Less than Less than

from Idaho Spent Fuel Facility operationsb 0.00000063 0.000063

Total estimated annual dose to maximally exposed Less than Less than

individuals from all nearby facility operations (including 0.0032 0.32

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility)

EPA individual airborne radiation protection standard 0.10 10

(40 CFR 61.92)

NRC ALARA constraint for air emissions to individual 0.10 10

members of the public (10 CFR 20.1101)

NRC annual limit to a real member of the public 0.25 25

(10 CFR 72.104)

NRC annual limit for individual members of the public 1.0 100

(10 CFR 20.1301)

Regional annual natural background to an individual 3.6 360

residentc

I

ALARA = as low as is reasonably achievable

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

a The doses presented represent the total effective dose equivalents, which correspond to the dose equivalent to

the whole body. In general, organ dose limits also apply. Organ dose limits can be exceeded only when the

whole-body dose limit is exceeded or, in limited circumstances, when doses are close to, but just less than, the

whole-body dose limit

bIncluding ingestion of contaminated animal products

' DOE. DOEIID-12082(96), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Site Environmental

Report for Calendar Year 1996." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1997.

4.12.1.2.2 Occupational Health and Safety Impacts

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility fence serves as the restricted area boundary, within

which external and internal occupational doses to personnel are monitored per 10 CFR Part 20.

Based on the applicant safety analysis report (FWENC, 2003c, Section 7.6.1.4), Table 4-7

shows that anticipated annual occupational dose during construction is less than 0.0032 mSv

[0.32 mrem]. Construction activities would occur before receipt of SNF and involve only

potential preexisting contaminants. Because soil contamination surveys of the proposed site

have revealed no preexisting contamination (see Section 3.4.2), the anticipated annual

occupational doses would be far less than the occupational limit and the regional

natural background. The total collective dose during the entire construction period is

conservatively estimated at 1.6 person-mSv [160 person-mrem].

I

I

4-22
Environmental Impacts

Table 4.6. Radionuclides That Contribute to Calculated Dose at Frenchman's Cabinab

Radionuclide mSvlyr [mremlyr] Percent of Total

Tritium 1.43 X 10 [1.43 x 10-5] 51.6

Iodine-129 7.74 x 1074 [7.74 x 10.6] 27.9

Barium-1 37m 2.32 x [2.32 x 1061 8.4

Plutonium-238 1.61 x 1 [1.61 x 10 6]5.8

Krypton-85 1.53 x 10-4 [1.53 x 10-6] 5.5

Americium-241 7.91 x 1 [7.91 X i -8] 0.3

Others 1.2 x 10-5 [1.2 x 10-7j 0.5

FWENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

* Frenchman's Cabin is located outside the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory boundary,

about 19.6 km [12.3 mu southwest of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

b FWENC. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.' Section 5.2. NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003. I

Table 4-7. Comparison of the Anticipated Annual Occupational Dose during

Construction with the Relevant Regulatory Limits and Natural Background

Quantity Dosea (mSv) Dosea (mrem)

Anticipated annual occupational dose during construction less than less than

0.0032 0.32

NRC annual occupational limit (10 CFR 20.1201) 50 5000

Regional annual natural background to an individual 3.6 360

residentb ,

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The doses presented represent the total effective dose equivalents, which correspond to the dose equivalent to

the whole body. In general, organ dose limits also apply. Organ dose limits can be exceeded only when the

whole-body dose limit is exceeded or, in limited circumstances, when doses are close to, but just less than, the

whole-body dose limit.

b DOE. DOE/ID-12082(96), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Site Environmental

Report for Calendar Year 1996.' Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1997.

4-23
Environmental Impacts

The occupational dose estimates for workers involved with the proposed fuel-handling

operations are presented in FWENC (2003c, Table 7.4-2). When necessary, temporary

shielding would be used to keep the occupational doses ALARA. The estimated maximum total

annual dose to the whole body of an individual worker would be 9.1 mSv [910 mrem], which is

less than the 50-mSv [5,000-mrem] occupational limit stipulated in 10 CFR Part 20. For the

same conditions, the maximum organ dose received by an individual worker would not exceed

the occupational organ dose limit stipulated in 10 CFR Part 20. When the fuel-handling

operations are complete, the occupational doses from long-term monitoring activities would be

reduced considerably during the storage period. The total estimated annual occupational dose

to an individual from all inspections that require workers to enter Radiological Control Areas

would not exceed the occupational limits established in 10 CFR Part 20.

For noninvolved workers present at the INEEL site during proposed fuel-handling operations,

the annual dose from stack emissions would be 6.6 x 106 mSv [6.6 x 104 mrem] at the

boundary of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility boundary (by neglecting the attenuation of

external radiation). The annual dose because of direct radiation is conservatively estimated as

0.012 mSv [1.2 mrem] at the site boundary for an entire year. These doses are a small

percentage of the 1.0-mSv [1 00-mrem] annual limits to a member of the public. The annual

collective dose to noninvolved workers within a radius of 8 km [5 mi] was calculated as

6.68 x 10-5 person-mSv [6.68 x 10-3 person-mrem] from stack effluent (FWENC, 2003c,

Table 7.6-2). Collective dose represents the summation of the dose for an entire population,

whereas the dose to an individual is typically a small fraction of the collective dose. Even if all

the collective doses were to be received by a single noninvolved worker located at the INEEL

site, the dose would still be much less than the limits for individual workers or members of the

public (see Tables 4-3 and 4-5, respectively).

4.12.2 Off-Normal Operations

Off-normal and accident design events identified by ANSI/ANS 57.9, as applicable to facility

operations at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, were considered in the applicant's safety

analysis report (FWENC, 2003c). NRC Regulatory Guide 3.48 (1989) specifies that the four

event types in ANSI/ANS 57.9 be addressed. Of these design events, Design Events II consist

of off-normal events expected to occur routinely or to occur about once per year.

Five categories of Design Events II (off-normal events) are evaluated in FWENC (2003c,

Section 8.1):

* Transfer cask events (Section 8.1.1,);

* Fuel packaging events (Section 8.1.2);

* Fuel storage events (Section 8.1.3);

* Waste handling events (Section 8.1.4); and

* Other events (Section 8.1.5).

The off-normal events identified were selected as the bounding cases for the larger population

of credible events identified during design of the facility. The analyses include the cause of the

postulated event, the method of detection of the event, an analysis of the impacts of the event,

and the corrective actions to be taken to recover from the event. The results of the applicant's

evaluation for these off-normal events (FWENC, 2003c, Section 8.1) are summarized in

Table 4-8. The table shows evaluation of 19 postulated events in the five categories of

4-24
en

Table:4-8. Off-Normal Event Evaluated'

Safety Analysis Report Section Number Description Effects and Consequencesb Estimated Dose (mrem)b Corrective Actionb

8.1.1.1 Misventing of Transfer Cask Increased dose inside Transfer Less than 0.1 mSv [10 mrem] Decontaminate area, Tunnel to operator; negligible at determine cause, and

controlled area boundary implement corrective action

8.1.1.2 Cask Drop Less Than Design NA No radiological consequences NA Allowable Height

8.1.2.1 - Attempt to Lower Fuel No adverse consequences No radiological consequences Determine cause and Container into Occupied Fuel implement corrective action Station

8.1.2.2 Attempt to Load Fuel Element No adverse consequences No radiological consequences Determine cause and into Full Idaho Spent Fuel implement corrective action Basket

8.1.2.3 Failure of Fuel Element During Delay in operations while fuel No radiological consequences Cease operations, recovery Handling - recovery Is performed outside FPA area - actions, determine cause, and

implement corrective action

8.1.2.4 Drop of Fuel Element During Delay In operations while fuel No radiological consequences Cease operations, recovery Handling - - - recovery is performed outside FPA area actions, determinecaiise, and

implement corrective action

8.1.2.5 Fuel Container Binding or Delay in operations to replace No radiological consequences Cease operations, recovery Impact During Handling - Idaho spent fuel storage actions, determine cause, and container implement corrective actions

8.1.2.6 Malfunction of Idaho Spent Increase in fuel temperature, No radiological consequence Repair heater Fuel Canister Heating System no adverse consequences

8.1.2.7 Malfunction of Idaho Spent Delay in operations, possible No radiological consequences Repair equipment, determine Fuel Canister Vacuum Drying/ increase in fuel temperatures, cause, and implement Helium Fill System no adverse consequences corrective action m

8.1.2.8 Loss of Confinement Barrier Increased radiation dose to Potential spread of particulate Repair equipment, determine c onsite workers because of into adjacent areas of FPA; cause, and implement 0 decontamination efforts nonmechanistic dose at the corrective action

controlled area boundary is CD 0.0002 mSv [0.02 mrem] __

in

3

,, ....... ..... . - . - - - - - - ---- nm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Table 4-8. Off-Normal Event Evaluated" (continued) m__

Safety Analysis Report c, Section Number Description Effects and Consequencesb Estimated Dose (mrem)b Corrective Actionb

8.1.3.1 Binding or Impact of Idaho No adverse consequences No radiological consequences Determine cause and Spent Fuel Canister During implement corrective action { Hoisting/Lowering Operations

8.1.3.3 Extended Operation with Idaho Increase in fuel temperature No radiological consequences Repair equipment, determine n Spent Fuel Canister a) in CHM cause, and implement 0

corrective action

8.1.3.4 Malfunction of Storage Area Increase in fuel temperature No radiological consequences Repair equipment, determine Vacuum Drying/Helium Fill cause, and implement System corrective action

8.1.3.5 Partial Air Inlet/Outlet Vent Increase in fuel temperature No radiological consequences Clear obstructions from

Blockage inlet/outlet

8.1.4.1 Breach of Waste Package in Increased radiation dose to Minimal dose consequences Repair equipment, determine the Solid Waste Area onsite workers because of from decontamination efforts: cause, and implement decontamination efforts 0.1 DAC corrective action

8.1.4.2 High Dose Rate to Solid Waste Increased radiation level in Negligible worker exposure, no Return material to FPA, Area unoccupied waste enclosure, offsite consequences determine cause, and negligible worker exposure implement corrective action

8.1.5.1 Ventilation System Failures Increased fuel temperatures, No significant release or Repair equipment or determine

no significant release, exposure, no offsite cause, implement corrective negligible worker exposure, no radiological consequences action

offsite exposure

8.1.5.2 Loss of External Power Supply Increased fuel temperatures No radiological consequences Restore power source; manual for a Limited Duration and backup power available

but not required

-r-

r) a)
Table 4-8. Off-Normal Event Evaluated' (continued)

Safety Analysis Report- Section Number Description Effects and Consequencesb Estimated Dose (mrem)b Corrective Actionb

8.1.5.3 Off-Normal Ambient No adverse consequences No radiological consequences None required; HVAC

Temperatures designed for extremes

CHM = Canister Handling Machine

DAC derived air concentration-hour

HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

FPA = Fuel Processing Area

FWENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

NA = not applicable

NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

FWENC. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25. ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003.

b Effects and consequences, estimated dose, and corrective actions will be evaluated and reported in the NRC safety evaluation report.

NOTE: To convert rnillirems (mrem) to millisieverts (mSv), multiply by 0.01.

-J

: . .

..-i.

m

a.

3

3

CD

nm

-)

e)
Environmental Impacts

off-normal events previously listed. Related sections in FWENC (2003c) where the events have

been addressed are also listed in the table. Of these potential events, only misventing the

transfer cask was found to result in a dose to the workers. No significant radiological

consequences to the public at the confinement area boundary resulted from the postulated

off-normal events. In the event of misventing of the transfer cask, a worker near the cask could

receive a dose by inhaling contaminated atmosphere (FWENC, 2003c, Section 8.1.1). The

dose was evaluated to be less than 0.1 mSv [10 mrem]. This value is well below the

10 CFR Part 20 occupational dose limit of 50 mSv/yr [5,000 mrem/yr]. Workers might also

receive a dose from the exterior surface of a storage container contaminated in the Fuel

Processing Area or during transfer of SNF to the Canister Closure Area (FWENC, 2003c,

Section 8.1.3), breach of a waste package in the solid waste area (FWENC, 2003c,

Section 8.1.4), transfer of a high-dose-rate object into the solid waste area (FWENC,

2003c, Section 8.1.4), and failure of the ventilation system (FWENC, 2003c, Section 8.1.5).

Worker exposures to these events are estimated to be negligible. Any decontamination efforts

required would result in low air concentration (0.1 derived air concentration) for the workers.

In the safety evaluation report being prepared for this license application (see Section 1.4), NRC

is developing a more detailed evaluation of the impacts to the public and occupational health

and safety because of off-normal operations. The safety evaluation report will provide an

evaluation of the ability of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility to meet the NRC standards

for protection against radiation (10 CFR Part 20) and licensing requirements for an independent

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) (10 CFR Part 72). In preparing the safety evaluation

report, NRC will evaluate adequacy of the facility design, safety features, and operations. This

review also will include the emergency response plans and corrective actions to mitigate

radiological consequences to the public and recovery from the postulated off-normal events.

4.12.3 Accident Analysis

FWENC (2003c) provides an evaluation of the radiological impacts of Design Events IlIl and IV

(NRC, 1989) that could potentially result from the proposed facility operations. Design Events IlIl

are infrequent events that could be expected to occur during the lifetime of the facility. Design

Events IV are the events postulated to establish a conservative design basis for SSCs important

to safety. Accidents evaluated in FWENC (2003c) are generally the same as those assessed

for off-normal operations:

* Transfer cask events (Section 8.2.1);

* Fuel packaging events (Section 8.2.2);

* Fuel storage accidents (Section 8.2.3); and

* Other Events (Section 8.2.4).

In the safety evaluation report being prepared for this license application, NRC is developing a

more detailed evaluation of the impacts to the public and occupational health and safety

because of operational accidents. The safety evaluation report will provide an evaluation of the

ability of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility to meet the NRC standards for protection

against radiation (10 CFR Part 20) and licensing requirements for ISFSI (10 CFR Part 72).

The applicant evaluation of Design Events IlIl and IV in the four accident categories previously

listed is summarized in Table 4-9. The table provides a description of the accidents, estimated

dose, postulated cause of the event, corrective actions taken, and effects and consequences,

4-28
f ' ' (I I '  '.  z ' I ,

Environmental Impacts

Table 4-9. Accident Analysis for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility'

Safety V

Analysis I

Report Effects and Estimated Dose

Section No. Description Consequences (mrem) Corrective Action

8.2.1 Transfer Cask Events

8.2.1.1 Vehicular Collision with No adverse No radiological Event is bounded by Transporter consequence consequences transportation

evaluation of Peach ._________________ __________________ Bottom cask

8.2.1.2 Transfer Cask Drop Needs evaluation Needs evaluation Transfer cask will be

During Hoisting handled with

Operations single-failure proof

crane, but transfer

cask trunnion does not

appear to satisfy single-failure proof NRC guidance, and

will be evaluated

further in the safety

evaluation report

8.2.1.3 Transfer Cask Tipover No adverse No radiological Not a credible event;

consequence consequences system designed to

prevent the event

8.2.1.4 Cask Trolley Collision No adverse. No radiological Collision prevented by

Events consequence consequences limit switches and cask

designed to withstand

impact

8.2.2 Fuel Packaging Events

8.2.2.1 Drop of DOE Fuel No adverse No radiological Not a credible event;

Container During consequence consequences DOE fuel container will

Handling be handled by FHM

designed to the

requirements of

single-failure proof

system

8.2.2.2 Drop of Idaho Spent No adverse No radiological Not a credible event;

Fuel Basket During consequence consequences spent fuel basket will

Handling be handled by FHM

designed to the

requirements of single- .________________ _ .failure proof system

8.2.2.3 Canister Trolley No adverse No radiological Not a credible event;

- Movement in Raised consequence consequences trolley movement.

Position before lowering of

storage container .____________ ;__________________ ____________________ prevented by interlock

8.2.3 Fuel Storage Accidents

8.2.3.1 Idaho Spent Fuel No adverse No radiological Not a credible event;

Canister Drop consequence consequences drop events prevented

by single-failure proof design of CHM and .______________________ interlocks

8.2.3.2 Transverse Movement No adverse No radiological Not a credible event;

of the CHM with an consequence consequences CHM movement

Idaho Spent Fuel . . prevented by interlock

Canister Partially and seismic design

Inserted

I

4-29
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-9. Accident Analysis for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility' (continued)

Safety

Analysis

Report Effects and Estimated Dose

Section No. Description Consequences (mrem) Corrective Action

8.2.4 Other Postulated Accidents

8.2.4.1 Adiabatic Heatup No adverse No radiological Periodically inspected

consequence consequences to keep inlet and outlet

vents free from

blockages

Applicant conducted

nonmechanistic

analysis considering

50-percent blockage, and the evaluated

temperature of basket

and vault storage is

below maximum

allowable

Applicant should

conduct an analysis with 100-percent blockage scenario

8.2.4.2 Loss of Shielding No increase in No radiological No significant shielding

exposure rate consequences concern; prevented by expected administrative control, design, and radiation

monitoring

8.2.4.3 Building Structural No adverse No radiological Not considered

Failure onto consequence consequences credible

Structures, Systems,

or Components Building structures

would be designed using regulatory

guidance and codes

Lifting devices would

be designed as single- failure-proof devices or

with added design

margins

8.2.4.4 Fire and Explosion No adverse No radiological Radiologically

consequence consequences controlled areas are

enveloped by fire-rated

barriers to minimize

potential for offsite

release

Impact of INTEC

facility, storage yards, fuel storage tanks, and

access roads to

independent SNF

facility was evaluated

I

4-30
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-9. Accident Analysis for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facilitya (continued)

Safety x

Analysis

Report Effects and Estimated Dose

Section No. Description Consequences (mrem) Corrective Action

8.2.4.5 Maximum Hypothetical Dose well below the Nonmechanistic dose Evaluated hypothetical

Dose Accident 5 mSv [5,000 mrem] at the controlled area events that result in

limit boundary: nonmechanistic offsite

.00003 mSv dose for the purposes

[0.003 mrem] TEDE of demonstrating

storage area container compliance with

leakage release 10 CFR 72.106(b)

0.0002 mSv

[0.02 mrem] TEDE

FPA HEPA filter

release

CHM = Canister Handling Machine

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

FHM = Fuel Handling Machine

FPA = Fuel Packaging Area

FWENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

HEPA = high efficiency particulate air

INTEC = Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

RAI request for additional information

SNF = spent nuclear fuel

TEDE = total effective dose equivalent

FWENC. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. NRC Docket No. 72-25. ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains,

New Jersey: FWENC. 2003.

NOTES:

* In preparing the safety evaluation report. NRC will evaluate adequacy of the facility design, safety features, and operations. This

review also will include the emergency response plans and corrective actions to recover from the postulated accident.

* To convert millirems (mrem) to millisieverts (mSv), multiply by 0.01.

including related sections in FWENC (20036) where the events have been addressed. The

potential events analyzed include vehicular collision; storage cask drop and tipover; drop events

for fuel container, fuel basket, and SNF canister; trolley collision; adiabatic heatup caused by

blockage of inlet and outlet vents; fire and explosion; loss of radiation shielding; and building

structural failure. None of the events is estimated to be likely, and no radiological

consequences to the public'and workers are expected because the SSCs associated with these

events are designed to withstand the hypothetical events.

Included in the various accident scenarios analyzed in FWENC (2003c, Section 8.2) is the

maximum hypothetical dose accident for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the

dose limits specified in 10 CFR 72.106(b). This hypothetical, beyond design basis accident was

selected to serve as a worst-case scenario to bound the consequences of any credible accident

at the facility involving the release and subsequent atmospheric dispersion of radioactive

material. For the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel'Facility,-two maximum hypothetical dose

accidents were evaluated representing each of the two operational phases. For the

repackaging phase of the operation,- the maximum hypothetical dose accident involved a Fuel

Packaging Area HEPA filter release. For the storage phase of the operation, the maximum

hypothetical dose accident involved a storage area container leakage release. A detailed

description of the conditions for each maximum hypothetical dose accident is presented in the

applicant's safety analysis report (FWENC, 2003c, Section 8.2.4). A detailed evaluation of the

4-31
Environmental Impacts

maximum hypothetical dose estimates will be included in the safety evaluation report being

developed by NRC. The resulting dose for the Fuel Packaging Area HEPA filter and the storage

area container leakage release at the closest INEEL boundary is 2 x 10- mSv [ 2 x 10-2 mrem]

and 3 x 10-5 mSv [3 x 10-3 mrem] total effective dose equivalent. These calculated dose

results are well below the 50-mSv [5,000-mrem] accident dose limit of 10 CFR 72.106.

Figures 4-2 and 4-3 provide dose estimates for distances closer to the proposed facility for

the bounding Fuel Packaging Area HEPA filter release. The dose rates calculated for the

nearer locations show the resulting dose rates for workers at nearby facilities would be well

below accepted regulatory limits.

4.12.4 External Events

4.12.4.1 Flooding Hazards

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would not discharge effluent as part of normal activities.

The only potential impact to water resources at the site would be the result of the effects of a

probable maximum flood (the largest flood likely to occur). The probable maximum flood at the

site would occur from a failure of Mackay Dam on the Big Lost River (Koslow and Van Haaften,

1986). The potential impact on INEEL facilities by a maximum flood was assumed caused by a

probable maximum flood resulting in the overtopping and rapid failure of Mackay Dam. The

sequence of events that lead to a probable maximum flood includes a probable maximum

precipitation event consisting of a 48-hour general storm, preceded 3 days earlier by an

antecedent storm with a magnitude of 40 percent of the 48-hour storm. The postulated

precipitation events would cause overtopping flow across the dam. The overtopping of the

Mackay Dam is assumed to result in dam failure.

The probable maximum flood is considered conservative, because the last flood of similar

magnitude occurred nearly 12,000 years ago during a wet climate cycle. The probable

maximum flood scenario has flows estimated at 1,890 m3/s [66,830 ft3/s] with a water velocity

ranging from 0.2 to 0.9 m/s [0.6 to 3.0 ft/s] on INEEL. This flood would result in shallow,

slow-moving, flood water within the INTEC-controlled area with a flood elevation at the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site of about 1,500.0 m [4,921 ft], and water velocities of

about 0.3 to 1 m/s [1 to 3 ft/s].

Debris bulking was not considered in the flow volumes for the probable maximum flood. Other

than natural topography, the primary choke points for probable maximum flood flows are the

diversion dam on INEEL and the culverts on Lincoln Boulevard to the west of INTEC. The

probable maximum flood would quickly overtop and wash out the diversion dam; essentially,

there would be no effect on flows downstream of the dam. The Lincoln Boulevard culverts are

capable of passing about 42 m3/s [1,500 ft3/sJ of waterflow (Berenbrock and Kjelstrom, 1998).

Because of the relatively flat topography in the vicinity of INTEC, debris plugging at the culverts

would have little effect on the probable maximum flood elevation at INTEC (DOE, 2002a,

Section 4.8) or at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

The effects of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces on potentially affected SSCs have been

considered in the proposed design (FWENC, 2003c). In general, these forces are insignificant

compared with other normal, off-normal, or accident loads on the affected SSCs. This

evaluation concludes that the structural integrity of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

confinement boundary would be maintained. The calculated time for the probable maximum

4-32
Environmental mpacts

91 23

570 1.5

ISO 1.2

Figure 4-2. INTEC Area Maximum Radiological Dose for Maximum Hypothetical Dose

Accident (from FWENC, 2003c, Section 8.3). To Convert Meters to Feet, Multiply by

0.3048; to Convert mrem to mSv, Multiply by 0.01.

4-33
m

TO SALMON TO BUTTE 0

Dose 0 INEEL E Boundary 0.02 mrrnANTE

DOSE US L IET BU1

Hwy 20/26 0.05 mrerl TO

Regulatory Limit 5,000 mrem WRRTF BUTTE R

\ TO HOWE r/I

CA)

4:IVE

TO ARCO 11 SE5PERT - ZPPERpD_

EOC /IDAHO FALLS

wOT _t WIODLE ~~EAST X BUTTEBUTTE

13,700 meters A,%,--c, TO BLACKFOOT

cqw

Figure 43. INEEL Area Maximum Radiological Dose for Maximum Hypothetical Dose Accident (Modified from FWENC, 2003c, Section 8.3). To Convert Meters to Feet, Multiply by 0.3048; to Convert mrem to mSv, Multiply by 0.01.
Environmental Impacts

flood wave to reach the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is at ieast 13.5 hours, providing

sufficient time to implement preplanned flood control measures. These measures include

putting any ongoing processing sequences into a secure configuration and securing waste

containers. The Storage Area and the Fuel Processing Area are designed to prevent the

ingress of floodwater. Penetrations and construction joints below the elevation of the probable

maximum flood in these areas will be sealed to prevent leaks. The final graded ground surface

elevation at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is planned for 1,498.7 m 14,917 ft] (FWENC,

2003a, Section 2.4). The elevations of the various facility areas communicable with the

floodwater and associated pathways are provided in Table 4-10.

Flooding hydrostatic forces have been considered in the equipment designs for these areas,

therefore, any uplift would not damage equipment. Equipment such as the cask trolley, canister

trolley, and liquid waste storage tank and the building structures include flooding loads in their

design bases.

4.12.4.2 Aircraft Impact Hazards

Aircraft usually fly around the INEEL boundary. INEEL has in place a Federal Aviation

Administration advisory prohibiting flights at altitudes below 1,800 m [6,000 ft] above mean sea

level. Commercial airports near the INEEL facilities include (i) Idaho Falls Regional Airport,

about 70 km [43 mi] away; (ii) Pocatello Regional Airport about 79 km [49 m away; (iii) Burley

Municipal Airport, about 134 km [83 mi] away; and (iv) Joslin Field-Magic Valley Regional

Table 4-10. Elevationa of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Relative to the

Probable Maximum Floodb

PMF Elevations

Outside Portal Above Area

Area Elevation' Elevation Floor (m)

Cask Receipt Area 1,497.54 Below PMF -2.31

Transfer Tunnel 1,497.33 Below PMF -2.51

Solid Waste Storage/Solid 1,498.85 Below PMF -0.99

Waste Processing Area

Liquid Waste Storage Tank 1,498.09 Below PMF -1.75

Area

HVAC Exhaust Room 1,498.85,, Below PMF -0.99.

FWENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation;

HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

PMF = maximum probable flood

* Meters above sea level

b FWENC. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.' NRC Docket No. 72-25. ISF-FW-RPT-0033.

Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003.

NOTE: To convert to meters (m) to feet (ft), multiply by 3.2808.

4-35
Environmental Impacts

Airport, approximately at Twin Falls 176 km [109 mi] away. Two small nearby airports serve as

a home base for aircraft. These two airports are usually used by general aviation aircraft.

Twelve single-engine aircraft are based at Arco-Butte County Airport, about 32 km [20 mi] west

of the proposed facility site. Howe Airport is located about 32 km 20 mi] north of the proposed

site. Four single-engine aircraft are based there. In addition, several unpaved landing strips

are near the INEEL facilities, used primarily for recreational and emergency purposes by private

and crop-dusting aircraft. The landing strips nearest the proposed site are located about 16 km

[10 mi] south-southeast and 20 km [12 mi] south-southwest. These airports are all at significant

distances from the INEEL facilities and, therefore, any flights near the INEEL facilities would be

in a cruise mode at heights more than 305 m [1,000 ft] above the surface. Based on

NUREG-0800 (NRC, 1997, Section 3.5.1.6), any landing and departure operations at these

airports would have a negligible crash hazard to the proposed facility.

There are air taxi flights between Idaho Falls and Boise and between Idaho Falls and Salmon.

The Idaho Falls Regional Airport has nearly 41,000 annual operations. Approximately

51,000 annual operations take place at the Pocatello Airport. Most traffic is either to Boise or

Salt Lake City. Burley Municipal Airport has about 33,800 operations in a year. Approximately

36,800 annual operations take place at Joslin Field-Magic Valley Regional Airport at Twin Falls.

Approximately 98 percent of the traffic at Arco-Butte County airport is general aviation aircraft

composed of private and crop-duster aircraft. This airport operates about 100 air taxi and

commuter flights in a year. One hundred percent of traffic at Howe Airport is by general aviation

aircraft mostly used for crop dusting.

Most aircraft used in crop dusting around the INEEL facilities do not cross the INEEL boundary.

They use the boundary for turning the aircraft. However, aircraft need to be moved across

INEEL a few times a year. Approximately 60 to 100 overflights per year by crop dusting and

other similar aircraft traditionally have been permitted by the INEEL Flight Department

(Lee, et al., 1996).

Air taxi flights from Idaho Falls Regional Airport use Federal Aviation Administration-approved

vector 269 while flying to Pocatello, Burley, and Twin Falls. Approximately six flights take place

in a day. These flights approach about 30 km (19 mil of the proposed facility (Lee, et al., 1996).

On average, two to three air taxi flights are flown between Idaho Falls and Boise each day. The

edge of this airway nearest the proposed facility site is about 15 km [9 mi] (FWENC, 2003b).

General aviation aircraft flying from Pocatello to Salmon come within about 15 km [9 mi] of the

proposed facility. Only a small number of flights travel this route annually (Lee, et al., 1996).

Military training routes near the proposed facility (VR 1300, R302, and R305) are used by the

Idaho Air National Guard for terrain masking (FWENC, 2003b). Hazardous activities such as

practice bombing or laser firing are not conducted in these routes. Approximately 435 annual

sorties are flown on these routes.

4.12.4.3 Volcanic Hazards

Lava flows from volcanoes located up topographic gradient from the INTEC site could present a

hazard to the INTEC site if not mitigated. One proposed mitigation strategy for lava-flow

hazards is the construction of 6.1- [20-ft-] high compacted earthen berms to divert potential

4-36
Environmental Impacts

lava flows away from the INTEC area. The berms would be constructed from 104,000 m3

[136,000 yd3J of soil from areas immediately adjacent to the INTEb area. Construction of these

berms would occur only after the onset of a potentially hazardous volcanic eruption. Thus, in

the unlikely event of a future lava-flow eruption, construction of a diversionary berm would

adversely impact 104,000 m3 [136,000 yd3] of soils adjacent to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility. This potential soil impact appears small compared to the impact of a naturally

occurring lava flow, which would bury significantly more soil if the flow extended to the vicinity

of INTEC. ,

4.12.4.4 Seismic Hazards

One geologic hazard that must be considered in the safe design of nuclear facilities is the

strong shaking of the ground during an earthquake. Earthquakes occur when energy stored

within the earth, usually in the form of strain accumulated in rocks, is released suddenly., This

energy is transmitted to the surface of the earth by earthquake waves. The accumulation of

strain in the rocks results from plate tectonic forces deep in the earth. Because the INEEL site

rests within an active tectonic province in the Western United States, there is the possibility that

the site could undergo ground shaking from an earthquake. The potential destructive force of

an earthquake at any site on the Earth depends on several factors, including size of the

earthquake (usually measured by earthquake magnitude), duration of shaking, and how far

away the site is from the earthquake epicenter.

To ensure that critical facilities, including nuclear facilities, remain safe during and after an

earthquake, the SSCs important to safety are designed to withstand vibratory ground motions

from earthquakes. An important part of the design process is to accurately estimate the range

of vibratory ground motions that could occur. Ground motion is most often expressed as ground

acceleration in units of g (1g is the acceleration of gravitational attraction for standard

conditions). Ground motions are determined for a range of spectral frequencies between 0.5

and 100 Hz (oscillations per second). These estimates of ground accelerations are based on

observations of past earthquakes from the historical seismic record, inferences about the

location and magnitude of prehistoric earthquakes based on the geologic record; and detailed

models of how the energy from earthquakes is attenuated as it travels from the earthquake

source to the site.

Ac'cording to 10 CFR 72.122(b)(2), SSCs important to safety must be designed to withstand the

effects of natural phenomena, including earthquakes. For sites west of the Rocky Mountains

where a license application was submitted prior to October 16, 2003, such as the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, 10 CFR 72.102(b) requires that seismicity be evaluated by techniques

described in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 100.' This appendix defines the safe shutdown

earthquake as the earthquake that produces the maximum vibratory ground motion at the site

and requires the SSCs be designed to withstand these ground motions.

Originally, this assessment of the safe shutdown earthquake was based on a deterministic

approach assuming a 1 00-percent chance that the earthquake will occur. In recent years,

however, geologists, seismologists, and engineers recognized that how frequently an

earthquake occurs is also important to the definition of the safe shutdown earthquake. :Thus,

the NRC regulations applicable to the siting of a nuclear power plant were modified at 10 CFR

1 00.23(d)(1) to allow for the use of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). In PSHA,

the range of ground motions possible at a site is calculated as a function of how likely these

ground motions are. This likelihood is expressed either as an annual probability that the ground

motion would be exceeded or as its reciprocal, the ground motion return period. Geologic and

4-37
Environmental Impacts

seismologic inputs necessary to develop a PSHA include (i) interpretation of the seismic

sources from which probability distribution functions of earthquake parameters (e.g., maximum

magnitude and source-to-site distance) can be obtained, (ii) earthquake recurrence parameters

(e.g., slip rate or activity rate), and (iii) ground motion attenuation. On September 16, 2003,

NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR Part 72. The amended section, 10 CFR 72.103 in

conjunction with Regulatory Guide 3.73 (NRC, 2003d), establishes the PSHA approach as an

acceptable approach to developing the design earthquake for an ISFSI. Regulatory Guide 3.73

(NRC, 2003d) establishes the reference probability for the design earthquake at 5 x 10-4/yr,

which is approximately equal to the 2,000-year return period ground motion. For applications

submitted before October 16, 2003, 10 CFR 72.102 requires an ISFSI license applicant to

perform a seismic hazard assessment using a deterministic approach. As part of the safety

evaluation report prepared for the Three-Mile Island Unit 2 ISFSI at INTEC, however, NRC

granted an exemption and allowed a PSHA approach, including facility design based on the

2,000-year return period mean ground motion (SECY-98-071). In its November 2001 license

application for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (FWENC, 2003e), FWENC submitted a

request for an exemption similar to that granted for the Three-Mile Island Unit 2 ISFSI. The

adequacy of the proposed seismic hazard and design methodology relative to requirements in

10 CF 72.103 is evaluated in the NRC safety evaluation report.

Inputs to the original PSHA, used to assess earthquake ground motions at the Three-Mile Island

Unit 2 ISFSI at the INTEC facility (Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, 1996), were also used for

the hazard assessment at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. For INTEC, the 2,000-year

return period mean peak horizontal acceleration (ground acceleration at 100 Hz) was estimated

at 0.13g. In 2000, the seismic hazards at five INEEL facility sites, including INTEC, were

recalculated to account for new ground motion attenuation models. These new attenuation

models were developed by URS Woodward-Clyde Federal Services for INEEL and first applied

in the earthquake hazard assessment for the Naval Reactor Fuel ISFSI facility, 10.5 km [6.7 mil

northeast of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The new attenuation models predicted

12-23 percent lower ground motions compared with 1996 estimates.

In preparing a safety evaluation for the Three-Mile Island Unit 2 ISFSI at the INTEC facility and

for the review of the Naval Reactor Fuel ISFSI site, NRC evaluated previous DOE seismic

hazard analyses (Brach, 1999; Stamatakos, et al., 2001). These reviews concluded that the

analyses and information provided reasonable assurance that adequate geologic and

seismological data were used in developing seismic hazard analyses. Because the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is located within the same seismotectonic setting as the Three-Mile

Island Unit 2 ISFSI and Naval Reactors Spent Fuel ISFSI site and because there have been no

significant earthquakes since the Three-Mile Island Unit 2 ISFSI safety analysis report and

Naval Fuel ISFSI evaluation were published, no additional update to the seismic hazard was

deemed necessary. The design earthquake at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is,

therefore, based on the 2,000-year return period ground motions from the existing seismic

hazard assessment for INEEL.

The primary structural steel members, concrete structures, and footings for the areas

encompassed by the Cask Receipt Area, the Transfer Area, and the Storage Area are designed

to withstand the forces and accelerations associated with the design earthquake. The storage

tube assemblies, including the container storage tubes, shield plugs, and lids, which provide the

vault storage positions, have also been designed to withstand these forces. In addition, the

primary structural steel members of the Cask Receipt Area, Transfer Area, and Storage Area

have been designed using the same seismic criteria and load combinations as important to

safety structures. These structures would not adversely impact the SNF container or the SNF

4-38
Environmental Impacts

after a seismic event. The wall and roof panels and secondary support structures are not

designed to withstand the design earthquake and may require repair or replacement after the

event. These building components are not, however, required to remain intact during the event

and do not provide configuration control, confinement, support or structural protection for the

SNF. Failure of these systems would not result in damage to the SNF container or the SNF,

and would not adversely impact public health and safety.

Based on the analyses provided in the safety analysis report (FWENC, 2003c), the systems

important to safety for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would withstand the accident

loads with no unacceptable consequences and no significant release of radioactive material.

The design basis ground motions are not expected to breach confinement or damage inprocess or stored fuel or fuel containers. There are no postulated radiological releases or

adverse radiological consequences from these design basis ground motions. These design

basis ground motions do not involve a change to the fuel or structural integrity configuration.

Therefore, no changes to the criticality, confinement, or retrievability of SNF are expected, and

the impacts of the design basis ground motions are small.

4.12.4.5 Extreme Wind and Wind-Generated Missiles

The proposed facility is to be constructed at the INEEL site, about 430 34' north latitude and

1120 55' west longitude. Based on the analysis presented in Ramsdell and Andrews (1986), the

geographic region encompassing the INEEL site is one of the areas in the United States with a

low tomado hazard occurrence. NRC Guidance (1997) specifies that any event with an annual

probability of occurrence less than I x 10-7 need not be considered.

The applicant, based on Ramsdell and Andrews (1986), estimated the characteristics of

potential tornadoes at the proposed site.

The average probability of any tornado ''

striking this region is about 6 x 10- per The Fujita or F scale, is commonly used to classify

year. The probability ofia tomnado'with Thuiao cli omnyue ocasf ye. The probability of a tornado with - tornadoes. In this scale, intensity of the tornadoes intensity F2 or higher {wind speed higher ranges from F0-F5 in order of increasing intensities.

than 180 km/h [113 mph]} is about' Each intensity class has a range of wind speed

1.69 x 10-7 per year. The estimated associated with It, as shown below.

maximum wind speed at INEEL is 274 km/h Wind Speed

[171 mph] (tornado category F3) with a , F Scale kmlh [mph]

probability of 1x 10-7. '; . . 1 I

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

developed a probabilistic tornado wind

hazard model for the continental United

States (Boissonnade, et al., 2000) on behalf

of DOE. This model formed the basis of the'

tornado missile criteria in DOE (2002d). -

Based on Boissonnade, et al. (2000,), the ;

estimated tornado wind speed at INEEL at'

an annual probability of exceedence of 10-7

(one chance in 10 million) is 459 krn/h'

[285 mph], assuming tornado intensity

distribution based on the contiguous United

States; however, the estimated tornado

. - ti. 4-116 

[40-72]

F1 117 and 180

.73 and 112]

F2 181 and 253

-______________ [113 and 157]

F3 254-332

._______________ [158-206]

F4 333-418

[207-260]

F5 Higher than 419 [260]

4-39
Environmental Impacts

wind speed reduces to 330 km/h [205 mph] when assuming the tornado intensity distribution

applicable to the NRC Region ll, which encompasses the proposed facility. The NRC and

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) staffs have requested additional

information from FWENC on the design-basis tornado for the proposed facility, based on

site-specific hazard information.

The applicant considered Spectrum II missiles, as defined in Section 3.5.1.4, Missiles

Generated by Natural Phenomena, NUREG-0800 (NRC, 1997) as the representative

tornado-generated missiles for the proposed site. These missiles include

* 52-kg [115-lb] wooden plank traveling at 58 m/s [190 ft/s];

* 130-kg 287 b] 15-cm [6-in.] diameter Schedule 40 steel pipe traveling at 10 m/s

[33 ft/s];

* 4-kg [9-lb] 2.54-cm [1-in] diameter steel rod traveling at 8 m/s [26 ftls];

* 510-kg [1,124-lb] utility pole traveling at 26 m/s [85 ft/s];

* 340-kg [750-lb] 0.3-m [12-in] diameter Schedule 40 steel pipe traveling at 7 mi/s

[23 ft/s]; and

* 1,810-kg [4,000-lb] automobile traveling at41 m/s [134 ft/s].

The applicant concluded, however, that the utility pole and the 0.3-m [12-in] diameter steel pipe

are not credible missiles, citing DOE Standard DOE/STD-1020-1994 (1994), because heavier

missiles will not be generated by a wind speed less than 322 km/h [200 mph]. Similarly, the

applicant has excluded an automobile as a potential tornado-generated missile for the proposed

facility, citing Coats and Murray (1985), because automobiles will not be picked up or sustained

aloft by tornado events with wind speeds less than or equal to 322 km/h [200 mph]. The

NRC and CNWRA staffs have requested additional information from FWENC on

tomado-generated missiles.

FWENC (2003c) analyzed the potential for a tornado missile to strike a safety-related structure

causing radiological release at different locations of the proposed facility: (i) Outside Cask

Receipt Area, (ii) Inside Cask Receipt Area, (iii) Inside Transfer Tunnel, (iv) Fuel Packaging

Area, (v) Canister Closure Area, (vi) Canister Handling Machine on the Second Floor of the

Storage Area, (vii) Storage Area, and (viii) Solid/Liquid Waste Area. Outside the Cask Receipt

Area, the DOE transfer cask would provide protection against tornado missiles. While the DOE

transfer cask is inside the Cask Receipt Area, it would provide the same protection against

tornado missiles. SNF would be handled by the crane in the proposed facility about 15 percent

of the time each year. The annual frequency at which the crane would be handling SNF while a

tornado may potentially occur was estimated to be less than 10-7 in the Safety Analysis Report

(FWENC, 2003c, Section 8.2.5.4) and, therefore, not considered credible according to NRC

Regulatory Guide 1.117 (1978). Hence, this crane would not be required to be designed to

withstand the design basis tornado and associated tornado missiles. As an added precaution,

any handling of SNF would be suspended when tornado watches or tornado warnings are in

effect (FWENC, 2003b). The Transfer Tunnel would be constructed with a minimum 0.9-m [3-ft]

thick reinforced concrete that would be able to provide the necessary protection from tornado

4-40
Environmental Impacts

missiles, based on NRC (1 997). Similarly,-within the Transfer Area, the Fuel Packaging Area

and Canister Closure Area would be isolated and enclosed by 1.2- and 0.9-m [4- and 3-ft] thick

reinforced concrete walls. Therefore, it is anticipated the tornado missiles would not be a

credible hazard for these locations. The Canister Handling Machine has been designed to

withstand the effects of tornado wind and pressure. Although it is likely that this machine will

withstand the effects of wind-generated missiles associated with a design basis tornado, this

has not been explicitly designed into the system.. However, the annual frequency at which the

Canister Handling Machine would be handling SNF while a tornado may potentially occur is

estimated to be less than 10-7 in the Safety Analysis Report (FWENC, 2003c, Section 8.2.5.4).

This frequency of occurrence is not considered'credible according to NRC Regulatory I

Guide 1.117 (1978) and, therefore,-the Canister Handling Machine would not be required to be

designed to withstand the design basis tornado and associated tornado missiles. The Storage

Area would be enclosed by reinforced concrete walls up to 9.1 m [30 ft] tall around the

perimeter, with'a thickness of 0.9 m [3 ft]. Therefore, it is anticipated tornado missiles would not

be a credible hazard there either. The Solid/Liquid Waste Storage Areas would be vulnerable to

tornado missiles and wind pressure at some locations. FWENC (2003c) stated the offsite dose

would remain below the regulatory limit even if there are gross failures of the protective barriers.

4.12.4.6 Wildfires

The INEEL site has a desert ecosystem with shrub-steppe vegetation. Wildfires occur within the

INEEL property boundary. Large fires in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2000, as shown in

Figure 3-9, burned about 56,700 ha [140,000 acres] (DOE, 2002a). DOE has an active program

to monitor the affected areas and the recovery of desert vegetation. Although evacuating

personnel from the INEEL facilities when a fire approached too closely was necessary on some

occasions, the INEEL Fire Department, with assistance from other area fire departments such

as BLM, successfully fought the fire on every occasion so that none of the INEEL facilities was

affected. The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be constructed adjacent to INTEC on a

previously disturbed site. Vegetation covers less than 5 percent of the surface area of this site.

Therefore, potential for wildfires fueled by this vegetation is low (FWENC, 2003a). Unpaved

areas of the property would be covered with gravel or similar material to further minimize the

buildup of vegetation when construction is complete. -

Outside the controlled boundary of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, the INEEL Fire

Department would provide fire response in accordance with the emergency plan (FWENC,

2003b,- Section 4.3). A qualified fire protection engineer would develop the overall fire

protection program and also would design and select necessary equipment. The INEEL Fire.

Department would provide periodic'site-specific training and fire drills. Personnel at the Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility would be provided with general training; however, emergency response staff

would have specialized training' in accordance with FWENC (2003d). Therefore, based on the -

small amount of available fuel and the rapid response of the fire fighting team, it is anticipated

that wildfires would not be'a credible hazard to the proposed facility.

4.13 Waste Management Impacts'

Generation of gaseous, liquid, and solid low-level radioactive waste is expected during the first

3 years of SNF receipt, transfer, and repackaging operations at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility (FWENC, 2003c, Section 6).

4-41
Environmental Impacts

SNF that would be stored at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is predominantly from the

Peach Bottom and Shippingport reactors that ceased operations in 1974 and 1982. The nature

and condition of the SNF have provided a means for radioactive gases to escape. Furthermore,

the storage time has allowed for some decay of radioactive gases. Nonetheless, some release

of radioactive gas is possible during handling and repackaging in areas such as the Transfer

Tunnel, Fuel Packaging Area, and Canister Closure Area. Based on the expected radionuclide

inventory of SNF to be received at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, the primary gaseous

radionuclides of concern are iodine-129, krypton-85, and tritium (FWENC, 2003c, Chapter 6).

The proposed heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system (HVAC) would serve to prevent

accidental release of radioactive material into the environment and maintain worker exposures

ALARA. Any gases released within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be passed

through HEPA air filters to remove particulates and allow monitoring of radioactive gases before

discharge through the exhaust stack. Evaluation of potential radiological impacts from normal

heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system discharges of gaseous effluents to the MEl at

the controlled area boundary {about 3 x 10-7 mSv/yr [3 x 10-5 mrem/yr]} (FWENC, 2003c,

Section 6) would be well below the regulatory constraint in 10 CFR Part 20 for members of the

public {0.1 mSv/yr [10 mrem/yr]}.

Once repackaged, no further gaseous releases are expected from the SNF because packages

would be sealed and monitored for integrity during storage. Hydrogen gas also may be

produced by radiolytic decomposition of aqueous solutions. Release of hydrogen gas is.

possible in the liquid radioactive waste storage tank or in the SNF transfer cask where small

amounts of moisture may be present with the SNF. Conservative FWENC estimates of the rate

of hydrogen generation in the liquid waste storage tank (with no ventilation) indicate passive

ventilation of the tank would be sufficient to maintain hydrogen concentrations below the

4-percent flammable concentration level (FWENC, 2003c, Section 6). Regarding the transfer

casks, the internal atmospheric concentration of hydrogen would be sampled to ensure gas

concentrations are within acceptable limits prior to removal of the cask lid (FWENC, 2003c,

Section 6).

Liquid radioactive waste would not be generated during normal operations of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, however, such waste may be generated during nonroutine

decontamination activities or as a result of sprinkler or firefighting water (Table 4-11). FWENC

estimates no more than 19,700 L [5,200 gal] of liquid radioactive waste would be generated

each year from decontamination activities (2003c, Section 6). A liquid waste processing system

would collect and temporarily store such liquid wastes in two tanks {18,900-L [5,000-gal] and

1,900 L [500 gal]} prior to transfer to a licensed treatment facility by a mobile service contractor.

The larger tank would be located below grade with an effective containment volume of 36,700 L

[9,700 gal] in the event of a tank failure or spill (FWENC, 2003c, Section 6). Liquid waste

collection would be available in the safety shower and eye wash areas, the Solid Waste

Processing Area where water may be used for decontamination, the Transfer Tunnel where

decontamination water or fire sprinkler water could be generated, the Canister Closure Area

where decontamination or container weld test water may be generated, the workshop where

decontamination water may be generated, and the liquid waste storage area where a sump

would filter and collect spilled or wash water to be transferred to the larger liquid waste storage

tank. Normal decontamination activities would involve only small amounts of water for wiping

with cloth or paper (no free liquid wastes would be generated).

4-42
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-11. Estimated Concentrations of Principal Radionuclides in Liquid Waste'

Radionuclideb' Concentration (Ci/g)

Tritium 1.11 o-9

Krypton-85 7.75 x 10-9

Strontium-90 1.33 x 10-10

Yttrium-90 1.33 x 10-0

Cesium-1 37 - - 1.41 x 10-10

Barium-137 1.33 x 10-1

Plutonium-238 1.57 x 10.12

FWENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

' FWENC. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." Section 6. NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Section 6. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003. b Other radionuclide concentrations estimated at < I pCi/g

NOTE: To convert grams (g) to ounces (oz), multiply by 0.03527.

Solid waste generated at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be from repackaging of

SNF and other process-related activities. Solid waste is classified as large canister waste,

small canister waste, and process level waste. The canister waste includes large and small

containers used to deliver SNF to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. 'Process waste

includes paper, rubber, plastic, rags, machinery parts, tools, vacuum cleaner debris, welding

materials, and HEPA filters. Estimated volumes of solid waste are provided in Table 4-12.

Solid waste from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be characterized for disposal as

low-level radioactive waste (FWENC, 2003c, Section 6) and would be handled through the solid

waste processing system located in the solid waste processing area. This solid waste

processing system would handle, package, and temporarily store solid waste pending

transportation to the (onsite)'INEEL Radioactive Waste Management Complex or available

offsite locations, including the Nevada Test'Site and Hanford, for disposal (DOE, 2000). Waste

would be characterized, analyzed,'and disposed in accordance with existing DOE and INEEL

reuse, recycle, and waste acceptance criteria (DOE, 1999b). The Radioactive Waste

Management Complex would accept packages with radiation limited to 500 mR/hr at 1 m [3.3 ft];

however, the general practice is to limit waste container surface radiation to below 100 mR/hr.

Canister waste would be processed by surveying containers and cleaning and sectioning in the

fuel processing area using specially designed saws to ensure canister waste meets a radiation

limit of 50 mR/hr'prior to transfer to the Radioactive Waste Management Complex for further

sectioning and packaging for disposal (FWENC, 2003c, Section 6). 'No mixed waste is

expected to be generated by the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

The Radioactive Waste Management Complex Subsurface Disposal Area has a capacity of

about 50,000 m3 [70,000 yd3] (FWENC, 2003b). For the past 3 years, DOE has disposed

low-level radioactive waste at a rate of about 4,000 m3 [5,000 yd3] per year (FWENC, 2003b).

4-43
Environmental Impacts

The aforementioned estimated total volume of solid waste during proposed fuel receipt and

repackaging operations in Table 4-12 is about 400 m3 [500 yd3], representing a 3-percent

annual increase in low-level waste generation. Therefore, the increase in the waste generation

rate and estimated total volume of waste for the proposed action is small compared with the

current waste generation rate and existing disposal capacity.

In summary, no chemical effluents or wastes are planned to be generated from the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Small amounts of gaseous, particulate, and dilute liquid radioactive

wastes are planned to be generated by the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Control

systems planned for gaseous, particulate, and liquid radioactive wastes would contain releases

and limit exposures to workers and the public well below regulatory limits. Solid radioactive

wastes generated at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would consist of used waste

containers and process wastes, both classified as low-level radioactive waste. The INEEL site

includes a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility with the capacity to dispose of the waste

generated by the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Volumes of low-level solid waste

estimated to be generated by the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are a small fraction of the

annual INEEL site low-level waste generation and existing disposal capacity. INEEL and other

applicable low-level radioactive waste sites have been previously assessed for environmental

impacts; therefore, no significant environmental impacts are expected from solid wastes.

Overall, waste management activities associated with the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

are designed to limit waste volumes and maintain exposures ALARA. Only small environmental

impacts are expected to result from overall waste management activities.

4.14 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts (effects) refer to the impacts on the environment that result from the

incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonfederal) or person

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but

Table 4-12. Estimated Volumes of Solid Low-Level Radioactive Wastea

Waste Type (M3) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Canister Waste 81 81 138 300

Process Generated 37 37 28 102

Total Volume 118 118 166 402

FWENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

' FWENC. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." Section 6. NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 2. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003.

NOTE: To convert meters cubed (m3 ) to yards cubed (yd3), multiply by 1.3079.

I

4-44
Environmental Impacts

collectively significant actions taking place during a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). This

definition encompasses the foliowing relative to this section:

* The action refers to the construction'and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility to be located adjacent to INTEC at INEEL.

* The direct and indirect incremental impacts of the proposed action are a key criterion in

determining if cumulative effects on localized and regional environmental and natural

resources, ecosystems', and human communities need to be addressed (e.g., if the

proposed action has no effects on a given resource, it is not necessary to address the

existing cumulative effects that have occurred on the resource).

* For those cumulative effects that need to be addressed, it is necessary to consider the

direct and indirect effects of past, present,'and reasonably foreseeable future actions on

the affected resources, ecosystems, and human communities (past actions can include

those prior to INEEL, as well as INEEL actions since 1949; present actions include those

in detailed planning, being constructed, and recently initiated; and reasonably

foreseeable future actions include those beyond mere speculation, but within the

timeframe for analysis).

* Direct effects are those effects caused by the proposed action, past actions, present

actions, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, that occur at the same time and place

as the respective actions (40 CFR 1508.8a); indirect effects are caused by the

respective actions and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still

reasonably foreseeable (indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects; other

effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density; or

growth rate; and related effects on air, water, and other natural systems, including

ecosystems) (40 CFR 1508.8b).

* The respective actions may have been, or would be, the result of decisions made by

various governmental levels (Federal, state, or local) or the private sector; further, such

actions may be on INEEL lands or offsite (the key is that common resources,

ecosystems, or human communities are affected).

* Cumulative effects need to be analyzed relative to a place-based perspective

(the situation at INEEL) on the specific resources, ecosystems, and human

communities affected.

* Each affected resource, ecosystem, and human community must be analyzed for its

sustainability and capacity to accommodate additional effects, based on its own time and

space parameters (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997).

A detailed methodology based on Council on Environmental Quality guidance (1997) is included

in Appendii C.

4-45
Environmental Impacts

4.14.1 Incremental Impacts of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

Section 8.1 and Table 2-1 contain a summary of the potential environmental impacts identified

for construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. These impacts were

abstracted from Sections 4.1-4.13. Detailed information on the assumptions, calculations, and

qualitative descriptions of the impacts is presented in the respective earlier sections.

Based on the impact analysis, all incremental impacts of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

would be small in the context of historical, current, and planned operations at INEEL. No

potential significant impacts have been identified from the construction and operation of the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility; however, cumulative effects are addressed for most of the

impact categories summarized previously. Cumulative effects on noise and visual/scenic

qualities are not addressed because of the temporary and localized nature of the noise impacts

from the facility, and the lack of visual intrusions from the facility in relation to its adjoining

location to INTEC.

4.14.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative effects assessment entails consideration of the incremental impacts of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility when added to the effects of past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions. Past actions can include those prior to the establishment of INEEL

(or its precursor names) in 1949 and other actions implemented at INEEL prior to the current

time. Examples of these past actions on INEEL lands include

* Farming and cattle and sheep grazing from 1860 through the 1940s;

* Bombing practice in the Central Facilities Area in the 1940s;

* Usage by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for subsistence and religious practices for

many decades prior to the 1 940s; and

* Development of the infrastructure and facilities at nine multiprogram areas within INEEL

by the DOE (or its precursor agencies); these program areas include INTEC, Test Area

North, Naval Reactors Facility, Test Reactor Area, Central Facilities Area, Power Burst

Facility, Auxiliary Reactor Area, Argonne National Laboratory-West, and the Radioactive

Waste Management Complex (see Figure 3-2 for the location of these areas).

The cumulative effects of past actions are summarized in Table 4-13 and described in more

detail in Appendix C. Cumulative effects concerns are divided into four groups-major, modest,

minor, and none. No cumulative effects concerns exist for noise because of the localized and

transient nature of noise impacts. There are no cumulative effects concerns for visual and

scenic issues because of INEEL compliance with current guidelines. Additional information on

the rationale for the grouping of each remaining affected environment is presented in

Section 4.14.3.

Current actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions include those identified in the DOE

programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995), the Idaho High-Level Waste (HLW) and Facilities

Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a), and the EIS on the ISFSI for Three-Mile Island Unit 2 Spent Fuel

4-46
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-13. Summary of the Cumulative Effects Concerns Related to Past Actionsa

Affected

Environment Category Cumulative Effects Concerns

Land Use E Moderate concerns because small land use changes can

.___________________ . ____________ impact many other environmental features

Transportation HC Small concerns because adequate highways and onsite

roads exist, along with a rail system in the region

Geology and Soils R Some soil contamination exists in and around the INTEC

facility, thus, a small concern exists

Water Resources- R Small concerns because surface water is not used as a

Surface Water water supply, the quality meets applicable standards, and

wastewater treatment systems exist at INEEL

Water Resources- R Groundwater usage is well within INEEL water rights;

Groundwater however, contaminated soils in the vadose zone and

groundwater underlying the INTEC facility suggest a large

cumulative effects concern

Ecology E Small concerns because the large majority of the INEEL area

supports a diversity of flora, fauna, threatened or

endangered species, and wetlands

Air Quality R Moderate concerns because atmospheric transport can be a

major cumulative effects pathway; however, current

radiological and nonradiological air qualities are in

compliance with applicable Federal and state standards

Noise R No concerns because of localized and transient nature of

noise sources at INEEL and in the region

Historic and Cultural HC Small concern with regard to eligible historic structures;

major concerns because of cumulative effects on the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of continued restricted access

Visual and Scenic HC No concerns because the land uses both onsite at INEEL

and on the adjacent lands are compatible with the Bureau of

Land Management Visual Resource Management Guidelines

Socioeconomic HC Large beneficial cumulative effect because the overall

operations of INEEL represent a significant contribution to

the regional economy

Environmental HC Small concern because three recent impact studies indicated

Justice no disproportionately high adverse human health or

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations

Public and HC Moderate concerns because of cumulative exposures to

Occupational Health INEEL workers and to the general public living nearby; both

and Safety radiological and nonradiological stressors exist

Waste Management R Large concerns due to the quantities of radioactive wastes

and spent nuclear fuel stored at INEEL

E = ecosystems HC = human communities

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

INTEC = Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

R = resources

a See Appendix C of this report.

I

4-47
Environmental Impacts

(NRC, 1998). Table 4-14 includes the projects considered to be within the current actions and

reasonably foreseeable future actions based on the earlier DOE analysis (DOE, 1995). These

actions are part of the projected baseline (i.e., the future without the proposed action

conditions). The project Dry Fuel Storage, Fuel Receiving, Canning/Characterization, and

Shipping includes the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part B,

Appendix C).

Additional onsite reasonably foreseeable future actions included in this cumulative effects

assessment are listed in Table 4-15. Information related to the closure of various INTEC

facilities identified in Table 4-15, including a list of facilities and their closure actions,

deactivation activity period, and demolition activity period is provided in the Idaho HLW and

Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a, Section 5.4).

As part of the preparation of the Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002a),

discussions were held with the City of Idaho Falls, the State of Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality, and the BLM regarding anticipated future activities that could contribute

to a cumulative impact on a particular resource or through a particular pathway within the

geographical boundaries of the study. No specific offsite reasonably foreseeable future actions

were identified for inclusion in the analysis.

4.14.3 Magnitude and Significance of Cumulative Effects

The magnitude of cumulative effects resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions is addressed using a three-step process: (i) the cumulative effects of past actions

on selected resources, ecosystems, and human communities are discussed in Section 4.14.2

and summarized in Appendix C and Table 4-13; (ii) the cumulative effects of current actions and

reasonably foreseeable future actions are included in Table 4-16; and (iii) the incremental

impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are

summarized in Section 8.1. A discussion of the magnitude of the additive cumulative effects

and their significances, is presented in this section. Prior to the discussion, however, some

clarifying comments regarding Table 4-16 are in order.

* The data and information in Table 4-16 were extracted from the comprehensive systems

model described in DOE (1995). The systems model included all SNF, HLW,

transuranic waste, low-level waste, mixed low-level waste, hazardous waste, and

industrial waste activities. The model was based on planned treatment, storage, and

disposal activities at INEEL, EIS project summaries, and operating parameters of

existing facilities, and was updated to reflect projects included in the DOE programmatic

SNF EIS record of decision and other projects that occurred subsequent to that EIS.

* The data and information listed for the Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE,

2002a) represent the largest impact from the alternatives analysis contained in that EIS.

* In Table 4-16, column New Silt/Clay Source was included as a separate reasonably

foreseeable future action because excavation of silt and clay for use in NEEL operations

and remedial activities would be needed; further, these materials may be required to

support facility disposition activities at INTEC (DOE, 2002a, Section 5.4).

448
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-14. Current Actions and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Identified in

the DOE Programmatic EIS on SNF and Included in the Projected Baseline Conditionsa

Borrow Source Silt Clay

Calcine Transfer Project

Central Liquid Waste Processing Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning

Dry Fuels Storage Facility, Fuel Receiving, Canning/Characterization, and Shipping

Environmental Assessment Determination for CPP-627

Experimental Breeder Reactor-lI Blanket Treatment

Experimental Breeder Reactor-l Plant Closure

Expended Core Facility Dry Cell Project

Engineering Test Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning

Fuel Processing Complex (CPP-601) Decontamination and Decommissioning

Gravel Pit Expansions (New Borrow Source)

Greater-Than-Class C Dedicated Storage

Headend Processing Plant (CPP-640) Decontamination and Decommissioning

Heath Physics Instrument Lab

High-Level Tank Farm Replacement (upgrade phase)

Increased Rack Capacity for CPP-666

Industrial/Commercial Landfill Expansion

Material Test Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning

Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

Nonincinerable Mixed Waste Treatment

Partnership Natural Disaster Reduction Test Station

Pit 9 Retrieval

Private Sector Alpha-Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment

Radioactive Scrap/Waste Facility

Remediation of Groundwater Facilities

Remote Mixed Waste Treatment Facility

Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory Replacement

Radioactive Waste Management Complex Modifications for Private Sector Treatment of

Alpha-Mixed Low-Level Waste

Sodium Processing Plant

Test Area North Pool Fuel Transfer

Tank Farm Heel Removal Project

Treatment of Alpha-Mixed Low-Level Waste

Technical Support Annex Enclosure and Storage Project

4-49
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-14. Current Actions and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Identified in

the DOE Programmatic EIS on SNF and Included in the Projected Baseline

Conditionsa (continued)

Vadose Zone Remediation

Waste Calcine Facility (CPP-633) Decontamination and Decommissioning

Waste Characterization Facility

Waste Handling Facility

Waste Immobilization Facility

Waste Experimental Reduction Facility Incineration

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy EIS = Environmental Impact Statement

SNF = spent nuclear fuel

DOE. DOEfEIS-0203-F, 'Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final

Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

* In Table 4-16, column Disposition of Unrelated INTEC Facilities addresses impacts of

the disposition of the facilities listed in DOE (2002a, Section 5.4).

* In Table 4-16, column Percolation Pond Replacement is included because residual

contamination left in place from Waste Area Group 3 activities would contribute to the

source for long-term risks associated with INTEC. DOE has chosen to remediate

contaminated perched water at Waste Area Group 3 using institutional controls with

aquifer recharge control. This choice would entail restricting future use of contaminated

perched water and future recharge to contaminated perched water and taking the

existing INTEC percolation ponds out of service and replacing them with new ponds built

outside the zone influencing perched water contaminant transport (DOE, 2002a,

Section 5.4).

* Table 4-16 does not include summary information on impacts to transportation, noise,

visual/scenic, environmental justice, public and occupational health and safety, and

waste management. Noise and visual/scenic impacts are excluded because of small

existing concerns and the small incremental impacts of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility. The other impacts are addressed in the following paragraphs.

For land use, existing industrial development at INEEL occupies 4,600 ha [11,400 acres] of a

total resource of 230,850 ha [570,000 acres] (nearly 2 percent). Modest cumulative effects

concerns are related to these past and present actions because it is recognized that even

though the percentage of land use is small, such land use changes can affect other resources,

ecosystems, and human communities. Implementation of all current and future actions, as

shown in Table 4-16 (for the period 2000-2095), would lead to the conversion of an additional

about 650 ha [1,600 acres] to industrial use. The total industrial land use would increase to

2.3 percent. Finally, the incremental impact of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be

an additional 3.2 ha [8 acres] of land permanently converted to industrial use. Total industrial

land use at INEEL would increase to about 5,270 ha [13,008 acres] (still about 2.3 percent).

4-50
Environmental Impacts

Table 4-15. Summary of Current Actions and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Identified in the Idaho HLW and Facilities Dispositiona

Project Description

Programmatic SNF EISb DOEb provided the scope and timetable for SNF and

environmental restoration activities to be included in the

cumulative impact analysis of DOE.'

Advanced Mixed Waste Retrieve, sort, characterize, and treat mixed low-level

Treatment Projectc waste and about 65,000 m3 [85,000 yd3j of

alpha-contaminated mixed low-level waste and

transuranic waste currently stored at the INEEL

Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Package

the treated waste for shipment offsite for disposal.

Waste Area Group 3 Ongoing activities addressing remediation of past

Remediationc releases of contaminants at INTEC.

New silt/clay source development INEEL activities require silt/clay for construction of soil

and use at INEEL caps over contaminated sites, research sites, and

landfills; replacement of radioactivity contaminated soil

with topsoil for revegetation and backfill; sealing of

sewage lagoons; and other uses. Silt/clay will be mined

from three onsite sources (ryegrass flats, Spreading

Area A, and Water Reactor Research Test Facility).

Closure of various INTEC Reduce the risk of radioactive exposure and release of

facilities unrelated to Idaho HLW hazardous constituents and eliminate the need for

and Facilities Disposition EIS extensive long-term surveillance and maintenance for

Alternativesa obsolete facilities at INTEC.

Percolation Pond Replacement DOE intends to replace existing percolation ponds at

INTEC with replacement ponds about 3,110 m [10,200 ft]

southwest of the existing percolation ponds.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy EIS = environmental impact statement

HLW = high-level waste

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory INTEC = Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

SNF = spent nuclear fuel

DOE. DOEIEIS-0250, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002. -. DOEJEIS-0203-F, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final

Environmental Impact Statement.' Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

c Included in the baseline conditions identified in DOEb.

4-51
U'h

Table 4-16. Maximum Impact from Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects'b

New Silt/Clay

Source

Development Disposition of Percolation

Waste Facility and Use at Unrelated INTEC Pond Proposed Idaho Spent Resource Area Processing' Disposition' SNF Management INEEL Facilitieso Replacement' Fuel Facility'

Land 8.9 ha None 545.1 ha 8.5 ha/yr and None 6.9 ha 7.3 ha Resources/ 9.7 ha/yr Acres Disturbed

Socioeconomics Direct Direct peak year Overall decrease in None/use of Small numbers of None/use of Direct employment of employment employment of employment existing workforce workers drawn existing workforce 250 during construction; of 870 during 790 from existing 60 during first 3 years of construction, labor pool operation 530 during

operations

Air Resources Consumption No health- Below applicable Short-term Emissions of Temporary Temporary emissions of

up to based standards standards elevated levels of fugitive emissions of fugitive dust and 40 percent of exceeded fugitive dust and dust/vehicle fugitive dust and vehicular exhaust during prevention of exhaust exhaust during vehicular exhaust construction activities; significant emissions demolition during no chemical air deterioration activities construction discharges during increment/no activities operations, radiological health-based emissions are standards controlled by filtration exceeded and monitoring

Water 352 million Increase of Increase of Water use for Within existing Relocation of 3.41 million L during first Resources/ Uyr; negligible 41.6 million Uyr; 314.2 million L/yr; dust suppression; water use; latent ponds reduces year of construction, Groundwater latent cancer latent cancer latent cancer fatality no additional cancer fatality potential for 1.7 million Ltyr during Withdrawal and fatality risk fatality risk of risk of 5 x 10-5 latent cancer risk of 2 x 10 contaminant operations; no planned Contamination 2.9 x 10'4 from fatality risk from closure of migration liquid discharges from facility CPP-633 the facility disposition

Ecological 8.9 ha None 545.1 ha 8.5 ha and None 1.5 ha 7.3 ha Resources/ 9.7 ha/yr Acreage Loss

m

-

0

CD

a,
Table 4-16. Maximum Impact from Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable ProJectsb (continued)

New SiltClay

Source

Development Disposition of Percolation

Waste Facility and Use at the Unrelated INTEC Pond Proposed Idaho Spent

Resource Area Processing' Disposition' SNF Managementb INEEL' Facilities' Replacement' Fuel Facilityc

Geology and Negligible Negligible (use 1,355,000 m3 3,517,000 m3 as Materials Soil disturbance Soil disturbance on

Soils (use of of existing onsite a silt/clay source obtained from on 6.9 ha 7.3 ha; materials

existing onsite sources) existing INEEL obtained from existing

sources) sources INEEL sources

Cultural Negligible Potential for loss 70 structures and No significant Potential for loss Surveys will be Two structures 

Resources of historic data 23 sites affected resources of historic data on conducted/ potentially eligible for the

on nuclear identified In nuclear facilities resources National Register of

facilities survey of 40-acre avoided Historic Places are near

plots at each current storage locations

onsite location or proposed transfer

routes; no identified

-; .. .. . culturac resources-.

_01

CA)

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

EIS = Environmental Impact Statement

HLW = high-level waste

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

INTEC = Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

SNF = spent nuclear fuel

I DOE. DOEIEIS-0250, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement.' Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

b -. DOEIEIS-0203-F, oDepartment of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

See Table 2-1 of this report for a detailed summary.

NOTE: To convert hectares (ha) to acres, multiply by 2.471; meters cubed (m3) to yards cubed (yd'), multiply by 1.3079; liters (L) to gallons (gal), multiply by 0.2642.
Environmental Impacts

As a result, moderate cumulative effects concerns would persist; however, these can be

minimized via careful land use planning that involves land use conversions to industrial

development in or near areas that have been previously used for such purposes.

For transportation and infrastructure, existing conditions include six highways and one rail line

providing access to INEEL. Further, 140 km [87 mi] of paved roads are located within INEEL.

These transportation components have been previously analyzed for cumulative radiological

impacts because of shipments of radioactive materials to INEEL (DOE, 2002a). Another

perspective is to consider the adequacy of the capacity (levels-of-service) of the transportation

system for the volume of worker and shipment ingress to INEEL and egress from INEEL. From

this perspective, only small cumulative effects concerns exist, and no level-of-service changes

are currently needed. Further, even with the implementation of all current and planned or

proposed future actions at INEEL, traffic volumes are not expected to increase. Incremental

impacts of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility on traffic volume would be small; however,

the transfer of currently stored SNF from INTEC to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

would be required for planned operations. The traffic volume would be low, and the transfers

would be made in accordance with the requirements of the DOE orders and procedures for

onsite SNF transfer. As a result, no changes are anticipated in the small cumulative effects

concerns for transportation.

For geology and soils, the primary issue from past and present actions is that soils have been

disturbed in areas where the land use has been converted to industrial activities. Soil losses

have occurred via erosion, and some soils at specific locations have become radiologically

contaminated. More specifically, some soil contamination exists in and around the INTEC

facility, thus, a small cumulative effects concern exists. Surveys do not show any existing soil

contamination at the proposed site for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The remediation focus of

many current and future actions listed in Table 4-16 would require some additional land

disturbance for the extraction of silt and clay for use as borrow material and the replacement of

the percolation pond at INTEC. The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would affect the soil at

the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site, and to some extent, at the adjacent construction laydown area (a

temporary impact). Therefore, the incremental impact of the proposed facility is not significant

within the overall geological and soil resources at INEEL. Further, because of the

planned remediation projects at NEEL, the current minor cumulative effects concern would

be reduced.

Regarding surface water resources, only minor cumulative effects concerns exist from past and

present actions. Surface water is not used as a water supply at INEEL, and its quality meets

applicable standards. Current and planned actions would also not require surface water use,

nor would the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Storm water control plans would be used for

current and planned actions and for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Wastewaters

generated at INEEL are currently handled via planned treatment systems, as would such

wastewater that may be generated by all current and future actions.

Past and current INEEL operations use groundwater as the water supply source. Current

annual water withdrawals from the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer total about 7.4 billion L

[2.0 billion gal], and these withdrawals are well within the allocated INEEL water rights that

permit a maximum consumption of 43.2 billion L [11.4 billion gall per year. Table 4-16 indicates

that current and future actions would require a maximum of 707 million L [187 million gal] on an

annual basis (an approximate 10-percent increase from current use, however, not on a

4-54
Environmental Impacts

continuing basis, and still well within the water rights). The incremental water use from the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is an increase of only 0.1 percent of the current water use.

Thus, the cumulative effects on groundwater use would not be significant.

A potential cumulative effects concern related to past and present actions is the contaminated

soils in the vadose zone and the contaminated groundwater underlying the INTEC facilities and

surrounding area. Planned and future actions are focused on remediation effects, thus, the

contamination would be reduced and more appropriately managed. No soil contamination has

been found at the proposed site of the facility (see Section 3.4.2), and only small groundwater

impacts are anticipated from construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility located adjacent to the southeastern boundary of INTEC.

Ecological resources associated with the undisturbed land at INEEL are diverse and include

15 vegetation associations and 280 different vertebrate species (46 mammal, 204 bird,

10 reptile, 2 amphibian, and 9 fish). Seven bird species, six mammals, one reptile, and six plant

species are listed as threatened or endangered, or species of concern, or other unique species.

Some wetland characteristics are exhibited by about 130 areas within the INEEL boundaries.

There are minor cumulative effects concerns from past and present actions because nearly

98 percent of INEEL lands still supports the diversity noted previously. Land use required for

current and future actions totals 650 ha [1,600 acres] (Table 4716), and the land requirement for

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is 3.2 ha [8 acres]. These current and future actions

would cumulatively affect 651 ha [1,608 acres] and increase the disturbed land area total to

2.3 percent (the past and present actions total is nearly 2 percent). Therefore, the ecological

diversity at INEEL should be maintained, and cumulative effects concerns would continue to

be small.

Regarding ambient air quality, the current radiological and nonradiological air quality at INEEL is

in compliance with applicable Federal and state standards. Modest cumulative effects concerns

currently exist, however, because atmospheric transport of radioactivity releases can be a major

pathway for the occurrence of cumulative health effects. Table 4-16 indicates that no

health-based air quality standards would be exceeded by the current and future actions,

although short-term elevated levels of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions would occur in -

localized areas. Consumption up to 40 percent of,prevention of significant deterioration

increments may occur from future waste processing. The incremental effects of the

construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would not be significant

when considered in relation to current and future radiological and nonradiological emission

inventories at INEEL.

Regarding historical and cultural resources at INEEL, no known resources would be lost as a

result of the construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Past and

present actions at INEEL probably have caused the loss or damage to historic buildings and

cultural sites; further, the major current concern is associated with the cumulative effects of

continued restricted access of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. As summarized in Table 4-16,

some historic structures and cultural resources sites may be impacted by current and future

actions. Moreover, the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and related

Federal and state laws would be followed for all current and future actions, including the

construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

4-55
Environmental Impacts

The 2001 INEEL workforce was about 8,100 workers; this represents about 6 percent of the

total work force in the region of influence. Thus, the operations at INEEL provide a major

beneficial cumulative effect on the socioeconomic characteristics of the region. Table 4-16

indicates that waste processing activities would sustain a maximum of 870 direct jobs during the

peak year (2013) of the construction phase and a maximum of 530 direct jobs during the peak

year (2015) of the operations phase (DOE, 2002a). Facility disposition activities would require

direct employment of up to 790 workers. Further, DOE anticipates these workers would be

drawn from the existing workforce through retraining and reassignment. When the workforce of

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is considered (a construction force of 250 for 2 years

and an operational force of up to 60 for the duration of the license), the incremental impacts are

small in relation to the current total and anticipated workforce. Accordingly, the cumulative

effects of the proposed facility on the workforce, when added to the effects of other reasonably

foreseeable future actions on the workforce, will be small and within normal INEEL

workforce fluctuations.

Regarding cumulative environmental justice impacts, the two recent programmatic impact

studies (DOE, 1995, 2002a), along with NRC (1998), all concluded there were no

disproportionate impacts. Table 4-13 lists small cumulative impact concerns, primarily because

of the potential for such impacts occurring over time. Regarding disproportionate impacts, none

were noted for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility; thus, there are no significant cumulative

environmental justice impacts.

Current annual individual exposures to airborne releases of radioactivity from past and present

actions are well below the 0.1 mSv/yr [10 mrem/yr] limit in 40 CFR Part 61 for onsite workers

and the MEI and considerably below the natural background level of 3.6 mSvlyr [360 mrem/yr].

Occupational doses for INEEL workers are also considerably below the annual occupational

dose limit of 50 mSv [5,000 mrem] in 10 CFR Part 20. Although the exposure levels are well

below the regulatory limits, however, there are moderate cumulative effects concerns because

of the human health nature of these effects. A detailed discussion of such effects from current

and future actions is found in DOE (2002a). The anticipated annual exposures from current and

future actions are still well below regulatory limits for INEEL workers and the MEL. Further,

because many current and future actions are related to remediation, annual public exposure

levels would be expected to decrease. Finally, the incremental impacts from the construction

and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility are also well below regulatory limits for

INEEL workers and the MEI.

A variety of radioactive wastes are currently stored, generated, or both at INEEL. These

wastes, resulting from past and present actions, represent a major cumulative effects concern.

Many current and future actions are focused on better management and control of existing

stored wastes, including reducing the potential for contamination of INEEL groundwater and air

quality. The purpose of the proposed ISFSI facility is to accomplish better management and

control of a portion of the SNF currently stored at INEEL (from the Peach Bottom reactor,

Shippingport reactor, and TRIGA reactors). Relative to the quantities of waste materials

currently stored and generated annually at INEEL, only small quantities of gaseous, liquid, and

solid low-level radioactive waste would be generated from routine and nonroutine activities

during SNF receipt and repackaging operations planned for the first 3 years of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. After the SNF is repackaged and stored, no gaseous releases, or

liquid or solid radioactive wastes are anticipated to be generated on a regular basis from the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

4-56
Environmental Impacts

4.15 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative .

For the no-action alternative, NRC would not grant the license and the proposed facility would

not be constructed. In this case, DOE would maintain current storage activities as described in

the DOE programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A, Section 5). Specific

information related to the no-action alternative for a generic dry fuel storage facility is provided

in the'DOE programmatic SNF EIS (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part A, Appendix C). Under the

no-action alternative, SNF stored at INEEL would be transferred and consolidated at existing

facilities at INTEC, including CPP-603 Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility, CPP-749, and

CPP-666. During a 3-year transition period, U.S. Navy SNF would continue to be received and

stored at INTEC (CPP-666) according to the terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. Existing

procedures and site-wide plans such as the Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (DOE,

2001b) and the INEEL Long-Term Stewardship Strategic Plan (DOE, 2002c) would continue to

be implemented by DOE and its contractors.

In the short term, no major upgrades or new facilities would be installed, and minor fuel

conditioning would be necessary for maintaining safe operation. Because there would be no

construction of new facilities, short-term impacts to geologic resources, land use, water

resources, and ecological, visual/scenic, and cultural resources would be small and the same

as those discussed in DOE (1995). Transportation and storage of the remaining TRIGA reactor

fuel would continue per an existing DOE record of decision (DOE, 1996a,b). Cumulative

impacts of the no-action alternative are addressed in the DOE programmatic SNF EIS

(DOE, 1995). In the longer term, current storage and fuel-handling facilities at INTEC will be

open and operational longer than planned. Ultimately, existing facilities will need to be modified

or facilities similar to those described in the proposed action will need to be built. For example,

the current storage location of Shippingport SNF at the INTEC Irradiated Spent Fuel Storage

Facility (CPP-603) will be modified to expand the hot cell and add a load-out facility in lieu of

the availability of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." Long-term impacts would be similar to

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, because SNF must be repackaged before shipment can

occur from INEEL to a national HLW geologic repository.

4.16 Decontamination and Decommissioning

In accordance with the 1995 Settlement Agreement among DOE, the State of Idaho, and the

U.S. Navy, SNF must be removed from Idaho by 2035. It is anticipated that SNF would be

transferred from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility to a geologic repository. The proposed

facility'would need to be decontaminated and decommissioned in accordance with the NRC

radiological criteria for the license termination rule (10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E) after the fuel is

removed. Current NRC criteria are presented in a consolidated decommissioning guidance

document (NRC, 2003e). According to the terms of its contract with FWENC to construct and

operate the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Faculty, and by a Statement of Intent submitted to NRC

(FWENC, 2003e, Appendix C), DOE is obligated to provide funding for decommissioning the

proposed facility.

Decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed ISFSI are anticipated to occur many

years in the future, and details of the activities are'"uncertain at this time. FWENC provided a

conceptual plan for decommissioning the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility as an appendix'to

its license application (FWENC, 2003e, Appendii C).'' The objective of the plan is to

demonstrate the facility can be decommissioned in a manner both economical and safe.

4-57 0
Environmental Impacts

The plan describes the costs and activities required for safely removing the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility from service and reducing residual radioactivity through remediation to a

level that permits release of the property and termination of the NRC license. Prior to beginning

decontamination and decommissioning of the site, the licensee at that time would be required to

submit a detailed plan to NRC for review and approval.

The primary areas of anticipated radioactive contamination at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility are the Transfer Area, Solid Waste Processing Area, HVACs, and those portions of

systems that contained radioactive fluids. Because the exterior of the storage canisters would

not contact the radioactive materials, the canisters should not become contaminated. After the

canisters are removed from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Site, the Storage Area

should require little or no remediation.

The decision concerning how to proceed with decontamination and decommissioning would be

made during the decommissioning planning phase (FWENC, 2003e, Appendix C). The decision

would be based on numerous factors, including

* NRC requirements and guidance;

* Physical condition of equipment and structures during a long-term period;

* Optimization of radiological aspects to minimize dose to workers and the public;

* Environmental impacts of the project;

* Existence of technical resources;

* Availability of waste management and disposal facilities;

* Costs; and

* Public opinion.

In its preliminary plan (FWENC, 2003e, Appendix C), FWENC assumed an approach to

decommissioning the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility that included decontaminating

equipment and building surfaces, demolishing and completely removing contaminated buildings,

and free release of as many items as possible for recycling/salvage in accordance with the NRC

release criteria.

FWENC intends to select construction materials and use preventive and protective methods

(ALARA principles) during operations to minimize the amount of actual decontamination

required during decommissioning. Based on this approach, FWENC assumes that a majority of

building surfaces and some equipment should be uncontaminated and released for unrestricted

use. Equipment and surface decontamination methods would also be chosen to minimize

secondary wastes and provide for the greatest amount of free-releasable items without

unnecessarily inflating costs.

Decommissioning activities would likely begin with the decontamination and removal of

equipment from the Transfer Area. Systems would be vacuumed or flushed, as appropriate, to

remove any residual materials, and contaminated filters would be removed from equipment for

safe disposal. As required by facility operation procedures, a complete history of materials

processed through the Transfer Area and facility maintenance activities would be maintained

along with accounts of. spills and clean-up actions. This historical record would be available for

making needed revisions to the decommissioning plan before final decommissioning operations

begin. Based on the preliminary plan, decommissioning of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

4-58
Environmental Impacts

Facility would be divided into to broad phases: (i) decontamination and dismantling and

(ii) site restoration.

The decontamination and dismantling phase would begin after all SNF has been transferred

from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility to a geologic repository. Major activities during this

phase include removing contaminated systems and components, decontaminating structures,

and performing a final radiation survey. The intent of this phase would be to reduce radioactivity

to acceptable levels, allowing termination of the NRC license. As noted previously, based on

the current design for the proposed facility, the anticipated areas of radioactive contamination

would be the Transfer Area, Solid Waste Processing Area, HVACs, and those portions of

systems that contained radioactive liquids. During this phase, contaminated systems and

components would be handled in one of two ways: (i) they would be decontaminated and

removed or (ii) they would be removed, packaged, and shipped either to an offsite processing

facility or to a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.

The site-restoration phase would begin immediately after the decontamination and dismantling

phase is completed, although some site-restoration activities may occur during the

decontamination and dismantling phase. The 'site restoration phase would involve the final

disposition of SSCs. SSCs required to'contain and control radioactive materials during

decommissioning activities would be identified and excluded from any restoration until no longer

required. These excluded systems then would be decontaminated and removed for the

performance of the final site survey. Site-restoration activities not involving radioactive

materials may be completed following termination of the NRC license. 

FWENC developed a 24-month schedule for decommissioning (FWENC, 2003e, Appendix C) to

support the preliminary decommissioning plan. During the decommissioning planning phase, a

final decommissioning schedule would be created. The sequence of decommissioning

activities would depend on access and material-handling restrictions or by worker exposure

considerations. All activities would be planned to minimize the spread of contamination. In

most parts of the facility, uncontaminated or only slightly contaminated items would be removed

first to avoid contamination or further contaminating them when more highly contaminated

equipment is removed. When uncontaminated equipment cannot be removed first, covers or

other protection would be used to minimize the spread of contamination. The proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility would be equipped with' cranes, hoists, forklifts, and lifting and transport

systems. These systems would be used to lift and transport components and equipment to

support decommissioning activities. Installed cranes, hoists, and other lifting devices would

be decontaminated and dismantled when they are no longer needed to support

decommissioning activities.

A final radiological survey would be performed to determine the condition of the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility site after decontamination activities have been completed. This survey is to

demonstrate that radiological conditions at the site meet the NRC license termination criteria. A

detailed plan for the survey would be submitted to th6e NRC for approval prior to the final survey

and submittal of the application for license termination. NRC has provided guidance for

developing the final radiological survey plan (Berger, 1992; NRC, 2000b).- The final survey

results would be provided to NRC to support license termination. The final survey would be

designed so that NRC can verify procedures, results, and interpretations.

4-59
Environmental Impacts

Release of the site, facility, and materials would be based on release criteria for surface

contamination, direct exposure, and soil and water concentrations consistent with the NRC

requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. NRC has provided consolidated guidance for

compliance with the site-release criteria (NRC, 1994, 2003e)

FWENC (2003e, Appendix C) provides a preliminary estimate of the decommissioning costs for

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The costs of activities involved in radiological

decommissioning as well as expenditures necessary to complete nonradiological

site-restoration activities are included in the cost estimate. The costs (in 2001 dollars) for

the selected decommissioning alternative have been estimated at $22,600,000 for radiological

decommissioning activities and $13,200,000 for nonradiological decommissioning activities

(site restoration).

The NRC requirements in 10 CFR 72.30(c) provide financial assurance methods acceptable for

decommissioning. Decommissioning of the facility would remain the responsibility of DOE in

accordance with its contract with FWENC. According to the terms of the contract, DOE would

work to give the contract a high priority and obligate additional funds as necessary to pay the

costs of decontamination and decommissioning (FWENC, 2003e, Appendix C). DOE has

submitted a Statement of Intent to provide decommissioning funding assurance, and FWENC.

has submitted a request for exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR 72.30(c) (FWENC,

2003e, Appendix C).

4.17 References

ANSI/ANS. Design Criteria for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage

Type)." New York City, New York: ANSI. 1984.

Belanger, R., J. Raudsep, and D.A. Ryan. DOE/ID-10497, Technical Support Document for

Air Resources Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs." Idaho Falls, Idaho: Science Applications International

Corporation. 1995.

Berenbrock, C. and L.C. Kjelstrom. DOE/ID-22148, Preliminary Water-Surface Elevations and

Boundary of the 100-Year Peak Flow in the Big Lost River at the Idaho National Engineering

and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho." U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations

Report 98-4065. 1998.

Berger, J.D. NUREG/CR-5849, "Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of

License Termination." Draft Report for Comment. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge

Associated Universities/Environmental Systems Division. June 1992.

BLM. "Final Environmental Impact Statement Eastern Idaho Wilderness Study." Idaho Falls,

Idaho: U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Idaho Falls District. 1986.

Boissonnade, A., Q. Hossain, J. Kimball, R. Mensing, and J. Savy. "Development of a

Probabilistic Tomado Wind Hazard Model for the Continental United States." Volume : Main

Report. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 2000.

4-60
Environmental Impacts

Brach, E.W. Issuance of Materials License SNM-2508 for the Three-Mile Island Unit 2,

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation." Letter (March 19) to W.E. Bergholz, DOE, Idaho

Operations Office. TAC Nos. L22283 and L22800. Washington, DC: NRC. 1999. [The

preceding document is available for public review through the NRC electronic reading room at

http://www.nrc.aov/readinp-rm/adams.html.] - -

Coats, D.W. and R.C. Murray. Natural Phenomena Hazards Modeling Project: Extreme

Wind/Tornado Hazard Models for Department of Energy Sites." UCRL-53526. Rev. 1.

Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 1985.

Council on Environmental Quality. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National

Environmental Policy Act." Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. 1997.

DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final

Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002a.

- . DOE/EIS-0250, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for

the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye

County, Nevada.". North Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management. 2002b.

DOE/ID-11008, "INEEL Long-Term Stewardship Strategic Plan." Rev. 0. Idaho Falls,

Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002c.

DOE/STD-1020-2002, "Natural Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria

for Department of Energy Facilities." Washington, DC: DOE. 2002d.

DOE/EIS-0250D-S, "Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a

Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada." North Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management. 2001a.

DOE/ID-10431, INEEL Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Industrial Activities."

Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2001 b.

"Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program:

Treatment and Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Amendment of the

Record of Decision for the Nevada Test Site." 'Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 38.

pp. 10061-10066. February 25, 2000.,

. DOE/EIS-0250D, "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for

the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye

County, Nevada." North Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management. 1999a.

DOE/ID-10381, "Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Reusable

Property, Recyclable Materials, and Waste Acceptance Criteria (RRWAC)." Rev. 9.

Washington, DC: DOE. 1999b.

4-61
Environmental Impacts

. DOE/ID-10425(98), "INEEL Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Construction

Activities-Generic Plan." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1998.

. DOE/EIS-0218-F, Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning

Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel EIS." Vol. 1. Washington, DC: DOE, Office of

Environmental Management. 1996a.

. Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed

Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear

Fuel; Notice." Federal Register. Vol. 61, No. 97. p. 25092. May 17, 1996b.

. DOEIEIS-0203-F, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE,

Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

. DOE/STD-1020-1994, "Natural Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria

for Department of Energy Facilities." Washington, DC: DOE. 1994.

FWENC. "Environmental Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0032. Rev. 2. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003a.

. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Response to

NRC Request for Additional Information Related to Environmental Review." Letter (March 7)

from R.D. Izatt to NRC. NRC Docket No. 72-25. TAC No. L20768. FW-NRC-ISF-03-0048.

Richland, Washington: FWENC. 2003b. [The preceding document is available for public

review through the NRC electronic reading room at http://www.nrc.oov/readina-rm/adams.html.]

. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003c.

. Emergency Plan, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0021. Rev. 2. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003d.

. License Application, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0127. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003e.

Hortness, J.E. and J.P. Rousseau. DOE/ID-22181, "Estimating the Magnitude of the 100-Year

Peak Flow in the Big Lost River at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory, Idaho." U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4299.

2003.

Idaho State Historical Society. Section 106 Review of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Storage

Facility. No Historic Properties-Monitoring Recommended." Letter (June 4) from S.P. Neitzel

to L.E. Kokajko, NRC. Boise, Idaho: Idaho State Historical Society. 2003. [The preceding

document is available for public review through the NRC electronic reading room at

http://www.nrc.oov/readinc-rm/adams.html.]

4-62
Environmental Impacts

Koslow, K.N. and D.H. Van Haaften. "Flood Routing Analysis for a Failure of Mackay Dam."

EGG-EP-7184. Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1986.

Lee, L.G., J.M. Mines, and B.B. Webb. "Assessment of Aircraft Impact Probabilities at the Idaho

Chemical Processing Plant." INEL-96-0110. Rev. 3. Idaho Falls, Idaho: LMITCO. 1996.

Lehto, W.K. "Traffic and Transportation." Engineering Design File ER&WM-EDF-0020-93.

Rev. 1. Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1993.

NRC. "Request for Concurrence on the Determination of Effect on Federally Listed Species and

Their Critical Habitats for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Storage Facility." Letter (April 21)

from L.E. Kokajko to K. Womack (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Washington, DC: NRC.

2003a. [The preceding document is available for public review through the NRC electronic

reading room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.]

"Clarification to April 21, 2003, Letter Requesting Concurrence on the Determination of

Effect on Federally Listed Species and Their Critical Habitats for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Storage Facility." Letter (June 3) from L.E. Kokajko to S. Arena (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

Washington, DC: NRC. 2003b. [The preceding document is available for public review through

the NRC electronic reading room at http //www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.]

"Request for Concurrence on the Determination of Effect on Historic Properties for the

Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Storage Facility." Letter (April 17) from L.E. Kokajko to S. Pengilly

Neitzel (Deputy Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer). Washington, DC: NRC. 2003c. [The

preceding document is available for public review through the NRC electronic reading room at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.]

Regulatory Guide 3.73, "Site Evaluations and Design Earthquake Ground Motion for

Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations."

Washington, DC: NRC, Office of Standards Development. 2003d.

NUREG-1757, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance-Final Report."

Vol. 1-Rev. 1. Vols. 2 and 3. Washington, DC: NRC. September 2003e.

"Initiation of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Process for the

Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Storage Facility." Letter (December 4) from L.E. Kokajko to

S. Pengilly Neitzel (Deputy Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer). Washington, DC: NRC.

2002. [The preceding document is available for public review through the NRC electronic

reading room at hftp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.]

NUREG-1567, Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities."

Washington, DC: NRC. March2000a.

NUREG-1575, "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual

(MARSSIM)." Washington, DC: NRC. August 2000b.

4-63
Environmental Impacts

. NUREG-1626, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and

Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation to Store the Three-Mile Island

Unit 2 Spent Fuel at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory."

Washington, DC: NRC. March 1998.

. NUREG-0800, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for

Nuclear Power Plants." Washington, DC: NRC. 1997.

. NUREG-1500, "Working Draft of Release Criteria for Decommissioning." Washington,

DC: NRC. August 1994.

. Regulatory Guide 3.48, "Standard Format and Content for the Safety Analysis Report

for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage)." Washington, DC:

NRC. 1989.

. Regulatory Guide 1.117, 'Tornado Design Classification, Revision 1.' Washington, DC:

NRC. 1978.

Pace, B.R. Cultural Resource Investigations for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory." INEELIEXT-2001-457. Idaho Falls,

Idaho: INEEL, Cultural Resource Management Office. 2001.

Ramsdell, J.V. and G.L. Andrews. NUREG/CR-4461, "Tornado Climatology of the Contiguous

United States." Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 1986.

Stamatakos, J., S-M. Hsiung, A.H. Chowdhury, M.P. Miklas, R.T. Green, and C.B. Connor.

"Review and Evaluation of Site Characteristics of Naval Reactors Spent Fuel ISFSI Site at

INEEL." CNWRA2001-001. Rev. 1. San Antonio, Texas: CNWRA. 2001.

The White House. "Executive Order 12898-Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice

in Minority and Low-income Populations." Federal Register. Vol. 59. pp. 7629-7633.

February 1998.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000 Census of Population and Housing." Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Request for Concurrence on the Determination of Effect on

Federally Listed Species and Their Critical Habitats for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Storage

Facility." Letter (June 10) from D. Mignogno to L.E. Kokajko, NRC. Chubbuck, Idaho:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Eastern Idaho Field Office. 2003. [The preceding document

is available for public review through the NRC electronic reading room at

httD://www.nrc.oov/readina-rm/adams.html (MS032110201).l

Woodward-Clyde Federal Services. "Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses for

the INEEL." Draft Letter Report. Idaho Falls, Idaho: LMITCO. 1996.

4-64
5 MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 Mitigation Measures During Construction and Operation

The types of impacts and potential mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized

in Table 5-1, based on the generic analyses presented in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) (DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part B,

Appendix C). As described in Section 4, most of the impacts from the proposed action are small

or negligible. Mitigation measures typically include monitoring and best-management practices,

such as using water to control fugitive dust and soil-retention methods to control erosion.'

5.2 Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs Conducted

by Other Agencies

Environmental monitoring is a key aspect of mitigating potentially adverse impacts that may

result from the proposed action. The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be one of many

facilities in the'Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The DOE

Idaho Operations Office is the principal INEEL manager, responsible for site services,

environmental control and management, and overall safety and emergency planning functions.

The day-to-day management and operation'of the facility is performed for DOE by Bechtel

BWXT Idaho, LLC, a consortium of Bechtel National, Inc., BWX Technologies Company, and

eight regional universities. In addition to environmental monitoring programs, site-specific

surveys have been conducted for archeological, historical, and cultural resources

(FWENC, 2003a).

In accordance with the organizational structure for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility,

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWENC) is responsible for the operational

monitoring programs within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site and relies on the DOE

Idaho Operations Office programs for monitoring outside the boundaries of the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility site (FWENC, 2003a,b). To prevent multiple organizations collecting

duplicate data and using varied methodologies, the INEEL Monitoring and Surveillance

Committee was formed in 1997. The Committee meets periodically to coordinate activities

among organizations with a stake in operations at the INEEL facility, including DOE; Bechtel

BWXT Idaho, LLC (the INEEL'Management and Operations contractor); Argonne National

Laboratory-West; INEEL and DOE contractors; the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes; the Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality; the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Administration; the U.S. Geological Survey; and the Environmental Surveillance, Education, and

Research Program. It is expected that FWENC will participate in this Committee and share in

the exchange of information related tomonitoring, analytical methodologies, and quality

assurance to coordinate efforts and avoid unnecessary duplication of data (FWENC, 2003a,b).

The environmental monitoring programs on the INEELinclude

Effluent Monitoring Program;

Drinking Water Program;

* Storm Water Monitoring Program; -

* Site Environmental Surveillance Program;

* Offsite Environmental Surveillance Program;

5-1
Mitigation Measures

Table 5-1. Summary of Potential Impacts and Potential Mitigation Measures'

Impact Area Potential Impact Potential Mitigation

Land Use Land disturbance and restricted Land previously disturbed and

access already in restricted access area;

no mitigation required

Geology and Soils Disturbance of soil Fugitive dust control; erosion

control; existing INEEL Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plans

Water Resources Water usage and runoff during Best management practice;

construction; no liquid effluent existing INEEL Storm Water

during operations Pollution Prevention Plans

Ecological Resources Endangered and threatened Preactivity surveys for sensitive

species; habitat fragmentation and protected species

conducted; no endangered or

threatened species identified.

Consultation with appropriate

Federal, state, and Tribal

agencies, as appropriate

Historic, Archaeological, or No known resources at proposed Surveys conducted; no

Cultural Resources Idaho Spent Fuel Facility resources identified. If resources

identified, INEEL issues

Stop-Work Order and prepares

mitigation plans in consultations

with affected Federal, state, and

Tribal agencies; existing INEEL

Cultural Resource Management

Plans

Air Resources Radiological operational Fugitive dust control, hazardous

emissions; toxic air pollutants; material control, and air

._________________________ fugitive dust monitoring both onsite and offsite

Public and Occupational Health Radiological and nonradiological Access control, facility design;

and Safety effects from normal operations safety analysis, emergency

and off-normal operations planning; NRC inspection and

surveillance; NRC annual

reporting requirements

Transportation Potential operational exposures Use of approved transport

from onsite SNF transfers; vehicles and containers,

transport of remaining TRIGA transport casks, qualified

fuel elements to INEEL equipment operators, and

shipment manifesting procedures

Waste Management Industrial wastes from Current waste management

construction and operations; programs at INEEL, including

low-level radioactive waste from waste minimization and recycling

operations

I

5-2
Mitigation Measures

Table 5-1. Summary of Potential Impacts and Potential Mitigation Measures' (continued)

Impact Area Potential Impact Potential Mitigation

Socioeconomics Up to 250 workers during peak Small proportion (less than

construction; 60 workers duning 5 percent) of total INEEL 

first years of operations workforce; minimal impacts

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy EIS = environmental impact statement

INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

SNF= spent nuclear fuel

TRIGA = Training, Research, and Isotope Research Reactors built by General Atomic

DOE. DOE/EIS-0203-F, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration' and Waste Management Programs Final

Environmental Impact Statement." Vol. 2, Part B, Appendix C. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations

Office. 1995.

* U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Monitoring Program;

* Meteorological Monitoring Program; and'

* State of Idaho/INEEL Oversight Program.

The FWENC monitoring program for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is discussed in

more detail in Section 6 of this EIS. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission also will prepare a

safety evaluation report to provide a detailed evaluation of compliance of the monitoring

program with the applicable regulations. The environmental programs managed by other

agencies at and around INEEL are described in DOE (2000) and summarized next.

5.2.1 Effluent Monitoring Program

This section summarizes the environmental monitoring programs conducted by others for the

DOE Idaho Operations Office at INEEL. -'

5.2.1.1 Radiological Effluents

There are six airborne emission sampling points for continuous monitoring of radionuclides at

INEEL, outside the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site. Of the six sample locations, two are

at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), adjacent to the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site. Data from each airborne sample location are reported monthly to

a centralized database, the Radioactive Waste Management Information System, operated by

Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC.

5.2.1.2 Nonradiological Effluents'

Nonradiological airborne effluents are monitored at the sources, the New Calcining'Facility

and at Argonne National Laboratory-West. The results are published in the INEEL

Non-Radiological Waste Management Information System annual reports. Nonradiological

liquid effluents are monitored from discharge points within INEEL and in Idaho Falls.

5-3
Mitigation Measures

5.2.2 Drinking Water Program

Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, monitors the INEEL production and drinking water wells for

chemicals, radiological, and bacteriological contaminations at INEEL facilities. The program

uses laboratories certified by the states where the analyses are accomplished (FWENC,

2003a). In the facilities not operated by Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, and that have a production

well, Argonne National Laboratory-West provides samples to INEEL for analysis. No new

production wells are within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site boundaries; therefore,

FWENC will not need to provide samples for analyses.

The production well and distribution water samples are analyzed for alpha- and beta-emitting

radionuclides. Tritium analyses are also performed on drinking water samples. Strontium-90

analyses are performed on samples from drinking water wells in the INTEC area, adjacent to

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site. Water samples are also tested for coliform

bacteria, volatile organic compounds, inorganic contaminants (lead and copper), nitrates, and

dissolved solids.

5.2.3 Storm Water Monitoring Program

As a requirement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General

Permit, INEEL developed and implemented programs for monitoring snow melt and rain runoff

for construction activities (DOE, 1998) and industrial operations (DOE, 2001). Samples are

collected and analyzed in accordance with NPDES sampling standards. A site-specific storm

water pollution prevention plan would be developed for construction activities at the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (FWENC, 2003a, Section 12.1).

5.2.4 Site Environmental Surveillance Program

The site environmental surveillance program has the overall responsibility for sampling air and

soil as well as measuring environmental radiation at various onsite locations. Some sampling is

also conducted offsite for comparison. Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, maintains the database

containing sampling and analytical information from this program. Sampling includes

* Low-volume air samplers;

* Atmospheric moisture samplers;

* Nitrogen dioxide/sulfur dioxide monitoring stations; and

* Environmental dosimeters.

5.2.5 Offsite Environmental Surveillance Program

The Environmental Surveillance, Education and Research Program conducts independent

environmental monitoring, using offsite laboratories to perform radiological and radiochemical

analyses. Samples are collected from a network of offsite, low-volume air and atmospheric

moisture samplers. The program also analyzes the following samples:

* Air samples from stations in Rexburg and Blackfoot to determine concentrations of

fine particulates;

* Drinking water samples from local communities;

5-4
Mitigation Measures

* Milk samples from regional dairies;

* Produce samples from private gardens;

* Wheat samples from regional grain elevators;

* Potato samples from storage warehouses;

* Tissue samples from sheep grazing on the INEEL and game animals;

* Soil samples from boundary locations; and

* Radiation readings from regional thermoluminescent dosimeters.

Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, also does offsite monitoring by collecting periodic precipitation

samples in Idaho Falls for tritium analysis -by liquid scintillation counting. The National Park

Service manages the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

program, a cooperative measurement effort governed by a steering committee composed of

representatives from Federal and regional-state organizations. The IMPROVE monitoring

program was established in' 1985 to aid in the protection of visibility in Class I areas. Part of the

program includes measuring fine suspended particles that are the primary cause of visibility

degradation. The program uses two samplers: one at Craters of the Moon National Monument

and Preserve and one inside INEEL (DOE, 2000).

5.2.6 U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Monitoring Program

Since 1949, the U.S. Geological Survey has monitored INEEL ground and surface water. The

U.S. Geological Survey maintains aquifer observation wells on or near INEEL. The wells are

monitored for water levels and radiological and nonradiological substances. The

U.S. Geological Survey collects water samples from selected onsite production wells and

groundwater monitoring wells and analyzes the samples for purgeable organic compounds.

Results of these studies are periodically published in U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources

Investigations Reports and Open-File Reports.

5.2.7 Meteorological Monitoring Program

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory

maintains meteorological stations in the vicinity of INEEL, which continuously measure

parameters including temperature, wind direction and speed, relative humidity, and precipitation.

A wind-profiling radar system on INEEL also makes continuous measurements. Data from the

stations are telemetered to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Idaho

Falls facility and archived.

5.2.8 State of Idaho/INEEL Oversight Program

Since 1990, the State of Idaho has operated an environmental surveillance program that

includes collection and analysis of air, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, water, soil, and milk

samples taken on and around INEEL. The program also has a network of pressurized ion

chambers, electric ion chambers, and environmental dosimeters.

-5-5
Mitigation Measures

5.3 References

DOE. DOE/ID-10431, INEEL Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Industrial Activities."

Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2001.

. DOE/ID-12082, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Site

Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1998." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations

Office. 2000.

. DOE/ID-10425(98), "INEEL Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Construction

Activities-Generic Plan." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1998.

. DOE/EIS-0203-F, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE,

Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

FWENC. "Environmental Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0032. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003a.

. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003b.

5-6
6 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND

MONITORING PROGRAMS

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be one of many active, proposed, and formerly

operational facilities at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL).

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho Operations Office is the principal INEEL manager

and has a comprehensive environmental monitoring program conducted on and around INEEL.

The INEEL Monitoring and Surveillance Committee was formed to prevent multiple

organizations from collecting duplicate data using varied methodologies. The environmental

monitoring programs at INEEL include -

* Effluent Monitoring Program;

* Drinking Water Program;

* Storm Water Monitoring Program;

* Site Environmental Surveillance Program; * Offsite Environmental Surveillance Program;-

* U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Monitoring Program;

* Meteorological Monitoring Program; and

* State of Idaho/INEEL Oversight Program.

Further information concerning these programs is discussed in Section 5 and presented in the

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWENC) environmental report (2003a). It is

expected that FWENC would participate in this committee and the associated monitoring

programs. FWENC is responsible for the operational monitoring programs within the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site and relies on these DOE Idaho Operations Office programs

outside the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6.3).

6.1 Radiological Monitoring

FWENC would be responsible for monitoring within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site

and would rely on existing programs for monitoring outside the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility site. Existing environmental programs on INEEL include the monitoring of effluents,

drinking water, snow melt and rain runoff, direct radiation, air, soil, offsite produce and animal

products, groundwater, surface water, and meteorology. This section describes the monitoring

performed on the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site. Based on FWENC (2003b,

Section 7.6.1.4), there would be no radioactive liquid discharges from the proposed facility.

Radiological monitoring for the preoperational and operational periods is presented in the next

two subsections.

6.1.1 Preoperational Radiological Monitoring

The preoperational radiological monitoring program would establish background information for

the site. Monitoring and sampling locations for the preoperational program are shown in

Figure 6-1. The background information would be compared to operational data and ultimately

with decommissioning survey results. The preoperational program would measure direct

radiation, airborne radionuclide concentrations within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

site boundaries, and radionuclide concentrations in the soil on the proposed site. Direct

radiation would be measured at the facility fence using 10 environmental thermoluminescent

6-1
0)

r~3

j11r. . QIJ JARSE

//1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Site Boundary|

Figure 6-1. Preoperational Environmental Radiation Monitoring Locations at the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

(Modified from FWENC, 2003b)

-I C

0 = -u w.

-I CL

(0 M

CD =

CD =

aCD

cn :

M

CD

C

I

CD

Bd
Effluent and Environmental Measurements

and Monitoring Programs

dosimeters that would be exchanged quarterly. After dust-generating activities are complete

and electric power is available, particulate air samplers would begin collecting data at four

locations (oriented at 90-degree intervals from the predominant wind direction, west-southwest).

The filter paper in the particulate air samplers would be collected weekly for analysis and

replaced. At the start of construction, five soil samples would be collected from random

locations and analyzed quarterly. Information gained during the preoperational phase of the

radiological monitoring program may be used to modify the plans for operational monitoring

(e.g., identify additional sampling locations).

6.1.2 Operational Radiological Monitoring

The operational monitoring program would demonstrate compliance with the exposure limits to

the public in 10 CFR 72.104 and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H. Similar to the preoperations

monitoring program, the operational program would measure direct radiation, airborne

radionuclide concentrations within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site boundaries, and

radionuclide concentrations in the soil on the proposed site (Figure 6-2). The environmental

thermoluminescent dosimeters at the fence would be exchanged monthly during operations.

Particulate air samplers would continue to collect data at the four preoperational locations plus

an additional location at the interior of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site. The filter

paper in the particulate air samplers would be collected weekly for analysis and replaced.

During operations, five soil samples would be collected from random locations and analyzed

quarterly. Additional sampling and analysis would be performed if routine outdoor surveys show

unexpected anomalies or after any incident involving a radioactive spill.

Particulates and gaseous radionuclides are expected to constitute the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility releases during operations. Specifically, the primary particulate radionuclides are

cesium-137/barium-137m and strontium-90/yttrium-90. The primary gaseous radionuclides of

concern are iodine-129, krypton-85, and tritium (hydrogen-3), which could be released as a

result of the fuel-packaging operations conducted in the Fuel Packaging Area. Facility effluent

monitoring at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would consist of stack sampling for

particulate radionuclides and stack sampling for iodine-129 and tritium. An isokinetic sampler in

the stack would determine effluent concentrations.

6.2 Nonradiological Monitoring

6.2.1 Preoperational Monitoring

Preoperational monitoring was used to collect baseline data on the proposed site. Much of this

baseline information is presented in Section 3 of this environmental impact statement (EIS).

Air sampling within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility during the preoperational phase

would begin after dust-generating activities are complete and would not include analysis for

nonradioactive constituents (FWENC,- 2003a, Section 6.1).

Soil sampling of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site was conducted in July 2000 as part

of a geotechnical investigation to determine site geotechnical characteristics (FWENC, 2003a,

Section 6.1). Soil samples also would be collected periodically from within the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility site boundaries during the preoperational phase; however, these samples

would not be analyzed for nonradioactive constituents (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6.1).

-6-3
G AI SAVMw

SLSAPLES

0a Q

c

Co C

CD

0. 0)

en 

C.

A

va 

3

Do

CD

n)

0)

1.

.f4-

Figure 6-2. Operational Environmental Radiation-Monitoring Locations at the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (Modified from FWENC, 2003b)
Effluent and Environmental Measurements

and Monitoring Programs

No surface or groundwater bodies are affected by the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Therefore, the environmental Monitoring programs do not need i6 include these areas (FWENC,

2003a, Section 6.1). Rainwater and snow melt from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

would be classified as storm water discharge and must be considered by the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process. Storm water permits fall into two

classifications-construction and industrial activities. For the construction storm water permit

process, the DOE Idaho Operations Office filed for a construction general permit as required by

Federal law (DOE, 1998). A site-specific Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

would be developed, but does not need to be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection

*Agency (EPA) (FWENC, 2003a, Section 12.1).;

INEEL has undergone a variety of ecological assessments in the last 10 years. Two of the most

recent were the Spent Nuclear Fuel Programmatic EIS (DOE, 1995) and the Idaho High-Level

Waste and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002). Because these assessments did not include

the proposed Idaho'Spent Fuel Facility site, FWENC sponsored a separate assessment by the

S.M. Stoller Corporation. The parameters and results of this assessment are summarized in the

applicant's environmental report (FWENC, 2003a, Section 4.3).

6.2.2 Operational Monitoring

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would have no chemical air discharges to the

environment. Nonradiological airborne effluents are monitored at the sources, the New Waste

Calcining Facility, and the Argonne National Laboratory-West (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6.3).

At the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, process ventilation would be filtered and discharged

through the monitored exhaust stack. Air sampling within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility would be limited to radiological constituents (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6.2).

No nonradiological soil sampling within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site would be

conducted during the operation phase (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6.1).

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, as part of INEEL, would become part of the site

environmental surveillance program. This' program has the overall responsibility for sampling air

and soil at various onsite locations. Some sampling also is conducted offsite for comparison.

Nonradiological constituents monitored in this program include nitrogen dioxide and sulfur

dioxide (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6.3).

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, as part of the INEEL, would become a part of the

offsite environmental surveillance program. The Environmental Surveillance, Education and

Research Program conducts environmental monitoring independent of the INEEL management

and operating contractor. This program analyzes samples from stations in Rexburg and

Blackfoot to determine concentrations of fine particulates. The National Park Service manages

a program called Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) to

measure fine particles that are the primary cause of visibility degradation. This program uses

two samplers--one at Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve and one inside

INEEL (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6.3). -

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would have no chemical liquid discharges to the

environment (FWENC, 2003a, Section 5.3).' Nonradiological liquid effluents are monitored from

discharge points within INEEL and in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Because no liquid effluents would be

6-5
Effluent and Environmental Measurements

and Monitoring Programs

discharged, no nonradiological monitoring is required of any liquid discharge at the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility does not require the addition of any new water supply

wells. The proposed facility would use water from the existing NEEL wells and would have

minimal impact on groundwater resources (FWENC, 2003a, Section 5.6).

The INEEL management and operating contractor monitors the INEEL production and drinking

water wells for chemical, radiological, and bacteriological contaminations. Facilities that the

INEEL management and operating contractor do not operate and that contain a production well

must provide samples for analyses to the INEEL management and operating contractor for

analysis. No production wells are within the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site boundaries.

Therefore, FWENC would not need to provide samples to the INEEL management and

operating contractor (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6.3). Production and drinking water wells

adjacent to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site would be monitored for nonradiological

constituents as part of the existing INEEL Environmental Monitoring Program.

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, as part of INEEL, would become a part of the

U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Monitoring Program. The U.S. Geological Survey

maintains aquifer observation wells on or near INEEL, which are monitored for nonradiological

substances. The U.S. Geological Survey also collects water samples from selected onsite

production wells and groundwater monitoring wells and analyzes the samples for purgeable

organic compounds (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6.3).

As a requirement of the NPDES General Permit, INEEL developed a program for monitoring

snow melt and rain runoff. The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be exempt from the

industrial activities storm water permit, because it is not included in EPA-identified sectors or

subsectors requiring this permitting process (FWENC, 2003a, Section 12.1). l

Because the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be within the INEEL boundary, annual

environmental assessments prepared for DOE would provide information updates related to the

INEEL ecological monitoring program (FWENC, 2003a, Section 6.1).

6.3 References

DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, "Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final

Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

DOE/ID-10425(98), INEEL Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Construction

Activities-Generic Plan." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 1998.

DOE/EIS-0203-F, "Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE,

Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

FWENC. "Environmental Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0032. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003a.

6-6
Effluent and Environmental Measurements

and Monitoring Programs

- . Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003b.

6-7
7 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) are

discussed in Section 4 of this environmental impact statement (EIS). This section summarizes

other costs and benefits associated with the proposed action and the no-action alternatives.

The economic costs and benefits provided by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

(FWENC) in its license application and environmental report (FWENC, 2003a,b) and the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)' are presented and supplemented as necessary with

additional assessments by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Center for

Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses staffs. In addition, this section summarizes the results of a

generic analysis for a Dry Fuel Storage, Fuel Receiving, Canning/Characterization and Shipping

Facility presented in the DOE programmatic spent nuclear fuel (SNF) EIS (DOE, 1995,

Volume 2, Part B, Appendix C, Alternative B).

7.1 Costs Associated with the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

An estimate of costs for construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is

provided by FWENC as part of its'license application (FWENC, 2003a). The estimate is based

on the assumption the proposed facility will be constructed on a 3.2-ha [8-acre] site adjacent to

the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC). In the FWENC analysis,

construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility was assumed to begin in July 2003, with

operations scheduled to commence in June 2005. Using the current schedule, construction

would begin later than these assumed dates. The differences in estimated costs, however,

likely would be small, and the FWENC estimates are suitable to evaluate cost and benefit of the

proposed action.

7.1.1 Costs Associated with Construction Activities

FWENC would design, construct, and initially 6perate the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

per contract with DOE. In accordance with the terms of the contract, after an initial payment by

DOE, FWENC would be responsible for funding the construction and initial operation of the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. FWENC estimates construction costs for the proposed

facility will be $119.6 million (2001 dollars) (FWENC, 2003a).

7.1.2 Costs'Associated with-Operational Activities

After the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is operational, DOE would make payments to

FWENC during the transfer and storage of the first 800 fuel-handling units of SNF. As defined

in the contract, one fuel-handling unit is equal to one fuel element for intact SNF. These

amortized capital costs total about $119.6 million (2001 dollars). In addition to the amortizing

payments, DOE also would make payments for the transfer and storage of the remaining SNF

at specific unit prices for each SNF type. The total payments inclusive of all fuel types 'could be

nearly $32.5 million (2001 dollars).

1DOE. DOE-ID-11003, Moving INEEL Spent Nuclear Fuel to the Repository." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho

Operations Office. Predecisional Draft. 2002.

7-1
Cost-Benefit Analysis

In accordance with the contract, poststorage operation and maintenance of the facility by

FWENC would be at the option of DOE. Pending the necessary transfer of the NRC license

from FWENC, DOE would have the contractual option to assume responsibility for the facility

after the initial fuel-handling, packaging, and storage operations. Should DOE desire that

FWENC continue as the licensee during the poststorage operations phase of the project, DOE

would pay FWENC almost $1.94 million (2001 dollars) per year.

7.1.3 Costs Associated with Decontamination and Decommissioning

As part of the contract with FWENC, DOE retains ownership of the SNF and remains financially

responsible for the eventual decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility. FWENC provided a proposed decommissioning plan (FWENC, 2003a,

Appendix C) that presents the estimated cost of dismantling, decontaminating, and

decommissioning the site at $22.6 million (2001 dollars) for radiological decommissioning

activities and $13.2 million (2001 dollars) for the nonradiological activities associated with site

restoration. The decommissioning cost estimates were derived using approaches from industry

and DOE guidance (TLG Engineering, 1986; DOE, 1994). Unit cost factors incorporating

site-specific considerations were used whenever practicable, and quantities and volumes of the

equipment and material expected to be removed during decommissioning were estimated using

proposed facility drawings. The cost estimate also includes peripheral costs such as preparing

work plans, writing procedures, and waste costs as described in DOE (1994). These costs are

summarized in Table 7-1 and described in more detail next.

7.1.3.1 Radiological Decommissioning Costs

The radiological decommissioning cost estimate provided by FWENC for the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility considers radiological decommissioning costs to be only those costs

associated with normal decommissioning activities necessary for the release of the site for

unrestricted use in accordance with the NRC radiological criteria for license termination in

10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The radiological decommissioning cost estimate does not include

those costs associated with SNF management or the disposal of nonradioactive structures

and materials.

Burial costs were derived from FWENC modeling and analysis of low-level radioactive

waste disposal costs. Contingencies were applied to each area of the cost estimate

(i.e., decontamination and dismantlement, waste disposal, final survey). No credit was taken

for equipment salvage value.

7.1.3.2 Nonradiological Decommissioning Costs

Although not required by the NRC regulations, FWENC included cost estimates for

nonradiological decommissioning activities conducted as part of site restoration. The cost

estimates considered nonradiological decommissioning costs to be those costs associated with

site remediation and demolition and removal of uncontaminated structures.

7-2
Cost-Benefit Analysis

Table 7-1.' Estimated Decommissioning Costsa

Activity -Estimated Cost (2001 Dollars)

Dismantlement, decontamination, and remediation $12,500,000

Waste disposalb - $6,300,000

Final survey - $3,800,000

Subtotal (radiological decommissioning costs) $22,600,000 --

Site-restoration total (nonradiological decommissioning) $13,200,000

Total Decommissioning Costs $35,800,000

FWENC = Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

' FWENC. License Application, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.' NRC Docket No. 72-25. ISF-FW-RPT-0127.

Rev. 3. Morris Plains, NewJersey.''FWENC.' 2003.:

b Waste disposal estimate based on construction debris landfill at $18-$24 per metric ton $16-$22 per ton];

low-level waste at $1,500-$60,625 per metric ton [$1,360-$55,000 per ton]; and special materials at $41,335 per

metric ton 1$37,500 per ton].

7.1.4 Other Costs Associated with the Proposed Action

Materials required for construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will

be similar to those for an industrial construction project. In the DOE programmatic SNF EIS

(DOE, 1995, Volume 2, Part B, Appendix C,-Altemative B), DOE provides generic estimates for

the costs of a facility similar to the FWENC design. These estimates are summarized for the

construction and operation phases in Table 7-2.

Construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would result in physical changes to the

3.2-ha [8-acre] tract for the proposed facility and the contiguous 4.1 -ha [1 0-acre] construction

laydown tract. Because these areas are small compared with the 2,305-km2 [890-miu INEEL,

the physical changes would be minor. These changes would restrict land use and access, but

this restriction would not affect the value of the land, because access to the property is

currently restricted.

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be constructed on Federal reserve land under

the jurisdiction of the DOE Idaho Operations Office. Therefore,' there would be no costs

associated with purchase of the land. Constructioi6 materials will include gravel, sand, concrete,

steel, aluminum, copper, plastics, and lumber, at costs comparable to those for a similar size

industrial facility. Other than special purpose items such as construction steel, SNF storage

containers, and other dedicated special equipment, materials are available regionally.

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility 6peration would likely have little effect on regional

economy. Transfer of SNF into new storage containers and placement in the vault would

require consumable materials such as filters, welding supplies, and other housekeeping

materials. Storage operations will require materials such as high efficiency particulate air filter

media and other housekeeping materials.

7-3
Cost-Benefit Analysis

Table 7-2. Costs Associated with a Generic Dry Fuel Storage Facility/Fuel Receiving,

Canning/Characterization, and Shipping Project?

Construction Operation

Dry Fuel Storage

Electrical 20 Megawatt hr/yr 200 Megawatt hrlyr

Fuel Diesel: 6,400 L [1,690 gal] ob

Solid Waste Generation Total: 37.5 m3 [49.0 yd31 Industrial: 10 m3/yr [13.1 yd3/yr]

Low-Level Waste: 5 m3/yr [6.5 yd3/yr]

CanninglCharacterization Facility

Electrical 30 Megawatt hr/yr 1,800 Megawatt hr/yr

Fuel Diesel: 10,000 L [2,640 gal] Fuel Oil: 300,000 L [79,260 gall

Solid Waste Generation Total: 37.5 m3 [49.0 yd3] Industrial: 490 m3

/yr [640 yd3lyr]

Low-Level Waste: 220 m3/yr [290 yd3/yrj

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy EIS = environmental impact statement

* DOE. DOE/EIS-0203-F, 'Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final

Environmental Impact Statement.' Vol. 2, Part B, Appendix C, Alternative B. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE. 1995.

b Normal operations. Backup diesel generators may require diesel fuel.

After SNF is transferred from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility to a national high-level

waste (HLW) repository, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be decommissioned. A

small portion of the materials used in construction would not be available for release and would

require disposal at a radioactive waste site. The rest of the materials would be recycled.

Therefore, most proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility construction materials would be available

for reuse or recycling.

Because the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be located more than 17 km [10.5 mi]

from the nearest community (Atomic City), there would be minimal impact on regional

communities. The distances of communities from the construction site would also limit impacts

from noise and other construction disturbances. Construction and operation would use regional

labor resources, and an influx of workers is not anticipated. Impacts to housing availability and

cost, transportation, or community infrastructures are expected to be small.

Because the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site is within INEEL, public access is controlled

by DOE and limited to the highways (US 20/26). The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would

not restrict public access to these rights of way or to archeological, cultural, or recreational sites.

7-4
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7.1.5 Impact of the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility on the

Programmatic 'Costs of SNF Management at INEEL

DOE estimated the programmatic costs of SNF management both with and without the

construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (FWENC, 2003). Taking

into account the strategy of employing the DOE standard storage container and the core

capability of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (FWENC, 2003c), the current life-cycle cost

estimate for sending all SNF managed by DOE at INEEL to a national HLW repository is

$2.815 billion (2001 dollars). This life-cycle cost considers the costs of the current contract

between DOE and FWENC for construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility plus the predicted cost of implementing any future modifications or enhancements to the

facility necessary to prepare the SNF for shipment to a national HLW repository. The estimates

of costs associated with modification, enhancement, or both include obtaining appropriate

amendments to any NRC license for the facility.

If the strategy of repackaging SNF in a DOE standard storage container is not implemented and

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is not constructed, the life-cycle cost estimate for

sending all DOE-managed SNF from INEEL to a national HLW repository is estimated to be

$3.069 billion (2001 dollars). This estimate assumes alternative facility approaches (essentially

making major modification to and extending the life of existing facilities) will be used in lieu of

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

The assumptions used to develop this programmatic life-cycle cost/benefit estimate include

* A national HLW geological repository will open and shipments of SNF will begin in fiscal

year 2010.

* Shipments to a repository will be complete by January 1, 2035.

* Certain facilities will be open and operational longer than planned if the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility is not built to meet the previous assumptions.

* The INTEC Irradiated Spent Fuel Storage Facility (CPP-603) would be modified to

expand the hot cell and add 'a load-out facility in lieu of the availability of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

* Standard rail casks and cost of transportation to a repository are provided by the Office

of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at no charge to INEEL.

* The full cost of fuel characterization programs deemed necessary for shipment of bare

fuel to a geologic repository, though potentially significant, is not factored into this

programmatic cost-benefit analysis. -

Thus, the current estimate of programmatic cost-benefit to the government of employing the use

of the DOE standard storage container and the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is, at a

minimum, $251 million (2001 dollars) (FWENC,f2003d).

7-5
Cost-Benefit Analysis

7.2 Benefits Associated with the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

Construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would have a minor

positive effect on the regional economy. Socioeconomic benefits include using regional workers

for construction of the proposed facility and increasing sales of materials for regional suppliers

throughout construction. Because the work force would be small relative to the number of

employees at INEEL, the proposed action would not result in a regional growth spurt, and there

would be no significant adverse impacts to the infrastructure of public services and

transportation systems (see Section 4.10).

The proposed action is designed to support the INEEL mission and comply with agreements

and commitments negotiated by DOE. Currently, most SNF to be received by the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is stored at INTEC. The 1995 Settlement Agreement among the DOE,

the State of Idaho, and the U.S. Navy established specific activities required to remove SNF

from Idaho by 2035. Although the current storage configuration has worked well, it does not

prepare the SNF for shipment from INEEL to a national HLW repository. The proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility would provide the ability to remove the SNF from existing storage locations,

place it in specially designed storage containers, then seal and place the loaded containers in

interim storage. The new containers would be designed for compatibility with transportation

systems and with the eventual permanent disposal systems. After the SNF is placed in the

containers, it would not need to be repackaged for shipment to a national HLW repository when

one becomes available.

7.3 References

DOE. DOE/EIS-0203-F, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE,

Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

DOE/EM-0142P, Decommissioning Handbook. Washington, DC: DOE. 1994.

FWENC. License Application, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0127. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003a.

Environmental Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0032. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003b.

. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003c.

'Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Response

to NRC Request for Additional Information Related to Environmental Review." Letter (March 7)

from R.D. zatt to NRC. FW-NRC-ISF-03-00,18. NRC Docket No. 72-25. TAC No. L20768.

Richland, Washington: FWENC. 2003d. [The preceding document is available for public

review through the NRC electronic reading room at http://www.nrc.qov/readin--rm/adams.html.]

7-6
Cost-Benefit Analysis

TLG Engineering. Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plan

Decommissioning Cost Estirmates." AIF/NESP-036. Bridgewater, Connecticut: TLG Services,

Inc. 1986.

7-7
8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Information on the adverse impacts to the affected environment at the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (NEEL) that cannot be avoided for this proposed

action is given in Section 4 of this environmental impact statement (EIS). The environmental

impacts from the proposed action are small nd will be mitigated by methods described in

Section 5. 'Monitoring methods are described in Section 6. Comparison with the potential

impacts from the proposed action to those of the no-action alternative is provided in Table 2-1.

Detailed analysis of the potential impacts on public health and safety is provided in the safety

evaluation report to be prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Following

is a brief summary of the impacts presented in Section 4 with topical areas classified as

resources, ecosystems, or human communities.

* Land Use (Section 4.1 )-Ecosystem: Construction activities to occur on an 3.2-ha

[8-acre] facility site and an adjoining 4.1-ha [10-acre] laydown area. The 7.3 ha

[18 acres] are adjacent to Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC)

and have been previously disturbed by other construction activities and land uses.

Potential operation impacts include restricted access to the 3.2-ha [8-acre] facility site;

and the use of the site for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) receiving, packaging, and storage.

* Transportation (Section 4.2)-Human Community: Operation impacts are related to

transfer of the currently stored SNF at INTEC, a distance of 800 m [2,600 ft] or less, to

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Shipments would be made in U.S. Department

of Energy (DOE)-supplied casks loaded on trailers. Movement of the SNF within the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility' would be conducted in accordance with the DOE

procedures and orders for SNF transfers within the INEEL complex.

* ' Geology and Soils (Section 4.3)-i-Resource: Construction-related impacts to soil would

occur on the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site and, to some extent, on the 4.1-ha [10-acre] laydown

area. Excavation, earthmoving, and grading would occur on the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site.

There is no contamination at the site above regulatory limits.. No significant construction

or operation impacts would occur on mineral deposits or unique geological resources.

* Water Resources-Water Quality (Section 4.4.1 )-Resource: Construction phase

impacts would be minimal to both surface water quality and groundwater quality. A

storm water pollution prevention plan will be implemented. The proposed site is

140-146 m [460 to 480 ft] above the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Water used for

construction phase'dust control would evaporate or seep into surface soils. No new

groundwater wells or percolation ponds would be required.

* Water Resources-Water Use (Section 4.4.2)-Resource: During the first year of

construction, about 1.5 million L [396,000 gal] of water would be used for dust

suppression, with an estimated additional 1.91 million L [505,000 gal] for concrete

production at the site.~ During the second year of construction, it is estimated that water

needs would be reduced by half. Drinking water use during operation would be nearly

141,950 Umo [37,500 gal/mo]. These tvo amounts are a small fraction of the

8-1
Summary of Environmental

Consequences

7.4 billion L [2.0 billion gal] used annually at INEEL and the annual withdrawal of

43 billion L [11.4 billion gal] permitted by the DOE/State of Idaho Water Rights

Agreement. Wastewater treatment requirements would be met via existing

INTEC facilities.

* Ecological (Section 4.5)-Ecosystem: Small impacts from the construction and

operation of the facility would be anticipated. There are no wetlands or habitats for

threatened or endangered plant or animal species at the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site or 4.1-ha

[10-acre] laydown area. Secondary impacts on wildlife from noise and various human

activities would also be small.

* Air Quality (Section 4.6)-Resource: Construction-related fugitive dusts and exhaust

emissions would be temporary and highly localized. With construction phase watering,

the fugitive dusts and particulates would be about 8.2 metric tons [9 tons]; this is a small

amount in relation to the INEEL emission inventory for particulates. No impacts to

radiological air quality are anticipated from construction activities. During operation,

there would be no chemical air discharges, and the vehicular exhausts would be small

and within limitations. Therefore, no significant impacts to nonradiological air quality are

anticipated. Facility operations would not be expected to result in the atmospheric

discharge of significant amounts of gaseous radioactive effluents. The facility would be

fully enclosed and includes a special ventilation system along with high efficiency

particulate air (HEPA) filters. Monitoring of stack emissions for particulate radionuclides,

iodine-129, and tritium would be used to identify any releases.

* Noise (Section 4.7)-Resource: Construction phase noise levels would be typical of

industrial areas; further, the noise would be temporary and highly localized. Noise from

construction and operation traffic would be small in relation to existing traffic noise levels

in the INTEC area. Potential noise levels from operations would be less than those from

construction. Hearing protection will be required for workers per 29 CFR 1910.95. No

unique noise receptors are in the vicinity of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Therefore, noise impacts are not expected to be significant.

* Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological (Section 4.8)-Human Community: There are

no known historical and cultural resources, or paleontological resources, within the

3.2-ha [8-acre] site and the 4.1-ha [10-acre] laydown area. Thirty-eight buildings and

structures within INTEC are potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic

Places, but only one of these (CPP-603) is near the area that would be affected by the

construction of the proposed facility and the transfer of SNF. The proposed facility

would not introduce a built environment in a pristine natural setting. There are potential

cumulative effects from withdrawal of access to the proposed 7.3-ha [18-acre] site by the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, however, these lands are already contained within the

limited access buffer area around INTEC.

* Visual/Scenic (Section 4.9)-Human Community: Because of its smaller scale in

relation to the adjacent INTEC facilities, construction and operation of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would not cause significant visual impacts to the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) Class IV rating for the INTEC area. Fugitive dusts and

exhaust emissions from construction would not impair the BLM Class IlIl rating of lands

8-2
Summary of Environmental

Consequences

adjacent to INEEL nor would the minimal-to-nil releases of radioactive particulates and

gases during operations. No significant visual or scenic impacts are anticipated.

Socioeconomic (Section,4.10)- Human Community: Construction of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is scheduled to last about 2 years. This phase would employ a

maximum of 250 workers, about 3 percent of the current INEEL workforce of 8,100.

Because most of the workers would likely come from the existing INEEL workforce,

the construction phase would not have significant socioeconomic effects on

-population growth, employment levels, housing, and infrastructure. Forthe first

3 years of facility operations, when fuel receipt and packaging occurs, about

60 employees would be required. Storage operations beyond the first 3 years will likely

require fewer staff. Most operations personnel would be from the local INEEL

workforce. Again, no significant impacts are expected on the various features of the

socioeconomic environment.

Environmental Justice (Section 4.1 1)-Human Community: The minority population

near INEEL is predominately Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian, with these groups

composing about 12 percent of the population within a 80-km [50-mi] radius. The

low-income population in this same area comprises about 13 percent of the population.

Special concerns related to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have been identified by

numerous consultations between tribal officials and INEEL officials. Two recent

programmatic impact studies for INEEL concluded that environmental justice impacts

are not significant (DOE, 1995, 2002), as did the recent EIS on the independent SNF

storage installation forthe Three-Mile Island Unit 2 Spent Fuel (NRC,1998).

Accordingly, because of the small socioeconomic impacts of the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility, in general, and the lack of identified disproportionate impacts in the three

recent impact studies, it is likely that no disproportionately high and adverse human

health or environmental effects will occur on minority and low-income populations.

Public and Occupational Health and Safety (Section 4.12)-Human Community:

Potential impacts were examined for normal, off-normal, and accident conditions. For

normal operating conditions, no chemical discharges are planned from the proposed

facility, and a health and safety program would be in place for the workers. The primary

pathway for offsite radiation exposure to the public would be from atmospheric

emissions of radioactive particulates, iodine-129, tritium, and a few other radionuclides.

Iodine-129 and tritium contribute about 80 percent of the total dose. The estimated

annual dose for the maximally exposed individual at the southern boundary of INEEL is

3 x 10-7 mSv [3 x 10-5 mrem] from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility; from all

nearby facility operations, the dose is less than 0.0032 mSv [0.32 mrem]. The regulatory

annual dose limit is 0.1 mSv [10 mrem], and the natural background annual radiation is

3.6 mSv [360 mrem] in this general area. Therefore, public radiation impacts during

normal operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be small.

Occupational radiological doses from the construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility would be less than 0.0032 mSv [0.32 mrem] annually to construction workers.

The NRC annual occupational limit'is 50 mSv [5,000 mrem], and the annual natural

background radiation dose is 3.6 mSv [360 mrem].' The occupational dose to

SNF-handling workers would be 9.1 mSv [910 mrem] annually, with the NRC annual

occupational limit being 50 mSv [5,000'mrem]. The annual radiation dose to all workers

within an 8-km [4.8-mi] radius is 6.68 x 10- mSv [6.68 x 1 mrem]. Detailed analyses

8-3
Summary of Environmental

Consequences

of the radiation doses from off-normal events and accidents at the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility are in Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWENC) (2003a).

Further, analyses were also made of the public and occupational health and safety

impacts of external events such as flooding, aircraft impact, volcanic hazards, seismic

hazards, and extreme wind and wind-generated missiles. The impacts are small and

design features and operational practices are expected to minimize the public and

occupational health and safety impacts of these events and accidents.

Waste Management (Section 4.13)-Resource: Small quantities of gaseous, liquid, and

solid low-level radioactive waste would be generated during the SNF receipt and

repackaging operations planned for the first 3 years at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility. After repackaging and storing, no gaseous releases, or liquid or solid

radioactive wastes are anticipated to be generated on a regular basis from routine

activities at the proposed facility. Less than 19,700 L [5,200 gal] of low-level liquid

wastes are anticipated to be generated annually from nonroutine decontamination

activities. The INEEL Radioactive Waste Management Complex has the capacity to

handle the small quantities of the generated wastes during the storage period for the

repackaged SNF.

8.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity

As discussed in Section 4.1 of this EIS, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility includes the

short-term use of up to 7.3 ha [18 acres] of previously disturbed, undeveloped land. This

includes the 3.2-ha [8-acre] tract where the proposed facility will be constructed and a

contiguous 4.1-ha [10-acre] construction laydown tract. The proposed action would result in

physical changes to the site, including construction of a new facility and grading and leveling to

prepare the site. Because these two areas are small compared with the 2,305-km2 [890-mil

INEEL and the 101-ha [250-acre] INTEC facility adjacent to the proposed facility, the physical

changes are expected to be small. These changes would restrict access to the land during

construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The restriction would not

affect the value of the land, because the property is classified as least productive, and access is

already limited. The site would be decontaminated and decommissioned to meet applicable

NRC standards at the end of facility use (see Sections 4.16 and 7.1.3). Therefore, it is

anticipated that impacts from the proposed action would not lead to any significant impacts on

the long-term productivity of the land.

8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

The construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would consume

irretrievable amounts of electrical energy, fuel (see Table 7-2), and miscellaneous chemicals.

Also, there would be an indefinite commitment of concrete, metals, plastic, lumber, sand, gravel,

and a fraction of the water used in construction. Transfer of SNF into new storage containers

and placement in the vault will require consumable materials such as filters, welding supplies,

and other housekeeping materials. Storage operations would require materials such as HEPA

filter media and other housekeeping materials. Scarce or strategic material would not be used

for the construction of the facility. When the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility ceases

operation, DOE would be required to submit an updated decontamination and decommissioning

plan for NRC review and approval. NRC will require the site be cleaned to applicable standards

8-4
Summary of Environmental

Consequences

at that time. The current conceptual decontamination and decommissioning plan for the facility

is described in the FWENC license application for the proposed action (FWENC, 2003b) and

discussed in Sections 4.16 and 7.1.3 of this EIS.

8.4 References

DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final

Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

A. DOE/EIS-0203-F, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE,

Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

FWENC. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003a.

. License Application, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0127." Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003b.

NRC. NUREG-1626, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and

Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation to Store the Three-Mile Island

Unit 2 Spent Fuel at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory."

Washington, DC: NRC. March 1998.

8-5
9 INDEX

Subjects are indexed by section, figure, table, and appendix designations only.

-A- -Eabbreviations

accidents

acronyms

adverse environmental impacts that

cannot be avoided

aesthetics

affected environment, description

agency, consultation

air quality

nonradiological conditions

radiological conditions

Acronyms

4.12.3

Acronyms

8.1

3.10,4.9

Section 3

1.6, Appendix B

3.7.2,4.6

3.7.2.2,4.6.1.1

4.6.2.1

3.7.2.3,4.6.1.2

4.6.2.2

ecological resources 3.6

animal resources 3.6.2

plant communities 3.6.1

aquatic fauna 3.6.3

wildlife resources 3.6.2

effluent and environmental monitoring Section 6

pre-operational 6.1.1, 6.2.1

operational 6.1.2, 6.2.2

emergency response 2.3.4

emissions Tables 3-8 through 3-15

employment 3.11.2,4.10

Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory 3.11.2,4.10

regional 3.11.2,4.10

endangered species, see threatened and

endangered species

environmental impacts Section 4

environmental impact statement

preparers Section 10

environmental justice 3.12,4.11,4.14

ethnographic resources 3.9.4

air traffic

alternatives

no-action

proposed action

other alternatives considered in previous

NEPA analyses archaeological resources 3

4.12.4.2

Section 2

2.2,4.15

2.3

2.4,2.5

.9.3,4.8.2

-Bbackground information

benefits of the proposed action

1.1

Section 7

-Cfacility operations 2.32,2.3.3

Federal laws and requirements 1.6.1.1

flooding hazards 4.12.4.1

floodplains 3.5.1.3,4.12.4.1

climatology, see meteorology Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 1.1

community characteristics3.11

3.11.1, 3.11.2,3.12.1,

4.10,4.11

services 3.11.3.4.10

consequences, environmental Section 8

see also environmental impacts

construction of ISFSI 2.3.1

consultations 1.6, Appendix B

cost benefit analysis Section 7

cultural resources 3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.4

Native American cultural resources 3.9.1, 3.9.4,

4.8.2,4.8.3

cumulative environmental impacts 4.14,

Appendix C

geologic resources, see natural resources

geology

groundwater, see also water resources

-H3.4,4.3

3.5.2

historic resources 3.9.2,4.8.1

housing 3.11.1,Table 3-17

hydrology, see also water resources 3.5, 4.4

-Idecontamination and decommissioning

demography

4.16,7.1.3

3.11.1,4.10

Idaho laws and regulations

Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)

characterization of affected

environment

employment

'site description

impacts, environmental, see environmental

impacts

1.6.1.2

Section 3

3.11.2

3.1

9-1
Index

impacts, no-action alternative 2.2, 4.15

impacts, maximum hypothetical dose

accident 4.12.3, Table 4-7, Figures 4-2, 4-3

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation (ISFSI) 1.4, 2.3

infrastructure

Idaho Falls 3.11.3

regional and site 3.11.3

irreversible and irretrievable resource

commitment 8.3

justice, environmental, see environmental justice

-P.

paleontological resources 3.9.5, 4.8.4

perched water 3.5.2.3

population distribution, see demography

pre-operational monitoring 6.1.1, 6.2.1, Figure 6-1

precipitation 3.7.1

prevention of significant

deterioration Tables 3-12 through 3-14

productivity, long-term, relationship

to short-term use 8.2

proposed action 1.2, 2.3

public services, see community services

purpose and need 1.3

-Kno entries quality, air, see air quality

quality, water, see water quality

quality assurance 2.3.5

labor force Table 3-18

land use 3.2, 4.1

latent cancer fatalities Table 3-25

laws and requirements Section 1.6

low-income population, see environmental justice

mapsIdaho Nuclear Engineering and

Technology Center

Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

floodplains

land use

monitoring stations,

pre-operational

operational

Fig. 2-1

Fig. 3-1

Fig. 2-2

Fig. 3-7

Fig. 3-2

radiological air emission baseline Table 3-15

radiological monitoring see monitoring, radiological

railroads, see traffic and transportation

recreation 3.2.2

regulatory requirements 1.6

resource commitment 8.3

resources, see natural resources, Native

American cultural resources,

paleontological resources, water resources

revenues and expenditures Section 7

roadways, see traffic and transportation

-5-

scenic areas 3.2.2

seismic hazards 3.4.4,4.12.4.4

short-term use and long-term productivity 8.2

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, see also

environmental justice 3.9, 3.12, 4.8.4.11

site description 3.1

site preparation 2.3.1

socioeconomics, see also environmental

justice 3.11, 4.10

soils 3.4.2, 4.3

seismology 3.4.4, Figure 3-5

storage accidents 4.12.3, Table 4-7

subsurface water resources, see water resources

surface water resources, see water resources

Figure 6-1

Figure 6-2

meteorology 3.7.1

minority population, see environmental justice

monitoring 2.3.4, Section 6

nonradiological 6.2

radiological 6.1

-Nnatural resources 3.4.3, 4.3

need for the proposed action 1.3

No-Action Alternative, see alternatives, no-action

noise 2.2, 4.15

-0-

offsite air quality conditions

onsite air quality conditions

operational monitoring

3.7.2.2.4, 4.6

3.7.2.2.3, 4.6

6.1.2, 6.2.2, Figure 6-1

temperature

threatened and endangered

species

tomado, impact

3.7.1

3.6.4, Table 3-6

3.7.1, 4.12.4.5

9-2
Index

traffic and transportation

airports and air traffic

environmental justice

of waste, materials, and spent

nuclear fuel

railroads

roadways

3.3,4.2

4 4.12.4.2

4.11

3.3,4.2

3.1,3.3

3.1. 3.3

water quality 3.5.1.4, 3.5.2.4, Tables 3-4, 3-5

water resources 3.5, 4.4

subsurface water resources 3.5.2

surface water resources 3.5.1

water use and rights 3.5.3

wildfires 3.6.1,4.12.4.6, Figure 3-9

wind speed, see meteorology, wind speed

-X-, -Y-, -Zno entries

-U-, -VU.S. Department of Energy

Idaho High-Level Waste and

Facilities Disposition EIS

Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Environmental Restoration and

Waste Management Programs EIS

volcanic hazards

1.1

1.1

4.12.4.3

9-3
1 0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Dr. Roland Benke (radiological monitoring)

B.S., Nuclear Engineering, The University of Michigan; 1994

M.Eng., Radiological Health Engineering, The University of Michigan; 1996

Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, The University of Michigan; 2000

Mr. Matthew Blevins (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Project Manager)

B.S., Chemistry, West Virginia University; 1993

M.S., Environmental Systems Engineering, Clemson-University; 1995

Ms. Anna H. Bradford (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, environmental review)

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1993

M.Eng., Environmental Engineering, Johns-Hopkins University,'1995

Dr. C. Hobson Bryan (socioeconomnics;, environmental justice)

B.A. (honors), Sociology/Psychology, Vanderbilt University; 1964

M.A. (honors), Sociology/Psychology, Louisiana State University; 1966

Ph.D. (honors), Sociology/Psychology, Louisiana Sttnvrsity; 1968

Dr. Larry Canter (cumulative impacts)

B.S. (Cum Laud), Civil Engineering, Vanderbilt University; 1961

M.S., Sanitary Engineering, The University of Illinois; 1962

Ph.D., Environmental Health Engineering, The University of Texas; 1967

Ms. Cathy Cudd (Publications Services, Publications Assistant)

A.A, St. Mary's University; In Process

Dr. Biswajit Dasgupta (normal, off-normal operations)

B.Tech, Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India; 1976

M.Tech, Structural Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India; 1980

Ph.D., Structural Engineering, University of Minnesota; 1987

Mrs. Eunice Fedors (historic and cultural resbuices)

B.A., Historic Preservation, Mary Washington College; 1985

Dr. Amit Ghosh (wind missile, aircraft impact, wildfire analysis)

B.Tech., Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India; 1978

M.S., Mining Engineering, University of Arizona; 1983

Ph.D., Mining Engineering, University of Arizona; 1990

10-1
List of Preparers

Dr. Ronald Green (water resources)

B.S., Industrial Engineering, University of Michigan; 1972

B.S., Geology, Grand Valley State University; 1978

M.S., Geophysics, University of Utah; 1981

Ph.D., Hydrology, University of Arizona; 1986

Dr. Brittain Hill (geology, volcanic hazard assessment)

B.A., Geological Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara; 1981

M.S., Geology, Oregon State University; 1984

Ph.D., Geology, Oregon State University; 1991

Mr. Patrick LaPlante (transportation, waste management)

B.S., Environmental Studies, Western Washington University; 1988

M.S., Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Georgetown University; 1994

Ms. Barbara Long (Editor, Publications Specialist)

B.A., San Diego State College; 1971

Certificate Degree, Professional Editing, the George Washington University; 1998

Certificate Degree, Publication Specialist, The George Washington University; 1998

Mr. Patrick Mackin (systems engineering, regulatory analysis)

B.S., Mathematics, U.S. Naval Academy; 1970

M.S., Systems Management, University of Southern California; 1980

Dr. David Pickett (soils)

B.A., Geology, Rice University; 1982

M.S., Geology, California Institute of Technology; 1984

Ph.D., Geology, California Institute of Technology; 1991

Mr. James Pryor (Communications, Editor)

A.A., Schreiner Institute; 1966

B.J., Journalism, The University of Texas at Austin; 1968

Ms. Christine Schulte (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, environmental review)

B.A., Sociology, Minor in Environmental Studies, Dickinson College; 1993

M.S., Environmental Science and Policy, Johns Hopkins University; 2000

10-2
List of Preparers

Mrs. Lee Selvey (Administrative Assistant, Format Editor)

Certified Professional Secretary, International Association of Administrative Professionals; 1994

Certified Professional Secretary, International Association of Administrative Professionals

Status Recertified; 1998, 2003

Certificate Degree, Office Systems Technician, San Antonio College; 1999

EEI Communications Certificate, Comprehensive Proofreading, Internet Course; 2002

Mr. Michael Smith (ecological resources)

B.S., Nuclear Engineering, Kansas State University; 1994

M.S., Nuclear Engineering, The Ohio State University; 1997

M.S., Environmental Science, The Ohio State University; 1997

Dr. John Stamatakos (geology, seismic hazard assessment)

B.S., Geology, Franklin and Marshall College; 1981

M.S., Geology, Lehigh University; 1988

Ph.D., Geology, Lehigh University; 1990

Dr. David Turner (Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses Project Manager, land

use, noise, visuallscenic)

B.A., Music/Geology, College of William and Mary; 1981

M.S., Geology, University of Utah; 1985

Ph.D., Geology, University of Utah; 1990

Mr. Bradley Werling (nonradiological monitoring)

B.A., Engineering-Physics, Westmont College; 1985

B.S., Chemistry, Southwest Texas State University; 1999

M.S., Environmental Science, The University of Texas at San Antonio; 2000

10-3
11 DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Stephen C. Guzy

Executive Director, ISF Project

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

Perryville Corporate Park

Clinton, NJ 08809-4000

Mr. Ronald D. Izatt

ISF Facility Manager

Tetra Tech FW Inc.

3200 George Washington Way, Suite G

Richland, WA 99352

Mr. Jan Hagers

TMI/FSV Licensing Project Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

Idaho Operations Office

850 Energy Drive

Idaho Falls, ID 83401-1563

Mr. Doug Walker

Senior Health PhysicistlNRC Liaison

State of Idaho INEEL Oversight Program

900 N. Skyline Drive, Suite C

Idaho Falls, ID 83402

Mr. Wayne Pierre

Federal Facility Section

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(M/S HW-124)

Seattle, WA 98101

Ms. Gail Willmore

INEEL Technical Library

1776 Science Center Drive

Idaho Falls, ID 83402

Ms. Kathleen E. Trever

Coordinator-Manager

INEEL Oversight Program

1410 North Hilton

Boise, ID 83706

Mr. George Freund

Coalition 21

P.O. Box 51232

Idaho Falls, ID 83405

Mr. Steve Laflin, Chairman

INEEL Committee

Idaho Falls Chamber of Commerce

P.O. Box 50498

Idaho Falls, ID 83405-0498

Mr. Chuck Broscious

Environmental Defense Institute

P.O. Box 504

Troy, ID 83843

Mr. Stanley Hobson

Chairman, INEEL EM Site-Specific

Advisory Board

c/o Jason Associates Corp.

477 Shoup, Suite 201

Idaho Falls, ID 83402

Chairman, Tribal Business Council

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

P.O. Box 306

Fort Hall, ID 83203

Snake River Alliance

310 E. Center, Room 205

Pocatello, ID 83201

Mr. Thomas C. Poindexter, Esq.

Winston & Strawn

1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-3502

Erik Ringelberg

Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free

P.O. Box 4838

Jackson, WY 83001

Mr. James C. Saldarini

Licensing Manager

Tetra Tech FW Inc.

1000 The American Road

Morris Plains, NJ 07950

11-1
APPENDIX A
LL

Docket No. 72-25

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING PROCESS

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

Proposed Idaho Spent Nuclear Fuel Facility Independent

Storage Installation

November 2002

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Rockville, Maryland

A-1
Appendix A

CONTENTS

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION ......................... 1

2. SCOPING COMMENT SUMMARY ......................... 3

2.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ISSUES ....... ............ 3

2.2 POLICY ISSUES . ........................................ 3

2.3 ECOLOGY, AIR, AND WATER ...................................... 3

2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................................ 4

2.5 WASTE MANAGEMENT ........................................ 4

2.6 SECURITY AND TERRORISM ...................................... 4

2.7 IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

INFRASTRUCTURE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .4

3. SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUMMARY OF

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED. 4

4. ISSUES CONSIDERED PERIPHERAL, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE

PROPOSED ACTION, OR COVERED BY PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ..... 8

4.1 PREVIOUS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DECISIONS ..... .......... 9

4.2 IMPACTS FROM TERRORISM ......... ............................ 9

5. REFERENCES ........................................................ 9

ATTACHMENT A

ii

A-2
Appendix A

ABBREVIATIONS

CNWRA Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FWENC Foster Wheeler Environment Corporation

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

INTEC Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

TRIGA Training, Research, and Isotope reactors built by General Atomics

iii

A-3
Appendix A

1. INTRODUCTION

On November 19, 2001, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWENC) filed an

application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to construct and

operate an independent spent fuel storage installation (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

2002a) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) in Butte

County, Idaho. If licensed, this new installation would be situated on an eight-acre (3.24 ha) site

located adjacent to the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), about

three miles (4.8 km) north of the INEEL Central Facilities Area.

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will be designed, constructed, and operated by FWENC

under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE has leased the site to

FWENC for the operating life of the installation. The facility would store spent fuel and

associated radioactive material from the Peach Bottom Unit 1 High-Temperature Gas-Cooled

Reactor, the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, and various Training, Research, and Isotope

reactors built by General Atomics (TRIGA reactors). This spent fuel is currently being stored

within the INTEC. DOE plans to transfer it to the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility when that facility

becomes operational. These transfers would occur completely within the boundaries of the

INEEL site and will comply with INEEL procedures and the requirements of DOE. Upon arrival

at the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, the spent fuel would be (1) remotely removed from the

containers in which it is currently stored, (2) visually inspected, (3) inventoried, (4) placed into

new multipurpose canisters, and (5) placed into interim storage. When a geologic repository

becomes available, the multipurpose canisters are intended to be removed from storage at the

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and transported to the repository.

The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would implement, in part, the portion of the DOE Spent

Fuel Management and INEEL record of decision concerning construction of a dry spent fuel

storage facility (U.S. Department of Energy, 1995a). It also would allow DOE to satisfy, in part,

it's commitments in the October 16, 1995, Settlement Agreement among the DOE, the

U.S. Department of the Navy, and the State of Idaho to construct dry storage facilities and

employ multipurpose canisters to prepare spent fuel for disposal outside of Idaho. These

objectives would be accomplished at the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility by:

v ~ Receiving spent nuclear fuel generated at the Peach Bottom Unit I High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor, the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, and various TRIGA

; research reactors;

* Transferring the spent nuclear fuel from the DOE storage containers in which it is

currently stored into new multipurpose canisters certified by the NRC; and

* Placing the NRC-certified canisters into an NRC-licensed, interim spent fuel

storage facility.

The license application will be considered under the provisions of NRC regulations at

10 CFR Part 72. If granted, the license will authorize the applicant to store spent nuclear fuel in

a dry storage system at the applicant's Idaho Spent Fuel Facility site. Additionally, in

accordance with NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared by the NRC to examine the

potential environmental impacts of the proposed licensing action (i.e., to construct and operate

an independent spent fuel storage installation). As part of the NEPA process, the NRC solicited

A-5
Appendix A

scoping comments from the public. Scoping is an early and open process designed to

determine the range of actions, alternatives, and potential impacts to be considered in the EIS,

and to identify the significant issues related to the proposed action. Input from the public and

other agencies is solicited so the analysis can be more clearly focused on issues of genuine

concern. The NRC and its contractor, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses

(CNWRA), are reviewing relevant documents to ensure efficiency and to make decisions

regarding their use (i.e., supplementing, tiering, or adoption) in preparing the Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility EIS.

Under the present schedule, the EIS will be used to support a decision in 2004 by the NRC

whether to authorize construction of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The schedule

includes publishing the draft EIS for public comment in June 2003. The availability of the draft

EIS, the dates of the public comment period, and scheduled public meetings will be announced

in the Federal Register, on the NRC Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Web page, and in local news

media. Following the public comment period, the draft EIS would be revised as necessary, and

a final EIS would be published in January 2004. No cooperating agencies have been identified

during the scoping process. The NRC will prepare the EIS with the assistance of the CNWRA.

As discussed in Section 3, the EIS will analyze both construction and operation impacts.

In addition to the EIS for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, the NRC will prepare a safety evaluation

report on health and safety issues raised by the proposed action. The safety evaluation report

will document the NRC evaluation of the safety of the activities proposed by FWENC in its

license application and the compliance with applicable NRC regulations.

In the notice of intent, the NRC announced the public scoping period (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, 2002b). Announcements of the scoping process were provided on the NRC Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility Web page (ttp:/Iwww.nrc.qov/waste/spent-fuel-storae/

idaho-spent-fuel.html) and in the following local newspapers:

* The Idaho News, Idaho Falls (Sunday, August 4 and Wednesday, August 7, 2002); and

* The Idaho Statesman, Boise (Sunday, August 4 and Wednesday, August 7, 2002).

The public scoping period extended from publication of the notice of intent on July 26, 2002,

until September 16, 2002. During this period, 15 written comments were received from two

organizations. These public comments are discussed in Section 2 of this report and have been

categorized under the following issue headings:

* NEPA Issues

* Policy Issues

* Ecology, Air, and Water

* Cumulative Impacts

* Human Health Impacts

* Waste Management

* Security and Terrorism

* INEEL Infrastructure and Existing Conditions

2

A-6
Appendix A

The scope of the EIS and the summary of issues that will be addressed in the EIS are

discussed in Section 3. Although issues raised during the scoping period will be considered in

preparing the EIS for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, some of these issues will either be

analyzed in less detail or will not be analyzed at all, depending on their relevance to the

proposed action and the anticipated impacts. Issues that will be considered, but not analyzed in

detail, are summarized in Section 4. The preliminary outline for the EIS is included as

Attachment A.

2. SCOPING COMMENT SUMMARY

The following summary groups the comments received during the scoping period by technical

area and issue.

2.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ISSUES

Use of Existing NEPA Documents: Both commenters noted that many of the impacts of the

proposed action have been addressed by previous NEPA documents prepared by the DOE and

the NRC (U.S. Department of Energy, 1995b, 2002; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

1998). One commenter expressed concern, however, that the programmatic EIS prepared by

the U.S. Department of Energy (995b) to address the impacts of spent nuclear fuel

management at the INEEL facility did not adequately address the potential impacts to the

environment from flooding, earthquakes, and construction disturbances.

Public Involvement: One commenter noted that the NRC schedule for the scoping process did

not allow for full development of scoping comments. They requested that the NRC make sure

that the Citizens Advisory Board for the INEEL is on the distribution list for the draft EIS when it

becomes available for public review.

2.2 POLICY ISSUES

Application of NRC Regulations: One commenter noted the understanding that the FWENC

license application will be considered under NRC regulations and that if the application is

approved, FWENC would be authorized to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear

fuel and other radioactive materials at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

2.3 ECOLOGY, AIR, AND WATER

Surface Water Impacts: One commenter expressed concern that the INTEC area, where the

spent nuclear fuel is currently stored and where the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would

be located, are within the 100-year floodplain. The commenter also noted that there are

multiple areas of existing contamination at INTEC, also within the floodplain. The comrnenter

wanted the impact analysis to consider the effects of flooding and the existing areas,

of contamination. e

HEPA Filters: One commenter pointed out that the potential environmental consequences of

using sintered metal HEPA filters at the proposed facility have either not been documented, or

have been documented in a cursory fashion. ;

Air. Emissions: One commenter was concerned that the potential impacts of air emissions

during the fuel rod drying process have not been documented in a satisfactory manner.

3

A-7
Appendix A

Construction Impacts: One commenter indicated that the previous DOE NEPA

(U.S. Department of Energy, 1995b; 2002) analyses have not provided an adequate analysis of

the potential environmental impacts of the construction disturbances associated with the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Accident Issues: One commenter expressed concern about the potential impacts to the

environment due to earthquake. The commenter noted that previous NEPA analyses by the

U.S. Department of Energy (1995b, 2002) have not adequately addressed this disruptive

scenario. The same commenter also noted concerns with the potential environmental

consequences of accidental nuclear criticality.

2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Past Releases and Continued Waste Generation: One commenter noted that previous DOE

NEPA (U.S. Department of Energy, 1995b; 2002) analyses have not properly addressed the

cumulative impact of previous releases of radioactive and hazardous materials within the

context of continued generation of waste at the INTEC facility.

2.5 WASTE MANAGEMENT

Waste Generation: One commenter raised concern over the cumulative impacts of continued

generation of waste at the INEEL, particularly in the context of previous radioactive and

hazardous waste releases.

2.6 SECURITY AND TERRORISM

One commenter expressed concern that the ITEC represented a concentrated area of

high-risk targets for internal and external terrorism. The commenter noted that external auditors

have identified problems with the DOE facility security system and stated that the design basis

threats considered in the DOE security procedures have not been updated to reflect concerns

resulting from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The commenter wanted the NRC EIS

to address the potential impacts of internal and external terrorism under realistic and

current scenarios.

2.7 IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL

LABORATORY INFRASTRUCTURE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

Spent Fuel Storage Expansion: One commenter noted that the proposed action would be an

expansion of spent nuclear fuel storage at the INEEL, and wanted the EIS to consider this in

terms of cumulative impact with existing storage capacity at the site.

3. SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND

SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

NEPA (Public Law 91-90, as amended), and the NRC's implementing regulations for NEPA

(10 CFR Part 51), specify in general terms what should be included in an EIS prepared by the

NRC. Regulations established by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts

1500-1508), while not binding on the NRC, provide useful guidance. The NRC has also

prepared environmental review guidance to its staff for meeting NEPA requirements associated

with licensing actions (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2001).

4

A-8
Appendix A

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71(a), in addition to public comments received during the scoping

process, the contents of the draft EIS will depend in part on the environmental report submitted

by FWENC. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.71(b), the draft EIS Will consider major points of

view and objections concerning the environmental impacts of the proposed action raised by

other Federal, State, and local agencies, by any affected groups of Native Americans, and by

other interested persons. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71(c), the draft EIS will list all Federal permits,

licenses, approvals, and other entitlements which must be obtained in implementing the

proposed action, and will describe the status of compliance with these requirements. Any

uncertainty as to the applicability of these requirements will be addressed in the draft EIS.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71 (d), the draft EIS will include a consideration of the economic,

technical, and other benefits and costs of the-proposed action and alternatives to the proposed

action. In the draft analysis, due consideration will be given to compliance with environmental

quality standards and regulations that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local

agencies having responsibilities for environmental protection, including any applicable zoning

and land-use regulations and water pollution limitations or requirements established or imposed

pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.; The environmental impact of the proposed

action will be evaluated in the draft EIS with respect to matters covered by such standards and

requirements, regardless of whether a certification or license from the appropriate authority has

been obtained. Compliance with the environmental quality standards and requirements of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or

designated permitting states) does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh all

environmental effects of the proposed action, including the degradation, if any, of water quality,

and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing adverse

effects. While satisfaction of NRC standards and criteria pertaining to radiological effects will

be necessary to meet the licensing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the draft EIS will

also, for the purposes of NEPA, consider the radiological and non-radiological effects of the

proposed action and alternatives.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71(e), the draft EIS will normally include a preliminary recommendation

by the NRC staff with respect to the proposed action. Any such recommendation would be

reached after considering the environmental effects of the proposed action and reasonable

alternatives, and after weighing the costs and benefits of the proposed action.

The scoping process summarized in this report will help determine the scope of the draft EIS for

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. For example, the adequacy of the existing NEPA

analyses prepared by the DOE and the NRC for actions at the INEEL facility (U.S. Department

of Energy, 1995b, 2002; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1998) will be examined within

the context of the proposed action, and supplemented and updated as necessary. The draft

EIS will also include analyses of the impacts of flooding, facility emissions, construction, as well

as the potential effects of an earthquake on the facility. The draft EIS will contain a discussion

of the cumulative impacts of the proposed action in the context of the INEEL site. The

development of the draft EIS will be closely coordinated with the safety evaluation report

prepared by the NRC to evaluate the health and safety impacts of the proposed action.

The No-action alternative will be considered in the draft EIS. This alternative will address not

licensing the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and continuing the current interim storage of

the Peach Bottom, Shippingport, and TRIGA reactor fuel. Neither commenting organization

identified other alternatives to the proposed action. Other alternatives may be identified and

analyzed during the preparation of the draft EIS.

.-5

;A-9
Appendix A

Issues to be analyzed in depth pertain to the construction and operation of the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility. In addition to the information provided in the documents prepared by

FWENC as part of its license application to NRC, the draft EIS will also recognize previous

NEPA analyses prepared by both the DOE and the NRC for activities at the INEEL

(U.S. Department of Energy, 1995b, 2002; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1998).

The goal in writing the EIS is to present the impact analyses in a manner that makes it easy for

the public to understand. This EIS will provide the basis for the NRC decision with regard to

potential environmental impacts. Significant impacts will be discussed in greater detail in the

EIS, and explanations will be provided for determining the level of detail for different impacts.

This should allow readers of the EIS to focus on issues that were determined to be important in

reaching the conclusions supported by the EIS. The following topical areas and issues will be

analyzed in the EIS.

Geology, Soils, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes. The EIS will describe the characteristics of the

INEEL, with specific attention to the area adjacent to the INTEC that will be disturbed by the

proposed action. Evaluation of the potential for disruption of the facility by earthquakes or

volcanic activity will be considered to the extent that they may have an impact on facility

construction or operation. Existing contamination at the site will be identified to the extent that it

may affect or be affected by the proposed action. The detailed analysis of the health and safety

impacts, however, will be addressed in the safety evaluation report to be prepared by the NRC

in support of its licensing decision.

Hydrology. The EIS will assess the potential impacts of the proposed project on the surface

water, storm-water runoff, and groundwater resources including the Snake River Plain Aquifer.

The assessment will consider water resources, water quality, water use, flood plains, and the

probable maximum flood (the largest flood that is likely to occur). The EIS will not, however,

evaluate the health and safety aspects associated with these site characteristics which will be

addressed in the safety evaluation report.

Air Quality. Potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed action will be evaluated

in the EIS. The evaluation will include potential impacts resulting from construction activities

and operation (e.g., fuel rod drying activities) and will compare the anticipated air quality

impacts, if any, with relevant standards.

Ecology. The area adjacent to the INTEC intended for the proposed facility is already in use as

a construction laydown area, and has been substantially disturbed from its natural state. The

EIS will include an update of threatened and endangered species and other ecological

resources at the INEEL, focusing on the area immediately around the INTEC.

Land Use. The general land use activities at the INEEL will be summarized. The total area

involved in the proposed action is confined to an existing industrial facility at the INTEC,

therefore the level of detail in the impact analysis for land use is likely to be low. Existing NEPA

analyses will be summarized and incorporated where appropriate.

Cultural Resources. The EIS will assess potential impacts of the proposed action on the

historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources of the INEEL, with particular attention to

the area adjacent to the INTEC that will be disturbed by the proposed action. The EIS will also

describe the programmatic framework for evaluating these resources at INEEL.

6

A-10
i~ i I " i: ', ;r - ., i

Appendix A

Transportation. Transportation distances are short in the proposed action, and are not

covered in the environmental report prepared by FWENC. The DOE, not FWENC, is

responsible for the transportation of the spent nuclear fuel from its current storage location at

the INTEC to the proposed facility. As a connected action, the EIS will rely on the DOE orders

and procedures for transportatiohn of spent nuclear fuel within tieINEEL boundaries.

Waste Management.' The EIS will document the quantities, types, and disposal of the potential

waste streams resulting from the proposed action. The EIS will consider the impacts of these

waste streams on the existing waste management capacities at the INEEL, either specifically or

through incorporation of reference material from existing NEPA analyses.

Socioeconomics. All activities related to the proposed action are restricted to within the INEEL

boundaries, so the EIS will consider the socioeconomic impact of the proposed action to the

extent that it affects employment at the INEEL and imposes additional burden on the existing

services provided by the communities immediately around the INEEL. These may include

impacts on housing, social services, and emergency services or other impacts identified during

the preparation of the EIS.

Environmental Justice. The potential for disproportionately high or adverse human health or

environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations will be evaluated and discussed

at the census block level. Because all activities related to the proposed action are restricted to

within the INEEL boundaries, the EIS will consider the impact on these communities

immediately around the INEEL either specifically or through incorporation of reference material

from existing NEPA analyses. E -

Aesthetics. The aesthetics of the INEEL, specifically the INTEC, will be summarized. The

proposed facility is confined to an existing industrial facility at the INTEC, therefore,-the level of

detail in the impact analysis for aesthetics is likely to be low. Existing NEPA analyses will be

summarized and incorporated where appropriate.

Noise. The current noise aspects at the INTEC will be summarized. The proposed facility is

confined to an existing industrial facility at the INTEC, therefore, the level of detail in the impact

analysis for noise is likely to be low. Existing NEPA analyses will be summarized and

incorporated where appropriate.

Human Health Impacts. In preparing its safety evaluation report, NRC will evaluate the

potential human health impacts of the proposed facility on the workers and the general public

for normal operations (including construction, handling, transfer, and inspection activities) and

under off-normal or accident conditions. ThIe detaild analyses will be reported in the safety

evaluation report and summarized in the EIS. Potential exposures to radioactive materials and

to hazardous chemicals will be considered. Both cancer and non-cancer health effects will be

evaluated, as appropriate. Calculations for the general public account for sensitive populations

as well as normal healthy adults. Models, sumptions, and supporting data used todevelop

the impacts from these' potential exposures will be clearly described.' The safety evaluation

report will assess the impacts associated with all credible accidents at the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility, both from natural and humran activities. Based on the analyses in the safety

evaluation report, the EIS will summarize the potential environmental impacts resulting from

credible bounding accidents at the proposed facility.

In the context of the EIS, DOE and FWENC programmatic plans for security, emergency

response, and environmental monitoring activities will be considered as mitigation measures for

7

A-1I1
Appendix A

potential impacts. These issues may be summarized and discussed in the EIS to the extent that

they are required as mitigation measures.

Decontamination and Decommissioning. The November 2001 license application submitted

by FWENC includes a proposed decommissioning plan that includes decontaminating and/or

removing systems and components of the proposed facility. The EIS will include an evaluation

of the effects of decontaminating and decommissioning the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Cumulative Impacts. The EIS will analyze the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed

facility in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This will

include impacts from connected actions such as the transportation of the fuel from its current

storage location at the INTEC to the proposed facility.

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts. The EIS will include a discussion of

potential environmental impacts, if any, that could not be avoided if the proposed action were to

be implemented.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. The irreversible and irretrievable

commitment of resources, including land use, materials, and energy will be discussed.

Potential waste minimization and pollution prevention activities and mitigation measures will

be evaluated.

Cost-Benefit Analysis. The EIS will include a cost-benefit analysis that summarizes the

environmental and other costs and benefits of the proposed action.

Compliance with Applicable Regulations. The EIS will present a listing of the relevant

permits and regulations that apply to the proposed action. Consultations with involved Federal,

State, and local agencies will be documented as appropriate.

Although not anticipated, any pertinent proprietary information that is not available to the public

will be reviewed by the NRC in preparing both the safety evaluation report and the EIS. By law,

however, the NRC must protect any proprietary information from public disclosure. Therefore,

any proprietary information will not be released to the public. As indicated above, all available

non-proprietary documentation generated by the DOE and FWENC will be used and

incorporated by reference, as appropriate.

4. ISSUES CONSIDERED PERIPHERAL, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE

PROPOSED ACTION, OR COVERED BY PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW

Issues raised during the scoping period for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the INEEL

are summarized in Section 2 of this report. Section 3 outlines the subjects and issues that will

be addressed in detail in the EIS. Certain issues will not be addressed in depth in the EIS.

Major categories of these issues and the reasons for not analyzing them in detail in the EIS are

explained in this section. In general, these issues are not directly related to the assessment of

potential impacts from the proposed major Federal action now under consideration. The lack of

in depth discussion in the EIS, however, does not mean that an issue or concern lacks value.

Issues beyond the scope of the EIS may not yet be ripe for resolution, or are more appropriately

discussed and decided in other venues. For example, health and safety issues will be

considered in detail in the safety evaluation report prepared by NRC for the proposed action and

will be summarized in the EIS.

8

A-12
1 ..-At~ 1 

Appendix A

4.1 PREVIOUS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DECISIONS

Both commenters noted that previous NEPA analyses have been prepared by the DOE for the

INEEL (U.S. Department of Energy, 1995b; 2002). Sections of these ElSs may be relevant to

the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, and will be reviewed in pfeparing the draft EIS.

Because the scope of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility EIS is limited to the licensing

action now under review by NRC, issues pertaining to decisions already made by DOE will be

addressed by referencing the appropriate DOE NEPA analysis, and by summarizing the

information, as appropriate.

4.2 IMPACTS FROM TERRORISM

One commenter identified the INTEC area as a potential target for internal and external

terrorism. However, the EIS will not address the impacts of terrorism as the staff does not

consider these impacts to be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the proposed action.

However, it must be noted that the consideration of terrorism issues in NEPA documents is

currently an issue before the Commission in a number of adjudicatory proceedings. The staff

will incorporate these decisions as they become available.

5. REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Energy. Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final

Environmental Impact Statement." DOE/EIS-0287-F. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE. 2002.

U.S. Department of Energy. Environmental Statements Availability, etc; Programmatic Spent

Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management Programs" Federal Register, Volume 60 pp:

28680-28696. June 1, 1995a.

U.S. Department of Energy. "Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." DOE/EIS-0203-F. Idaho

Falls, Idaho: DOE. 1995b.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility; Notice of Docketing, Notice of Consideration of Issuance, and Notice of

Opportunity for a Hearing for a Materials License for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Federal

Register, Volume 67, pp: 43358-43359. June 27, 2002a.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation's proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility's Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and

Conduct Scoping Process. Federal Register, Volume 67, pp: 48953-48956. July 26, 2002b.

U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission. Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions

Associated with NMSS Programs. Draft Report for Interim Use and Comment." NUREG-1748.

Washington, DC: NRC. 2001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. , Final Environmental Impact Statement for the

Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation to Store the

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Spent Fuel at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory." NUREG-1626. Washington, DC: NRC. 1998.

9

A-13
Appendix A

ATTACHMENT A

A-15
Appendix A

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED IDAHO

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL FACILITY INDEPENDENT STORAGE

INSTALLATION-PRELIMINARY OUTLINE

Summary

Table of Contents

Glossary

List of Acronyms

1 Introduction of the EIS

1.1 Background

1.2 Description of the Proposed Action

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

1.4 Objective of the Proposal -

1.5 Scope of This Environmental Analysis

1.5.1 Issues Studied in Detail

1.5.2 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study

1.5.3 Scoping Process

1.6 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Regional Consultations

1.6.1 Applicable Statutes, Regulations, and Permits

1.6.2 Consultations

1.6.3 Cooperating Agencies

1.7 References

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives to the Action

2.1 Background

2.2 Process Used to Formulate Alternatives

2.3 No-Action Alternative

2.4 Proposed Alternative (FWENC's Proposed Action)

2.5 Other Reasonable Alternatives

2.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

2.7 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts

2.8 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2.9 Identification of the Preferred Alternative

2.10 References

3 Description of the Affected Environment

3.1 Site and/or Facility Description

3.2 Land Use

3.2.1 INEEL Land Use

3.2.2 Offsite Land Use

3.3 Transportation and Infrastructure

3.4 Geology and Soils

3.5 Water Resources

A-17
Appendix A

3.5.1 Surface Water

3.5.2 Groundwater

3.6 Ecology

3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality

3.7.1 Meteorology

3.7.2 Air Quality and Emissions

3.8 Noise

3.9 Historic and Cultural Resources

3.10 Visual/Scenic Resources

3.11 Socioeconomic

3.11.1 Population and Demographics

3.11.2 Employment and Unemployment

3.11.3 Income

3.11.4 Housing

3.11.5 Community Resources

3.12 Environmental Justice

3.12.1 Minority Populations

3.12.2 Low-income Populations

3.13 Public and Occupational Health

3.14 Waste Management

3.15 References

4 Environmental Impacts

4.1 Land Use Impacts

4.2 Transportation Impacts

4.3 Geology and Soils Impacts

4.4 Water Resource Impacts

4.5 Ecological Impacts

4.6 Air Quality Impacts

4.7 Noise Impacts

4.8 Historic and Cultural Impacts

4.9 VisualScenic Impacts

4.10 Socioeconomic Impacts

4.11 Environmental Justice

4.12 Public and Occupational Health Impacts

4.13 Waste Management Impacts

4.14 Cumulative Impacts

4.15 References

5 Mitigation Measures (if applicable)

6 Effluent and Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs

6.1 Radiological Monitoring

6.2 Meteorological/Chemical Monitoring

6.3 Ecological Monitoring

6.4 References

A-18
Appendix A

7 Cost-Benefit Analysis

8 Summary of Environmental Consequences

8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

8.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity

8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

9 Index

10 List of Preparers

11 Distribution List

12 Supplemental Information of Environmental Impact Statement Document

A-19
APPENDIX B
CONSULTATION LETTERS

December4, 2002

Ms. Suzi Pengilly Neltzel

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer'

Idaho State Historical Society 21 0 Main Street

Boise, ID 83702-5642

SUB.JECT: INITIATION OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION

108 PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED IDAHO SPENT FUEL FACILITY

Dear Ms. Pengilly Neitzel:

Foster Wheeler Environental Corporation (FWENC) has submitted a license application to the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to receive, transfer, package, and possess spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. The NRC Is In the Initial stages of

developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed facility to be located at

the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (INEEL), located near Idaho Falls.' The proposed facility will receive SNF from DOE, repackage the SNF nto NRC licensed canisters. and place these canisters Into Interim dry storage pending Ws final removal from the State of Idaho. This proposed facility, as well as all

associated construction activities and Impacts, will be within the boundaries of INEEL The

forthcoming EIS will document the Impacts associated with the construction and operation of

the facility.

A Cultural Resource Investigations for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the INEEL. was

prepared for DOE In March, 2001, by the INEEL Cultural Resource Management Office

(attachment). This report describes the areas that wiNl be affected by the construction of the

proposed facility and the cultural resources that are In or near these areas. The proposed location of the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be on previously disturbed land adjacent to the

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) n the souith-central portion of the

IN EEL The area Includes a small complex of existing office buildings, warehouses, and trailers

Immediately to the east of the INTEC perimeter fence and north of a coal-fired power plant. There are two areas of potential effect for the proposed project. The first s the facility construction site, which Is an 8-acre parcel located near a large ash pit associated with NTEC's

coal-fired power plant. The second area s a 4-acre construction laydown area, whiJch would be

used to facilitate construction activties. This area Is located a short distance to the northeast of

the proposed facility location. Ground disturbance associated with construction of the facility and other temporary support facilities will be localized, but extensive n both areas. There will

not be any modifications or removal of existing structures or buildings within the INTEC facility. Both areas of potential effect have been Investigated for cultural resources. Intensive

archeological surveys from the 1980s, subsequent archeological reconnaissance by the INEEL

Cultural Resource Management Office, historic building Inventories and lists of other structures,

and previous and ongoing consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have been

combined to Identify any significant cultural resources with visible surface remains In the

affected areas. Based on this research, few cuitural resources have been Identified In the

B-1
Appendix B

S.P. Neitzel -2-

vicinity of INTEC. On the eastern side of the INTEC, where the proposed facility will be

constructed, three archeological resources have been identified. However, these resources are

located outside of the areas of potential effect for the proposed project and would not be

impacted. Nonetheless, these areas would be monitored to avoid any Impacts to these or any

other resources that are discovered during construction activities.

As required by 36 CFR 800.4(a), the NRC Is requesting the views of the State Historical

Preservation Officer on further actions to Identify historic properties that may be affected by the

NRC's under taking (i.e. licensing the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility). As part of the EIS

preparation, the NRC conducted a public scoping process to solicit Information on

environmental issues. This scoping Information, along with the 'Cultural Resource

Investigations for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the INEEL (attachment), and any information

you provide will be used to document affects In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(d).

My staff will be In contact with your office throughout the EIS process. We will contact your

office after we have completed the draft EIS in the Spring of 2003. In the meantime, if you

have any quest ons or comments, or need any additional nformation, please contact Matt

Blevins of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-7684.

Sincerely,

iRA/

Lawrence E. Kokajko, Chief

Environmental and Performance

Assessment Branch

Divislon of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards

Attachment: Cultural Resource Investigations fcrthe Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

cc See attached list

B-2
Appendix B

April17, 2003

Ms. Suzi Pengilly Neltzel

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

Idaho State Historical Society

210 Main Street

Boise, Idaho 83702-5642

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON THE DETERMiNATION OF EFFECT ON

HISTORIC PROPERTIES FOR THE PROPOSED IDAHO SPENT FUEL

STORAGE FACILTY

Dear Ms. Pengilly Neltzel:

By a letter dated December 5, 2002, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff notified

you of a pending license application submitted to the NRC by the Foster Wheeler

Environmental Corporation (FWENC) to allow the receipt, transfer, packaging, and possession

of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility located on the U.S.

Department of Energys (DOE) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

(INEEL). The NRC is In the process of completing the draft Environmental Impact Statement

which Is scheduled for completion In June 2003.

A Cultural Resource Investigations for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the INEEL was

prepared for the DOE in March 2001 by the INEEL Cultural Resource Management Office

(attachment). This report describes the areas that wiU be affected by the construction of the

proposed facility and the cultural resources that are In or near these areas. The proposed

location of the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be on previously disturbed land adjacent to the

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) In the south-central portion of the

INEEL The area Includes a small complex of existing office buildings, warehouses, and trailers

immediately to the east of the INTEC perimeter fence and north of a coal-fired power plant.

There are two areas of potential effect for the proposed project. The first Is the faciity

construction site, which Is an 8-acre parcel located near a large ash pit associated with INTEC's

coalfired power plant. The second area Is a 4-acre construction laydown area. which would be

used to facilitate construction activities. This area Is located a short distance to the northeast of

Cthe proposed facility location. Ground disturbance associated with construction of the facility

and other temporary support facilities will be localized, but extensive In both areas. There wiN

not be any modifications or removal of existing structures or buildings within the INTEC facility.

Both areas of potential effect have been Investigated for cultural resources. Intensive

archeological surveys from the 1980s, subsequent archeological reconnaissance by the INEEL

Cultural Resource Management Office, historic building nventories and Wlts of other structures,

and previous and ongoing consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have been

combined to identify any significant cultural resources with visible surface remains In the

affected areas. Based on this research, few cultural resources have been dentified in the

vicinity of INTEC. On the eastern side of the INTEC, where the proposed facility will be
Appendix B

Ms. S. P. Neitzel 2

constructed, three archeological resources have been identified. However, these resources are

located outside of the areas of potential effect for the proposed project and would not be

impacted. Nonetheless, these areas would be monitored to avoid any impacts to these or any other resources that are discovered during construction activities.

Based on this information the NRC has determined that no historic properties are affected by

the proposed undertaking (i.e., licensing the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility). Please

provide your concurrence regarding NRC's determination that the undertaking will not effect

historic properties. If you have any questions or comments, or need any additional Information,

please contact Matthew Blevins at 301-415-7684. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

IRAI

Lawrence E. Kokaqko, Acting Chief

Environmental and Performance

Assessment Branch

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards

Attachment As stated

B-4
Appendix B

Vlu 

Oqimsda euct

June 4,2003

M. Lawrance E. Kokefko

Acting Chief

Bnvrnm=t and Performance Asesszent

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclea Material Saety

Nuclea Regulatoy Comission

Washinton D.C. 20555-0001

id Se 106 eviewoft - PrposedIdaho SpentFuel Stoage Facility

qfkbw#0Utwfh^dbg& NO istri Reetmmitdei

Govuxfor df Who

Stmw msber

OM ee"A13

9ab& Uf

Uo~ "-M

OF=VMM4,

A.&-MD.Oc 1-

=9U~wf

OwBUc 3M.UU

FM am Usm M

cm=a 34-M

M= M 4.Md

Mftd.d~~

FMCMD"M

DeaMr. Kobjko.:

Thank you forreqet our views on the new constnuction of the

Idaho Spent Fu Storage Faciity at the Idaho National Eigiie r nd

EnvirImental Labotory. The ficility will be constructed on a eght-acre

parcel at the Idaho Nuclear Techilogy and Engineering Center (INEC) and

will require h use of an adjacent four a for construction laydown.

The 12-ae proect area has been surveyed for arcaeological

epstim during sverl past arcb oogical sveys. No historic properties

wee idified within theprojects areafpoten effects In May2001, we

reviewed the report ==mazizng ti work (by Brenda Ringe Pace dated

March 2001) and suported the conclusions that w k could proceed with no

cffect on historic pwpertic. No newsites have been idenafied since ourlast

commient.Therebore, we still agree that the project, as plnned, will have no

effd on historic properties. We also agree a archaeological monitoring

should be conducted during the initial pbases of construction.

If arbaeological rmais we discoverd duing construction activities,

work should halt and Brenda Ringe Pace, archaeologist for the IEEL,

should be noffied immndiately.

We areciate your cooeration. If you have any questions, feel free

to contact me at 20-334-3847.-

Sincerely,

Susan PengillyNcitzel

Dey SHPO and

Compliance Coordinao

cc: Brenda Ringe Pace, Bechtel BWXT Idaho

roe Wdho State Nbtodca So et h a Eq al PPcet JY Employer

B-5
Appendix B

Aprl 21,2003

Ms. Kendra Womack

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

1387 South Vinnell Way, Room 368

Boise. Idaho 83709

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON THE DETERMINATION OF EFFECT ON

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITATS FOR THE

PROPOSED IDAHO SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY

Dear Ms. Womacc:

The Nudear Regulatory Commssion (NRC) Is In the process of developing an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility to be located at the U.S.

Department of Energs (DOE's) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

(INEEL). located near Idaho Falls. The proposed facility will receive spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from locations on the INEEL, repackage the SNF into NRC licensed canisters, and place these

canisters into interim dry storage pending its final removal from the state of Idaho. This

proposed facility, as weE as all associated construction activities and impacts, will be within the

boundaries of INEEL The forthcoming EIS will evaluate the actions and Impacts associated

with the construction and operation of the facility.

An ecological resources report for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the INEEL was

prepared for the DOE (May 2001) and Is enclosed. This report describes the areas that will be

affected by the construction of the proposed facility and the ecological resources that are In or

near these areas. The proposed location of the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be on

previously disturbed land aqacent to the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

(INTEC) in the south-central portion of the INEEL The area includes a small complex of

existing office buildings, warehouses, and trailers Immediately to the east of the INTEC

perimeter fence and north of a ooal-fired power planL There are two areas of potential effect

for the proposed project The first is the facility construction site whidh is an 8-acre parcel

located near a large ash pit associated with INTEC's coal-fired power plant The second area Is

a 9-acre construction laydown area, which would be used to facilitate construction activities.

This area is located a short distance to the northeast of the proposed facility location. Ground

disturbance associated with construction of the facility and other temporary support facilities will

be localized, but extensive In both areas. Both areas of potential effect have been investigated

for ecological resources. Intensive ecological surveys from the 1980s, subsequent plant and

wetland surveys by various research personnel, and previous consultation with your office have

all been combined to dentify ecological resources. Based on this report and the NRCs

preliminary analysis In support of the draft EIS, the NRC has determined that the proposed

action is not likely to adversely affect any listed species or critical habitat The most recent

species list, 1-4-02-SP-921, provided by your office in September 2002 was used in making this

determination.

B-6
Appendix B

Ms. K. Womack -2-

Please provide your concurrence regarding NRCs determination that the proposed action is not

likely to adversely affect any listed species or crltical habitat. II you have any questions or

comments or need any additional Information, please contact Matthew Blevins at 301-415.7684.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Lawrence E. Kokalko, Acting Chief IAI

Environmental and Performance

Assessment Branch

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards

Enclosure: As stated

cc: Attached Ust

I 

! . . ..

, ,I .

B-7
Appendix B

June 3, 2003

Ms. Sandi Arena

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

4425 Burley Drive

Chubbuck, ID 83202

SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION TO APRIL 21,2003, LETTER REQUESTING CONCURRENCE

ON THE DETERMINATION OF EFFECT ON FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITATS FOR THE PROPOSED IDAHO SPENT FUEL

STORAGE FACILITY

Dear Ms. Arena:

In a letter dated April 21, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested

concurrence on its finding for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Based on conversations

between yourself and Matthew Blevins of my staff, it is my understanding that clarification to the

previous letter is necessary. Previously, we asked for concurrence on the NRCfs finding of 'not

likely to adversely affect any listed species or critical habitat' for the proposed facility. The

earlier request should have clearly stated the NRCfs finding that the proposed facility will not

affect any listed species or critical habitat." I believe the information provided in the earlier

request will support this finding.

Please provide your concurrence regarding the NRCfs determination that the proposed action

will not affect any listed species or critical habitat. If you have any questions or comments or

need any additional information, please contact Matthew Blevins at 301-415-7684. Thank you

for your assistance.

Sincerely,

IRA1

Lawrence E. Kokajko, Acting Chief

Environmental and Performance

Assessment Branch

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards

cc: Attached List
Appendix B

Unted States Department of the Interior

FISHANDWILDLIFESERVICE

EASTN MAHO FD OFFIC -ES

4423 3UaLE DsM A

Tdepbu ( 2374973 F MberQ () 2374213

Jime 10, 2003

Itwece E. KobkqlA Acting Chif ' US.Nucle Regulatoy Commission

Environmental and Perfomance Assessment Branch

Division of Waste M

Office of Nudear Material Safety and Safegurds

Washington, D.C. 20S55-0001

Subject Request for Conmrence on the Determination of Effect on Federaly Listed

Species and their Critical Habitats for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Storage

Facility File #S06.0000 FWS N114-03-1-0220

Dea Mr. Kokafko:

The US. Fish and Wdlife Service (Service) received the United States Nucleaegulatory

Commission's (Commission) Apxil 21,2003 letter, re ding the request for conomirence on the

determination of effect on federally listed species and their critical habitats for the poposod

Idaho Spent Fuel Stoage Fuiility. Speces tha may potentially occur in the oposed prcect

area include: gay wolf (CanLr Iqw) snd wintmng bald eagle (Hlkzhets ucocepsal). Ie

efficts determination provided in the April21,2003 letter of i not ilkto adwrnly qcs was

clarified via a tclephone convemtion with Matthew Blevins on May 29,2003. Following our

converation, the Service received a letter dated Jlme 3, 2003, clafyin that the Commission's

effects determinatilor the proposedjdaho Spent Fuel Storage Facility is tat the proposed

project will bav no efect on threatened or endangered species.

The proposed location ofthe Idaho Spent Fuel Facility iiould be on previously disturbed land

adjacent to the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (ITEC) in the south-central

portion of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The area

includes a m omplec of exstig office building, warehouses, and tailes immediately to

the east of the INIEC peimeter fence and norh of a coal-fired power plant.

B-9
Appendix B

There have been sevral sightings of the gr wolf on the INEE duing the past decade;

howeva, none have beea confirmed. Additionally, wolves are cpected to avoid areas of high

human activity, such as the proposed project area. Bald eagles occur rarely on the INE and

only during the winter. Primay areas where wintering bald eagles may occu include the north

end of the INEL near the towns of Howe and Md Lake. As such, the Service has no objection

to your determination of no effea on gray wolrand wintering bald eagle

We appreciate your conscientious efforts to comply with Federal requirements. Ifyou have any

questions regading this letter, please contact Sandi Arwa of this office at 208-237-6975 ext 34.

B-1 0
APPENDIX C
: DETAILED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Methodology

The 11-step cumulative effects assessment methodology published by the Council on

Environmental Quality is used as the framework for addressing cumulative effects (Council on

Environmental Quality, 1997). The steps, in an expanded format, are as follows:

Step 1: Identify the significant cumulative effects issues associated with the proposed

action and define the assessment goals. This step is focused on the incremental

impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Accordingly, these impacts have been summarized based on the information in

Sections 4.1-4.13. Further, where the incremental impacts were deemed to be small

and insignificant, no analyses of cumulative effects were conducted. Therefore, the

assessment goal is to assess the direct, indirect, and contributed impacts of the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility on nearby resources, ecosystems,' and human - communities that may have been, or would be, subject to cumulative effects.' Step 1

results are described in Section 4. [Resources considered herein include geology and

soils (Section 4.3), water (4.4), air quality (4.6), noise (4.7), and waste management

(4.13); ecosystems include land use (4.1) and ecology (4.5); and human communities

include transportation (4.2), historical and cultural (4.8), visual/scenic (4.9),

socioeconomical (4.10), environmental justice (4.11), and public and occupational

health and safety (4.12).]

* Step 2: Establish the geographic scope for the analysis (Council on Environmental

Quality, 1997). The geographic scope is dependent on the affected resources,

ecosystems, and human communities. Because of more site-specific and localized

concerns, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)

boundaries were used to define the impact area for geology and soils, water, air quality,

noise,' waste management, land use,'ecology, and historical and cultural resources.

INEEL and its surrounding region were used to establish impacts to transportation,

visual/scenic, socioeconomical, environmental justice, and public and occupational

health and safety resources.

* Step 3: Establish the timeframe for the analysis (Council on Environmental Quality,

1997). The timeframe for the analysis includes the past, present, and future. 'The

historical (past) boundary was assumed to be prior to the establishment of the'

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and precursor activities at INEEL (established in

1949). Accordingly, the boundary selected was the 1940s. Past activities' also include

the facilities and programs at INEEL to year 2003. The future time boundary would

extend to 2039 to encompass the construction period for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility (2-4 years),' meet the terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement, and a 2- to

4-year decommissioning period. The recent Idaho High-Level Waste'(HLW) and

facilities disposition environmental impact statement (EIS) incorporated a timeframe for

analysis from 2000 to 2095 (DOE, 2002, Section 5.4). The 2000-2095 period was the

timeframe established for completion of activities evaluated in that EIS and the assumed

period of institutional control,' although DOE has no plans to relinquish institutional

control of INEEL facilities or lands.'

IC-I
Appendix C

Step 4: Identify other actions affecting the resources, ecosystems, and human

communities of concern (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997). This step was

accomplished by reviewing the identified actions in the DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel

Programmatic EIS, the DOE Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS (DOE, 2002), and

the EIS on the independent spent fuel storage installation for Three-Mile Island Unit 2

Spent Fuel (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1998). Actions within INEEL, as well

as offsite, were identified. Information on these past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions is summarized in Section 4.14.2. Contributions to cumulative

effects are summarized in Section 4.14.3.

Steps 5 and 6: Characterize the resources, ecosystems, and human communities

identified in Steps 1-4 for response to change and capacity to withstand stresses.

Further, characterize the stresses affecting these resources, ecosystems, and human

communities and their relations to regulatory thresholds (Council on Environmental

Quality, 1997). Considerable information on the conditions of these environmental

categories, their current stresses, and their relations to regulatory thresholds and

requirements is in Section 3 of the EIS. A summary table and discussion is included in

Section 4.14.

Step 7: Define a baseline condition for the resources, ecosystems, and human

communities (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997). The words baseline condition

can be used in three ways in an impact study: (i) to define the conditions of pertinent

resources, ecosystems, and human communities at an historical reference date and as

reflected by trends to the current date; (ii) to define the current conditions (such as in

Section 3 of the EIS, with the current conditions reflective of historical cumulative

effects); and (iii) to define the future without the proposed action conditions based on

forecasting changes for the future time period within the analysis. Descriptive

information will be included on conditions reflective of an historical reference date and

trends. Steps 5 and 6 previously discussed relate to current conditions, with summary

information included. The future without the proposed action conditions is summarized

in conjunction with Step 9.

Step 8: Identify the important cause-and-effect relationships between human activities

and resources, ecosystems, and human communities (Council on Environmental

Quality, 1997). These relationships will be addressed by identifying and describing

common pathways or connections between the construction and operation of the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility; related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions; and the affected resources, ecosystems, and human communities. This

step is related to Steps 1 and 4 previously discussed and will be addressed in

Section 4.14 of the EIS.

Step 9: Determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative effects (Council on

Environmental Quality, 1997). The magnitude of the cumulative effects will be

determined based on information from selected tables in DOE (2002), as well as impact

information from Sections 4.1-4.13 of this report. The significance of the cumulative

effects was determined considering historical, current, and forecasted conditions for the

affected resources, ecosystems, and human communities, along with professional

judgment. Information related to this step is in Section 4.14 of the EIS.

C-2
Appendix C

* Step 10: Modify or add alternatives to avoid, minimize, or, mitigate significant cumulative

- effects (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997). Because there are no significant

incremental impacts from the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and no significant

cumulative effects associated therewith, it would not be necessary to develop

alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant cumulative effects. The proposed

facility already includes a number of design,-construction, and operational measures that

are focused on avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

These measures are mentioned in various locations in Sections 2 and 4. In addition,

they are addressed in a summary fashion in Section 5 of the EIS.

* Step 11: Monitor the cumulative effects of the selected alternative and adapt

management (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997). Extensive monitoring of the

physical-chemical and biological environment is already conducted at INEEL, including

specific components that are related to Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering

Center (INTEC) and its environs (including the site for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility). Because there are no significant incremental impacts from the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility and no significant cumulative effects associated therewith, it would

not be necessary to develop and implement a special cumulative effects monitoring

program with related adaptive management strategies. Specific monitoring of selected

parameters'is planned for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. For example, process

and effluent radiation monitoring would include criticality monitoring, area radiation

monitoring,'radiation signature monitoring, continuous air monitoring, and exhaust gas

stack sampling. This monitoring program is presented in Section 6 of the EIS.

Cumulative Impacts of Past Actions

This summary is of the affected environment in accordance with 13 topical areas classified as

resources-, ecosystems, or human comrnunities.: The information is abstracted from

Sections 3.1-3.14. Detailed information and data'can be found in these sections, along with

information on pertinent regulatory thresholds and environmental management policies and

requirements. 'The approach used is to describe current conditions, which are reflective of the

cumulative effects from past actions at INEEL, along with actions from the 1940s, or earlier,

which predate the DOE operations.'

Land Use (Sections 3.1 'and 3.2)-Ecosystem: INEEL covers 230,850 ha

[570,000 acres] in 'southeast Idaho, with about 2 percent {4,600 ha [11,400 acres]}

developed to support DOE..- One of nine developed areas is INTEC, located in the

south-central part of INEEL.':INTEC includes 150 buildings located on 101 ha

[250 acres]. The proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would be constructed on 3.2 ha

[8 acres] adjacent to the southeast boundary of INTEC; construction laydown activities

would also occur on an adjoining 4.1-ha [10-acre] area. Additional land uses at INEEL

include 340,000 acres leased for cattle and sheep grazing. Future industrial

development at INEEL is expected to occur in the central portion within existing major

facility areas. A designated Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystem Reserve {29,672 ha

[73,263 acres)) is located at INEEL;'its southern boundary is 17.6 km [11 mi] north of

'INTEC. Approximately 75 percent of the land adjacent to INEEL is administered by the

Bureau of Land Management for wildlife habitat, mineral and energy production, grazing,

and recreation. Approximately 1 percent of the adjacent land is owned by the State of

Idaho and is used for purposes similar to that of the Federal government. The remaining

C-3
Appendix C

24 percent of the land adjacent to INEEL is privately owned and primarily used for

grazing and crop production (DOE, 2002). Historical use of a portion of the INEEL land

in the 1940s was as a bombing range; agricultural and grazing operations existed on a

periodic basis prior to and during the 1940s.

Transportation and Infrastructure (Section 3.3)-Human Community: Two interstate

highways (86 and 15), three U.S. highways (91, 20, and 26), and one state highway (33)

serve the regional area and provide access to INEEL. Approximately 140 km [87 mi] of

paved roads are located within INEEL. One DOE-owned spur line provides railway

access to INEEL. Historical trails and roads existed in the INEEL area and region prior

to and during the 1940s.

* Geology and Soils (Section 3.4)-Resources: INEEL is located on the Eastern Snake

River Plain, which is a broad northeast-trending basin that began filling with volcanic

deposits about 6 million years ago. Overlying and interlacing the volcanic lavas are thin,

discontinuous deposits of wind-blown sand and loess, floodplain, riverbed and lake

sediments, and landslope debris. Surficial sediments at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility site consist mostly of gravel, gravelly sands, and sands. The proposed site has

been previously disturbed, and its vegetation covers about 5 percent of the 3.2 ha

[8 acres]. Site soils are below thresholds for radiological and nonradiological

contaminants. No mineral resources are associated with the 3.2-ha [8-acre] site.

Finally, there is a low rate of seismicity in the Eastern Snake River Plain, and the annual

probability of nearby volcanic eruptions is also low. Historical agricultural and grazing

activities on current INEEL lands may have caused some losses of soil caused by

erosion. Radiological contamination of soils in the vicinity of INTEC would have

occurred in more recent decades.

* Water Resources-Surface Water (Section 3.5.1)-Resources: Three main streams are

associated with INEEL-the Big and Little Lost Rivers and Birch Creek. INTEC is

located 61 m [200 ft] from the Big Lost River channel; however, INTEC is surrounded by

a storm water drainage ditch system for controlling storm water runoff. Several studies

of a probable maximum flood near INTEC have been conducted. Based on conservative

assumptions, small areas of the northern portion of INTEC could flood at the estimated

100- and 500-year flows, but the southeast corner of INTEC, where the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility would be located, is not within the estimated 100- and 500-year flood

plains. Additional work is ongoing at INEEL by the U.S. Geological Survey and the

Bureau of Reclamation to further refine flow frequency estimates for the Big Lost River in

the vicinity of INTEC. Finally, it should be noted that no surface water is used as a water

supply at INEEL.

Water quality in the Big Lost River has remained fairly constant for the period of record.

Applicable drinking water quality standards for measured physical, chemical, and

radioactive parameters have not been exceeded (DOE, 1995). INEEL activities do not

directly affect the quality of surface water because discharges are to artificial seepage

and evaporation basins or storm water injection wells. Effluents are not discharged to

natural surface waters. Water from the Big Lost River, however, as well as seepage

from evaporation basins and storm water injection wells, does infiltrate the Snake River

Plain Aquifer.

C-4
Appendix C

Water Resources-Groundwater (Section 3.5.2)-Resources: The Snake River Plain

Aquifer is the largest groundwater system in Idaho. As the major source of drinking

water for southeast Idaho, it has been designated a sole-source aquifer by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aquifer recharge is primarily from the infiltration

of irrigation water and by valley underflow from the mountains to the north and northeast

of the plain.; The vadose zone extends down from the ground surface to the top of the

Snake River Plain Aquifer; at INTEC, the zone extends from the ground surface to

140-146 m [460-480 ft] below the ground surface. Three zones of perched

groundwater occur at INTEC ranging about 9-98 m [30-322 ft] below the

ground surface.

Monitoring of groundwater quality at INEEL has been conducted within four

categories-drinking water monitoring, compliance monitoring (source oriented),

surveillance monitoring (of the groundwater), and special studies. INTEC drinking water

wells are hydrologically upgradient of the' INTEC facility; they would be used to supply

water to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. In 2000, the most recent year with

published data, all drinking water samples collected at INTEC had concentrations below

the maximum contaminant levels specified in Federal and state drinking water

regulations. Surveillance monitoring of perched and aquifer water underneath and

downgradient from INTEC established that concentrations of several inorganics and

radionuclides exceed the Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels and

secondary maximum contaminant levels. An indepth study of soil and groundwater

contaminations at INTEC was conducted in 1995. The study indicated that both soil and

groundwater contaminations existed relative to several inorganics and radionuclides

(details are in Section 3.5.2.4).

The two primary uses of water withdrawn from the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer are

for agricultural irrigation and for INEEL operations. Nearly 1.77 trillion L [0.47 trillion gal]

of water is withdrawn for agricultural purposes within the region. Annual water

withdrawals by INEEL are about 7.4 billion L [2.0 billion gal]; the water is used for

drinking purposes, as process water, 'and for noncontact cooling. Finally, DOE holds a

Federal Reserved Water Right for INEEL, which permits a maximum water consumption

of 43.2 billion L [11.4 billion gal] per year.

Ecological Resources (Section 3.6)-Ecosystem: Ecological resources at INEEL include

flora; fauna (terrestrial and aquatic); threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; and

wetlands. Vegetation at INEEL'Is primarily of the shrub-steppe type; the 15 vegetation

associations range from primarily shadescale-steppe vegetation at lower altitudes

through sagebrush- and grass-dominated communities to juniper woodlands along the

foothills of the nearby mountains and buttes; Facility and human-disturbed (grazing not

included) areas include about 2 percent of INEEL, with introduced annuals, including

Russian thistle and cheatgrass, frequently dominating disturbed areas. These species

usually are less desirable to wildlife as food and cover and compete with more desirable

perennial native species. Disturbances to vegetative cover from large wildfires have

been a concern at INEEL in recent years. Previous studies at INEEL indicated that more

than 270 vertebrate species occur, including 46 mammal, 204 bird, 10 reptile,

2 amphibian, and 9 fish. The monitoring of radionuclide levels outside the boundaries of

the various INEEL facilities, and off INEEL, has detected radionuclide concentrations

above background levels in individual plants and animals; however, these limited data

C-5
Appendix C

do not suggest that populations of exposed animals (e.g., mice and rabbits) or animals

that feed on these exposed animals (e.g., eagles and hawks) are at risk.

Seven bird species, six mammals, one reptile, and six plant species are listed as

threatened or endangered, species of concern, or other unique species. Details are

contained in Section 3.6. None of these species has been identified at the site for the

proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility; moreover, no critical habitat has been designated at

the proposed site. Finally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands

Inventory identified more than 130 areas inside the boundaries of INEEL that might

possess some wetlands characteristics. Surveys conducted in the fall of 1992 indicated

that these possible wetlands cover about 1.3 percent {3,323 ha [8,206 acres]} of INEEL.

There are, however, no wetland-like areas within the INTEC boundary, including the site

for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility.

Air Quality (Section 3.7)-Resources: Monitoring and assessment of radiological air

quality at INEEL and in the surrounding region have demonstrated that exposures

resulting from airborne radionuclide emissions are well within applicable standards and

are a small fraction of the dose from background sources. The National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants includes an annual radiation dose limit of

0.1 mSv [10 mrem] to the hypothetical maximally exposed individual (MEI). The

calculated offsite dose to the MEI from INEEL radiation sources is about 0.00031 mSv

[0.031 mrem]; this dose is well below the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air

Pollutants of 0.1 mSv [10 mrem] and the annual background dose of 3.6 mSv

[360 mrem]. In summary, radioactivity and radiation levels resulting from INEEL site

emissions are low, well within applicable standards, and negligible when compared with

doses received from natural background sources. These summary remarks apply to

onsite conditions to which INEEL workers or visitors may be exposed and to offsite

locations where the general public population resides.

Nonradiological air quality includes criteria pollutants regulated by the National and State

of Idaho Ambient Air Quality Standards and other types of pollutants with potentially

toxic properties called toxic or hazardous air pollutants. Criteria pollutants are nitrogen

dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, and respirable particulate matter

less than or equal to 2.5 pm [9.8 x 10-9 in] in diameter. Twenty-six toxic air pollutants

are emitted from INEEL facilities. Monitoring and assessment of the nonradiological air

quality on and around INEEL indicate the air quality is good and within applicable

standards and guidelines. The area around INEEL is either in attainment or unclassified

for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Portions of Bannock and Power Counties

in Idaho, near the region of influence, are in a nonattainment area for particulate matter.

For toxic emissions, all INEEL boundary and public road levels have been found to be

well below reference levels appropriate for comparison. Similarly, all toxic pollutant

levels at onsite locations at INEEL are below occupational limits established for the

protection of workers. Detailed information on comparisons to standards is found in

Section 3.7.

Noise (Section 3.8)-Resources: The environmental noise levels at INEEL and the

associated facilities are typical of industrial operations. No cumulative effects concerns

have been identified for noise levels on and around INEEL.

C-6
Appendix C

Historical, Cultural, and Paleontological (Section 3.9), Human Communities-Prehistoric

settlement and use of the area now known as INEEL date back 12,000 years.

Numerous archeological surveys have been conducted in recent years, and no known

sites have been identified on the 3.2-ha [8-acre] proposed project site nor on the

adjoining 4.1-ha [10-acre] construction laydown area. Within INTEC, there are

-38 buildings and structures that are of historical significance and potentially eligible for

listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Special concerns exist relative to

early cultures and lifestyles of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and their inability to

maintain and revitalize their traditional cultures because of continuing restricted access

to aboriginal lands, including some areas on INEEL. Finally, several types of

paleontological resources have been identified within INEEL boundaries.

* Visual/Scenic (Section 3.10)-Human Community: Lands within and adjacent to INEEL

are subject to the Bureau of Land Management Visual Resource Management

Guidelines. Adjacent lands are designated as a visual resource Class II area, which

allows for moderate industrial growth while preserving and retaining the existing

character of the landscape. Lands within the boundaries of INEEL are designated as

either Class IlIl or Class IV areas, allowing for partial retention of existing character and

major modifications, respectively. The INTEC area is a Class IV area. No major issues

exist relative to these classifications and incompatibilities with current land uses

within INEEL.

* Socioeconomical (Section 3.11)-Human Community: The total population in 2000 in

the seven-county region of influence was 250,365. Population growth in the region of

influence paralleled statewide growth from 1960 to 1990, with approximate average

annual rates of 1.3 and 1.4 percent. From 1990 to 2000, however, state population

growth accelerated to 2.9 percent a year, compared with the region of influence growth

of 1.4 percent. Nevertheless, with these trends, the region of influence population would

reach almost 269,000 by 2005 and 339,700 by 2025. In the 1990s, employment in the

region of influence grew at an average annual rate of nearly 2.6 percent. In 2000,

the region of influence experienced the lowest unemployment rate in a

decade-4.0 percent. This rate was lower than the 4.9 percent for the state, though

rates varied widely in the region of influence from 2.5 percent in Madison County to

5.0 percent in Bannock County. The NEEL influence on the regional economy is

apparent from the fact that in fiscal year 2001, INEEL accounted for 8,100 jobs, or

6 percent of the total workforce in the region of influence. Finally, housing and key

community services such as education, law enforcement, fire protection, and medical

services do not appear to be overstressed in the region of influence.

* Environmental Justice (Section 3.12)-Human Community: The environmental justice

study area was chosen to encompass an 80-km [50-mi] radius around INTEC. This area

includes portions of the seven counties that compose the region of influence for

socioeconomics. Census data from 2002 were used to identify minority populations.

The 2000 population within the 80-km [50-mi] radius was 203,165, including a minority

population of 21,898 (11 percent). The low-income population was based on 1990 data

because the 2000 data were not available. The 1990 population was 170,989, including

20,110 within the definition of low income (12 percent).

C-7
Appendix C

Public and Occupational Health and Safety (Section 3.13)-Human Community: The

annual exposure to airborne releases of radioactivity vary from 0.0027 mSv [0.27 mrem]

for an onsite worker, to a range of 0.00008-0.00031 mSv [0.008-0.031 mrem] for the

hypothetical MEL. These doses are well below the 0.1 mSv/yr [10 mrem/yr] National

Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants limit in 40 CFR Part 61. Further, the

annual doses to individuals are well below the natural background level of 3.6 mSv/yr

[360 mremlyr]. The number of latent cancer fatalities estimated in the surrounding

population for the next 70 years is less than 1. Lifetime health effects from groundwater

pathway exposures were estimated to be 1 in 170 million. Health risks to the public from

nonradiological airborne emissions and groundwater consumption are less than 1 in

1 million, and in some cases, the risks are 0. Radiation workers at INEEL can be

exposed to radiation internally from inhalation and ingestion and externally from direct

exposure. The largest fraction of occupational dose received by INEEL workers is

external radiation from direct exposure. The average annual occupational dose at

INEEL between 1997 and 2000 was 0.84 mSv [84 mrem]. This value is well below the

annual occupational dose limit of 50 mSv [5,000 mrem] in 10 CFR Part 20.

* Waste Management (Section 3.14)-Resource: A variety of radioactive wastes are

stored, generated, or both at INEEL. The current stored inventory includes 2,100 M3

[2,750 yd3] of mixed low-level waste; 980 m3 [1,280 yd3] of low-level waste; 65,000 M3

[85,000 yd3j of transuranic waste; 4,400 M3 [5,750 yd3j of HLW; and 3,785,000 L

[1 million gal] of mixed transuranic waste/sodium-bearing waste. The annual generation

of wastes includes 43,000 m3 [56,250 yd3] of industrial solid waste; 120 m3 [150 yd3] of

hazardous waste; 160 m3 [210 yd3] of mixed low-level waste; and 2,900 m3 [3,800 yd3] of

low-level waste. Industrial and commercial solid waste is disposed of at the INEEL

Landfill Complex in the Central Facilities Area. Hazardous waste is minimized and

managed via private sector treatment and disposal. The annual generation of mixed

low-level and low-level radioactive waste is stored at the Radioactive Waste

Management Complex.

Table 4-13 provides a synopsis of the effects and concerns and the basis for their classification.

References

Council on Environmental Quality. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National

Environmental Policy Act." Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. 1997.

DOE. DOE/EIS-0287-F, "Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final

Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

DOE/EIS-0203-F, "Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE,

Idaho Operations Office. 1995.

NRC. NUREG-1626, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and

Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation to Store the Three Mile Island

Unit 2 Spent Fuel at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory."

Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. March 1998.

C-8
APPENDIX D
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

CONTENTS

D.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS .... ......... D-1

D.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ........................................ D-1

D.2.1 Editorial Comments ................... ........................ D-1

D.2.2 Introduction ...................... ........................... D-2

D.2.2.1 Site Description ..................................... D-2

D.2.2.2 Regulatory Permit Status .............................. D-3

D.2.2.3 Security and Physical Protection ........................ D-4

D.2.3 Alternatives ...................... ........................... D-4

D.2.4 Description of the Affected Environment ......... .. ................ D-5

D.2.4.1 Water Resources .................................... D-5

D.2.4.2 Ecological Resources ................................. D-6

D.2.4.3 Cultural, Historical, Archaeological, Ethnographical, and

Paleontological Resources ............................. D-6

D.2.4.4 Air Quality .......................................... D-7

D.2.5 Environmental Impacts ................. ....................... D-7

D.2.5.1 Air Quality Impacts ................................... D-7

D.2.5.2 Socioeconomical Impacts ............................. D-8

D.2.5.3 Impacts from Operations .............................. D-8

D.2.5.4 Waste Management Impacts .......................... D-11

D.2.5.5 Decontamination and Decommissioning ..... ............ D-12

D.2.6 Mitigation ....................... ........................... D-13

D.3 REFERENCES . ..................................................... D-13

D-iii
Appendix D

D.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires Federal

agencies to consider the environmental impacts of actions under their jurisdictions. Both the

Council on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have

promulgated regulations to implement the requirements of NEPA. Council on Environmental

Quality NEPA regulations are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at

40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508, and NRC requirements are provided in 10 CFR Part 51.

In fulfilling its requirements under NEPA, NRC made the draft environmental impact statement

(EIS) for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility available for public review and comment in

June 2003 in accordance with 10 CFR 51.74 and 40 CFR 1503.1. A 45-day public comment

period was specified in accordance with 10 CFR 51.73. The public comment period ended on

August 18, 2003; NRC received more than 90 written comments.

In modifying the draft EIS to prepare the final EIS for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at

the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho,

NUREG-1 773, the staff of NRC and its contractor, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory

Analyses (CNWRA), have carefully reviewed and considered each comment and grouped and

summarized comments relating to similar issues and topics. This grouping is permitted by NRC

implementing regulations at 10 CFR 51.91 and Council on Environmental Quality NEPA

regulations at 40 CFR 1503.4(b). The grouping, including editorial comments, follows the

general outline of the draft EIS and includes

* Editorial comments;

* Introduction;

* Alternatives;

* Description of the affected environment;

* Air quality;

* Environmental impacts; and

* Mitigation.

After grouping the more than 90 written comments, the NRC and CNWRA staffs prepared

responses to these comments.

The comments and the responses are contained in this appendix to the final EIS. Where

comments resulted in modifying or supplementing the information in the draft EIS, those

changes are noted. The NRC and CNWRA staffs responded to all comments received during

the 45-day public comment period.

D.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

D.2.1 Editorial Comments

Comment 1: Commenters suggested corrections for typographical errors, misspellings, and

grammatical mistakes in the draft EIS. Several commenters also proposed text to clarify

discussions in the draft EIS.

D-1
Appendix D

Response 1: Proposed changes were made when appropriate and when they did not alter the

impact assessment. Where proposed changes were intended to correct inaccuracies or

inconsistencies, they were checked for accuracy prior to incorporation in the final EIS.

Comment 2: Several commenters provided suggestions to clarify or correct background

information on the proposed action. For example, one commenter noted the correct shutdown

date for the Shippingport Light Water Breeder Reactor was 1982, which is in agreement with the

NRC records for the facility. One commenter suggested the final EIS clarify the NRC definitions

for SNF and high-level waste (HLW). Several commenters requested clarification of the

responsibilities of the different parties to the licensing action.

Response 2: Where commenters identified errors, such as the shutdown date for the

Shippingport Light Water Breeder Reactor, corrections were made throughout the text. A text

box has been added to Section 1 of the final EIS to clarify NRC definitions for SNF and HLW.

The text in Section 1.6.4 of the final EIS was expanded to clarify the roles of the NRC, the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE), and the license applicant, Foster Wheeler Environmental

Corporation (FWENC).

D.2.2 Introduction

D.2.2.1 Site Description

Comment 1: FWENC noted the location of the construction laydown area for the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility was inconsistent in the draft EIS with the current plans. FWENC also

noted some descriptions of the proposed action do not properly locate the facility relative to the

existing perimeter fence or the storm ditch for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering

Center (INTEC).

Response 1: In addition to the area adjacent to the northeast corner of the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility defined in the draft EIS, the construction laydown will include an area

immediately east of the proposed facility, as described in a FWENC letter dated June 4

(FWENC, 2003a). The current planned construction laydown area is shown in the final EIS in

revised Figure 11. The additional area is already disturbed, and, according to the FWENC

environmental report (2003b), the area has previously been surveyed for cultural and biological

resources. The potential impacts for these resources remain minimal and are unchanged from

the analyses presented in the draft EIS. The text has been modified throughout the final EIS to

reflect the correct location of the construction laydown area. The changes affect only the

construction laydown area; the proposed location and size of the area for the Idaho Spent Fuel

Facility remain unchanged from the draft EIS.

The commenters are also correct that the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will be located

outside the current perimeter fenceline for the INTEC facility. As described in FWENC (2003c,

Section 3.3.5.1; 2003d, Section 1.2.2), the proposed facility will be bounded by a site security

fence to restrict access and protect individuals from exposure to radioactive materials and

radiation. The text in the final EIS has been revised to clarify the location of the proposed

facility relative to the existing perimeter fence. The text in Section 3.5.1.2 of the final EIS also

D-2
Appendix D

has been revised to clarify the location of the facility relative to the storm water drainage

ditch system.

D.2.2.2 Regulatory Permit Status I

Comment 1: Two commenters provided updates to the regulatory permit status. The draft EIS I

stated FWENC would seek a Categorical Exemption from the Idaho Division of Environmental

Quality for construction activities associated with the proposed facility. The commenter noted

documentation of the calculated emissions will be provided to the Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as appropriate to

demonstrate compliance and to address Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (INEEL) Title V operating permit considerations. The commenters also noted that l

rather than FWENC being conditionally exempt from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act |

(RCRA) requirements, the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will be considered part of the l

larger INEEL facility for the purposes of RCRA waste accountability. One commenter noted I

there was no specific reference to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants |

regulations in the listing of applicable Federal standards and regulations in Section 1.6.1.1 of I

the draft EIS. Finally, DOE identified several places where the DOE orders identified in the draft I

EIS have been superseded or discontinued. -

Response 1: Throughout the final EIS, the text has been revised to reflect the current plans for

providing information on construction activity emissions to the Idaho Division of Environmental

Quality and the EPA to demonstrate compliance with the INEEL Title V operating permit. The

text in the final EIS also has been revised to reflect the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is

part of INEEL for RCRA waste accountability purposes. As a result of this status, applicable

sections of 40 CFR Part 270 for large quantity generators will be implemented in compliance

with the existing INEEL RCRA permit and in coordination with the DOE Idaho Operations Office |

and Bechtel BWXT Idaho, the INEEL management and operations contractor.

EPA uses National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to set emissions standards

for potential noncriteria pollutants not covered by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. I

The primary National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants are designed to protect

human health, and the secondary standards are designed to protect public welfare. The I

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants are presented in Table 3-7 of the i

draft EIS. The text in Section 1.6.1.1 of the final EIS has been revised to include National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for radiological emissions that are give in

40 CFR Part 61. .

The text of the final EIS also has been revised to include the current status of orders for DOE I

environmental compliance at INEEL. DOE Order 5400.1, which established general

environmental protection program requirements and assigns responsibilities for ensuring I

compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and DOE policies, has been superseded by DOE

Order 450.1. DOE Order 5480.IB, which established the environmental, safety, and health I

programs for DOE operations at INEEL, is no longer in effect. Environmental, safety, and health

standards are contained in DOE Order 5480.4.

D-3
Appendix D

D.2.2.3 Security and Physical Protection

Comment 1: One commenter expressed concern that when all the SNF is stored in one

location, it may become vulnerable to terrorist activity.

Response 1: The NRC staff is sensitive to the potential risk of terrorist activity. As part of

fulfilling its mission to protect public health and safety and the environment, NRC has assessed

potential vulnerabilities and issued interim compensatory measures to licensees to ensure a

safe environment. Also, NRC has increased security awareness for all commercial licensees

and applicants. The commenter correctly noted there is a need for a facility to store SNF that is

currently being stored in older buildings at INEEL. The Native American Tribes agree that SNF

needs to be safely repackaged and prepared for removal from INEEL and the State of Idaho.

In The Matter of Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),

56 NRC 340 (2002), the Commission held that NRC is not required to consider terrorism in

ElSs. The Commission indicated, the possibility of a terrorist attack ... is speculative and

simply too far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency action to require a

study under NEPA.' With respect to the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, FWENC will be

required to meet the NRC physical control requirements in 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart H. The

physical protection plan developed by FWENC will be evaluated as part of the NRC safety

evaluation report rather than as part of the final EIS. If the construction authorization is

approved, NRC will conduct inspections to ensure that security and physical protection

commitments and requirements are implemented.

D.2.3 Alternatives

Comment 1: In the summary of waste management activities provided in Table 2-1 of the draft

EIS, it is indicated that small quantities of radioactive waste will be generated during SNF

receipt and repackaging, and subsequently will be transferred to the Radioactive Waste

Management Complex located at INEEL. One commenter expressed concern that the waste

would not be transferred out of state and that it would remain permanently at INEEL.

Response 1: The proposed action, as summarized in Section 4.13 of the draft EIS, indicates

that solid low-level radioactive wastes may either be transferred to the Radioactive Waste

Management Complex for disposal or shipped offsite for disposal. Any wastes disposed at the

Radioactive Waste Management Complex would remain permanently on the site. Section 4.13

also states that if all the solid low-level radioactive waste generated by the proposed action

were sent to the Radioactive Waste Management Complex for disposal, this waste stream

would increase the annual waste volume from INEEL to the facility by 3 percent. This increase

is, therefore, a small proportion of the annual waste stream going to the Radioactive Waste

Management Complex. Hence, no significant environmental impacts are expected. Because

this concern is already discussed in the draft EIS, no changes were made in the final EIS in

response to the comment.

Comment 2: Commenters stated the impact summary presented in Table 2-1 for the no-action

alternative is not correct, particularly where the summary table indicates there would be no

D-4
Appendix D

impact. The commenters expressed concern that under the no-action alternative, SNF would

continue to be stored in existing facilities; although the associated risks to public and

occupational health and safety would remain unchanged, the risks would not be zero. The

commenters also argued the summary presented in Table 2-1 is not consistent with other

sections, including Section 4.15, where short- and long-term impacts of the no-action alternative

are considered separately.

Response 2: There are impacts associated with the no-action alternative for some resource

areas. As discussed in Section 4.15 of the draft EIS, the no-action alternative would require no

construction or major upgrades in the short term, and some resources, such as land use and

visual/scenic resources, would not be affected by.the no-action alternative. In the long term for

the no-action alternative, however, DOE would either need to modify existing facilities or build

new facilities to prepare the SNF for removal from INEEL by 2035, in compliance with terms of

the 1995 Settlement Agreement. Specific estimates of the long-term impacts from the no-action

alternative are highly uncertain, but they are likely to be similar to the proposed Idaho Spent

Fuel Facility. The impact summary presented for the no-action alternative in Table 2-1 has

been modified to clarify where there are no additional impacts and to distinguish between

short- and long-term impacts.

Comment 3: One commenter said that the statement in Section 2.4 of the draft EIS is not

correct that no other alternatives are reasonably likely to exceed these impacts." The

commenter suggested the statement should be changed to other alternatives are reasonably

likely to result in equal or greater environmental impacts."

Response 3: The commenter is correct, and the proposed wording emphasizes the selected

alternatives represent a conservative and bounding estimate of the likely impacts. The final EIS

text has been modified as suggested.

D.2.4 Description of the Affected Environment

D.2.4.1 Water Resources

Comment 1: Several comments related to the flooding potential for the Big Lost River Basin

near the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility., One commenter stated the flooding estimates

presented in the FWENC safety analysis report (FWENC, 2003c, Section 2.4.4.2) evaluate a

probable maximum flood scenario that includes overtopping of the Mackay Dam. Another

commenter noted the U.S. Geological Survey recently published a report that revises flood

flows downward.

Response 1: A more detailed evaluation of potential flooding at the site from a probable

maximum flood is included in Section 4.12.4.1 of the final EIS. The text in Section 3.1.3 of the

final EIS will be revised to include a simplified description of the probable maximum flood

scenario, including overtopping of the Mackay Dam.

The 100-year peak flow of the Big Lost River was estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey

(Hortness and Rousseau, 2003) to resolve differences in previous estimates by the Bureau of

D-5
Appendix D

Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey. The 2003 report estimated a 100-year peak flow

for the Big Lost River immediately upstream of the INEEL diversion dam of 106 m31s [3,750 ft3/s] |

with upper and lower 95-percent confidence limits of 177 m3

/s [6,250 ft3

/s] and 37 m3/s

[1,300 ft3 s], respectively. These estimates indicate the conservative nature of earlier estimates l

by the U.S. Geological Survey {205 m3Is [7,260 ft3/s]} (Berenbrock and Kjelstrom, 1996) and the

Bureau of Reclamation {82 m3/s [2,910 ft3/s]} (Ostenaa, et al., 1999). l

D.2.4.2 Ecological Resources

Comment 1: One commenter noted that elk are the most numerous big game species on the |

INEEL and often cause problems with adjoining private land owners. The elk use the INEEL as

a refuge during hunting season and as a base from which to raid the farmers' fields. l

Response 1: The commenter correctly points out that elk populations are greater than

indicated in the text of the draft EIS ("present in small numbers as transients"). Since 1986, the }

number of elk wintering and summering at INEEL has increased, with many being year-round I

residents. The big-game populations are dependent on, among other things, populations during I

the previous year, severity of winter conditions, and acreage of recently burned land. In the I

case of elk, the population is also dependent on game-control measures. As mentioned by the

commenter, elk continue to receive the greatest attention due to their adverse economic impact

on local farmers. Because the proposed site is adjacent to the existing INTEC facility and will |

be surrounded by a perimeter security fence, however, the impacts on the elk population from

the proposed facility remain negligible. Final EIS text has been modified to remove the I

indication that elk populations are small and transient. I

D.2.4.3 Cultural, Historical, Archaeological, Ethnographical, and

Paleontological Resources I

Comment 1: The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes stated their wish to be involved when, and if, I

cultural items or human remains are found at the proposed site. The Tribes commented it is

their understanding if remains are found, construction will halt until further investigation has

been completed. The Tribes also noted the areas for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility

and the associated construction laydown previously have been surface surveyed by INEEL I

cultural resource staff. If items below the subsurface are uncovered during construction, the }

Tribes would like to be informed and be a part of the decisionmaking process regarding the

disposition of the items. The Tribes noted in the draft EIS, the historical, cultural, and

paleontological resources have been identified as small, however, they requested clarification

whether cultural items that may be below the surface have been considered.

Response 1: As indicated in the environmental report submitted with the license application

(FWENC, 2003e, Appendix B), the cultural resource investigations conducted at INEEL must |

meet the U.S. Department of the Interior standards in 36 CFR Part 800 and requirements I

established in the INEEL Cultural Resources Management Plan. Ground-disturbing projects are

preceded by archive searches and, if necessary, additional archaeological field surveys. j

Searches of the INEEL cultural resource management archives indicated the proposed

locations of the 7.2-ha [17.8-acre] facility and construction laydown area have been extensively

surveyed, with only limited historical, cultural, and paleontological resources identified. In l

D-6
Appendix D

addition, the proposed location is already highly. disturbed, and part of the site is used for

construction laydown. For these reasons, additional field activities were not conducted.

Previous and ongoing consultations between the DOE, its management and operations

contractor, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have been used to ensure that significant

cultural resources with visible surface remains in the area have been identified.

The INEEL facility perimeters are routinely monitored for archaeological resources. These

ongoing investigations should ensure that any impacts to sensitive properties as a result of the

new construction will be identified in a timely fashion. If cultural resource materials are

unexpectedly encountered during project activities such as excavation, FWENC employees are

authorized by the INEEL Stop-Work Authority, to stop work, ensure that resources are protected

from inadvertent harm, and contact the INEEL Cultural Resource Management Office for

assistance. The identification and protection of any resources discovered will adhere to the

requirements stipulated in Federal statutes and regulatory requirements applicable to cultural

resources (refer to Section 1.6.1.1). In the unlikely event that human remains or burial-related

artifacts are unearthed, procedures on the handling of these resources will comply with the

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. As part of the Cultural

Resource Management Plan, DOE has committed to additional interaction and exchange of

information with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes if additional resources are identified.

D.2.4.4 Air Quality

Comment 1: One commenter noted the highest predicted concentrations of toxic air pollutants

presented in Table 3-8 of the draft EIS for the maximum baseline case at INEEL included the

effects of operating the New Waste Calciner Facility. The commenter pointed out this facility

is currently on standby and will not operate again without significant upgrades to the

emissions system.

Response 1: DOE placed the New Waste Calciner Facility on standby in 2000 and submitted a

two-phased partial closure plan for the calciner portion of the facility in August 2000 (DOE,

2002, Section 2.2.5). The plan is consistent with an April 19, 1999, modification to the Notice of

Noncompliance Consent Order signed by DOE and the Idaho Department of Health and

Welfare in 1992. In publishing the record of decision for the alternatives evaluated in the INEEL

HLW and facilities disposition final EIS, DOE will decide whether to upgrade and permit the

calciner. If DOE decides to upgrade the calciner, it will modify the closure plan, as necessary,

through the permitting process. The text in the final EIS has been changed, as appropriate.

D.2.5 Environmental Impacts

D.2.5.1 Air Quality Impacts

Comment 1: One commenter noted that Section 4.6 in the draft EIS should include a

discussion or reference of compliance with general conformity regulations of the Clean Air Act. -

The commenter noted INEEL is in an air quality attainment area and, therefore, in accordance

with Section 176(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act, a conformity determination is not required.

D-7
Appendix D

Response 1: The commenter is correct that general conformity applies in either Federal

nonattainment or Federal air quality maintenance areas. INEEL occupies parts of five counties

that are either in attainment or unclassified with respect to the EPA National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (DOE, 2002, Section 4.7.2). A conformity determination is not required, and the text

of the final EIS has been changed, as appropriate.

D.2.5.2 Socloeconomical Impacts

Comment 1: One commenter noted that there are economic benefits that may have a direct

impact on the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the current high unemployment on the Fort Hall

Indian Reservation. Previously, Tribal members have been employed at INEEL, but because of

current budget constraints, a limited number of Tribal members are employed at INEEL. In

addition, the commenter noted numerous businesses owned by Tribal members can do work

outside the reservation. The commenter also noted educational programs for Tribal youth have

been limited because of funding cuts.

Response 1: As the licensee, FWENC would be responsible for identifying, hiring, and training

the necessary staff to conduct the activities at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Although

NRC regulates training and certification of operations staff, specific issues related to staffing are

beyond the scope of the final EIS.

D.2.5.3 Impacts from Operations

Comment 1: One comimenter expressed concern the draft EIS provided no mention of an

operator qualification training program to ensure that qualified personnel are operating the

proposed facility. The commenter observed the training program should identify qualification

progressions and certifications and indicate how often requalifications are to occur. The

program should also identify for what hours (e.g., 24 hours or day shift only) the facility will be

operated and the number of staff required to operate the facility safely.

Response 1: Section 4.12 of the draft EIS addresses the radiological and nonradiological

impacts. A description of the radiation protection program can be found in the proposed Idaho

Spent Fuel Facility safety analysis report (FWENC, 2003c, Section 7). The operator training

and certification plan is presented in the FWENC license application (FWENC, 2003e,

Appendix B). The NRC evaluation of the FWENC radiation protection program and operator

qualification training and certification programs will be included in the safety evaluation report.

Comment 2: One commenter stated Table 4-4 of the draft EIS should be updated to reflect the

most current estimates of chemical uses for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. Another

commenter stated inconsistencies exist with regard to the impacts of construction activities from

potential preexisting contamination at the proposed site. Another commenter stated the

statement in the summary of environmental consequences presented in Section 8.1 of the draft

EIS is not strictly correct that public radiation impacts from normal facility operation would be

minimal. Because the existence of the SNF facility means an increase, however small, over

background, the potential radiation impacts cannot be said to be minimal, though they

are insignificant.

D-8
Appendix D

Response 2: It is important to include the most current estimates of chemical use for the

proposed facility, and Table 4-4 of the final EIS was updated using information provided in

Revision 2 of the environmental report (FWENC, 2003b, Table 3-1). Based on the results of soil

contamination surveys presented in Section 3.4.2 of the final EIS, there is no existing

contamination at the proposed site. The text in Section 4.12.1.2.2 has been revised to refer to

Section 3.4.2 of the final EIS. The summary in Section 8.1 of the final EIS has been revised to

indicate that the potential public radiation impacts from normal facility operation are expected to

be insignificant.

Comment 3: One commenter stated the reference in Section 4.12.1.2.2 of the draft EIS using

9.1 mSv [910 mrem] for the potential total annual whole body dose to individual workers is not

correct. The commenter noted that Revision 2 of the FWENC safety analysis report (FWENC,

2003c, Table 7.4-2) provides the total calculated dose of 470.35 person-mSv [47,035 personmrem] for 1 year of operation. With 60 people employed during operations, the estimated

average dose per person will be 7.84 mSv [784 mrem], below the 9.1 mSv [910 mrem] quoted in

the draft EIS. The 470.35 person-mSv [47,035 person-mrem] estimate is conservative because

no credit is taken for any shielding in the waste processing area. Considering shielding, the

average annual dose per person will further decrease to 2.97 mSv/yr [9,297 mrem/yr], again,

well below the 9.1 mSv/yr [910 mrem/yr] value quoted in the draft EIS.

Response 3: The second column from the right in Table 7.4-2 in Revision 2 of the safety

analysis report (FWENC, 2003c) is labeled Total Individual Dose (mrem/yr). A total estimated

individual dose of 9.1 mSv/yr [910 mrem/yr] is listed for the machinist on the second page of the

table as a result of routine operations for maintenance and repair. When shielding is used, this

potential dose represents the maximum of all tabulated total annual individual doses. The

maximum annual individual dose is preferred rather than an average worker dose for

comparisons with the annual occupational limit of 50 mSv [5,000 mrem]. Hence, no changes

were made for the final EIS.

Comment 4: One commenter asked whether the final EIS will include results of a more

detailed evaluation of the impacts to public health and safety. Another commenter stated the

off-normal and accident analyses presented in Tables 4-8 and 4-9 of the draft EIS include

several statements in the Effects and Consequences column that indicate NRC requested

additional information from FWENC. The commenter stated FWENC provided responses to the

requests for additional information and suggested the tables reflect the current status of the

NRC safety evaluation.

Response 4: The NRC safety review of the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility will include

preparation of a detailed report published as a safety evaluation report. This publically available

report will be based, in part, on the safety analysis report submitted by FWENC (2003c). The

safety evaluation report will include the detailed NRC review of technical issues such as

adequacy of the facility design to withstand extemal events (e.g., earthquakes, floods, and

tomadoes); radiological safety of facility operation, including doses from normal operations and

accidents; emergency response plans; physical security of the facility; fire protection;

maintenance and operating procedures; and decommissioning. The safety evaluation report

also will include results of a detailed safety review of the storage containers against design

D-9
Appendix D

criteria contained in 10 CFR Part 72 and compliance of the proposed facility with the radiation

protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20.

The safety evaluation report for the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility is being prepared by

NRC in parallel with preparation of the final EIS. In preparing the safety evaluation report, NRC

submitted requests for additional information to clarify the analyses presented by FWENC. At

the time the draft EIS was published in June 2003, NRC had not yet received responses to all of

the requests for additional information. NRC has now received responses and will continue to

evaluate the FWENC safety analysis and present the results of its review in the safety

evaluation report. The purpose of Tables 4-8 and 4-9 in the final EIS is to provide a summary of

the off-normal events and accident scenarios considered in the safety analysis. These tables

have been revised to reflect current status of the safety evaluation. FWENC provided design

and operational features to meet applicable regulatory safety requirements. Results of the

detailed safety review to determine compliance with the NRC design criteria and radiation

protection standards will be presented in the safety evaluation report and be made available to

the public in spring 2004.

Comment 5: One commenter identified several points of clarification in the evaluation of the

potential impacts from extreme wind and wind-generated missiles in Section 4.12.4.5 of the

draft EIS. For example, the commenter stated the draft EIS inaccurately states the transfer

cask provides protection inside the canister receipt area. The canister receipt area is for new

canisters and does not involve the transfer cask. Also, the 15-percent SNF handling number

from the safety analysis report (FWENC, 2003c, Section 8.2.5.4) is specific to a cask

suspended by the crane in the cask receipt area unloading operation, and not the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility in general. The commenter also stated the Canister Handling

Machine has not been designed to withstand tornado missiles as indicated in the draft EIS.

Finally, another commenter questioned the need to include the discussion and analysis of

aircraft impact hazards in the draft EIS.

Response 5: Several points raised by these comments are correct. The annual frequency at

which the crane would be handling SNF while a tornado may potentially occur was estimated to

be less than 10- in the safety analysis report (FWENC, 2003c) and, therefore, was not

considered credible following NRC Regulatory Guide 1.117 (1978). Hence, this crane is not

required to be designed to withstand the design-basis tornado and associated tornado missiles.

Based on a similar type of analysis, the annual frequency at which the Canister Handling

Machine would be handling SNF while a tornado may potentially occur is estimated to be less

than 10-7 in the safety analysis report (FWENC, 2003c, Section 8.2.5.4). This frequency of

occurrence also is not considered credible following NRC Regulatory Guide 1.117 (1978); and,

therefore, the Canister Handling Machine is not required to be designed to withstand

the design-basis tornado and associated tornado missiles. The text of the final EIS has been

changed, as appropriate.

The NRC staff is sensitive to the issue of aircraft crash hazards. The information presented in

Section 4.12.4.2 of the draft EIS is informational in nature and presents flight frequency

information for the airspace around INEEL. This section provides no specific information on

physical protection methods or measures that may be used to mitigate potential aircraft impact

hazards. A more detailed analysis will be performed to support preparation of the safety

D-10
Appendix D

evaluation report. NRC also evaluated the final EIS to ensure that potentially security-sensitive

information is not included.

D.2.5.4 Waste Management Impacts

Comment 1: One commenter stated the liquid radioactive waste generated during repository

operations will not go to the INEEL Radioactive Waste Management Complex, but instead will

be processed by a mobile waste processing contractor who will transport the waste to a

licensed disposal site.

Response 1: The summary of information on waste management on page xxi of the draft EIS

implies the liquid wastes will be processed at the INEEL Radioactive Waste Management

Complex. To resolve this inaccuracy and the associated comment,-the summary of waste

management impacts on page xxi of the draft EIS w as modified to be consistent with the

detailed information presented in Section 4.13 of the draft EIS. In particular, the text was

expanded to state the liquid wastes will be collected and shipped by a mobile waste processing

contractor to a licensed disposal facility, and the solid wastes will be disposed at the INEEL

Radioactive Waste Management Complex or at an offsite low-level waste disposal facility.

Comment 2: The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes expressed concern that once this facility has

been built and is deemed suitable for safe'storing,'repackaging, and preparing SNF, it also

might be used in the future to handle SNF from other states, or private or commercial reactors.

The Tribes believe this facility will handle only SNF from the INEEL and not any other type of

fuel from outside states or facilities. They stated that because the State of Idaho and the DOE

Settlement Agreement does not include the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes as signatories, the

agreement may be altered in the future to allow access to INEEL of various types of SNF and

for that fuel to be transported across the Tribal reservation. Furthermore, the Tribes expressed

concern that if a permanent repository is not identified and approved, the SNF will be left in

place at INEEL.

Response 2: The proposed action, described in Section 1.2 of the draft EIS, is consistent with

the technical specifications provided in the license application, which indicate the types and

amounts of SNF to be stored at the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility. If a license were

granted by NRC for the proposed action, the license Would contain these technical

specifications for the types and amounts of SNF allowed to be stored at the facility. The

technical specifications for the proposed action do not include storage of SNF from sources

other than those documented in the draft EIS. If a license is granted, the conditions of the

license are binding on the applicant. Any future proposals to change or ariend the'

specifications of a license require consideration of potential environmental impacts from the

proposed change. Therefore, the NRC licensing process addresses the concern that the

applicant might significantly change the' proposed action after a license is granted.

Regarding the concern that a repository may not be identified for final disposal of the stored

SNF, the current assessment of impacts in'the EIS assumes the proposed action is of sufficient

duration for such a facility to be licensed and constructed. According to the proposed action,

the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility would not be licensed as a permanent disposal facility. If a HLW

disposal facility does not become available during the period of licensed operation, a resolution

D-11
Appendix D

to the problem would require a license amendment and subsequent evaluation of environmental

impacts. According to the existing NRC licensing process, any potential public health and

safety issues related to future events or changes in plans would have to be addressed.

D.2.5.5 Decontamination and Decommissioning

Comment 1: One commenter expressed concern for long-term stewardship of the proposed

Idaho Spent Fuel facility, the final end state of the facility, and future land use. The commenter

stated previous facilities or buildings at INEEL have been identified as clean-up areas, but

because of funding or other issues, have been left in place as concrete monoliths.

The commenter noted statements within the draft EIS that refer to dismantling, decontamination, I

and decommissioning the proposed facility in 2018, with the understanding the facility also will I

prepare SNF to be removed from INEEL and the State of Idaho by 2035. The commenter

requested clarification whether the SNF removal program, decontaminating, and

decommissioning of the site would be completed by 2018, well in advance of the milestone date |

(2035) established by terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement.

Response 1: Facility construction and transferring, repackaging, and storing SNF at the I

proposed facility are anticipated to be complete in about 6 years. FWENC is applying to NRC

for a 20-year license (FWENC, 2003e, Section 1.5), and the facility is being designed with a

40-year service life (FWENC, 2003c,e). Decontamination and decommissioning cannot begin

until the SNF is removed from the facility for disposal at a HLW repository. Current DOE

schedules call for the repository to become operational in 2010, and ultimate disposition of the |

SNF stored at the proposed facility will depend on DOE schedules and queues for SNF

transport to the geologic repository. The 2018 date for decontamination and decommissioning

was originally presented in Section 1.5, Revision 0, of the FWENC license application (2003e).

This date was intended as a reference point for estimating the costs of decontamination and

decommissioning and did not represent a commitment for either FWENC or DOE. DOE is still

committed by the terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement to remove SNF from INEEL by 2035. |

The license application has been revised to remove the reference to the year 2018 (FWENC, l

2003e, Section 1.5), and the reference also has been removed from the final EIS.

Comment 2: One commenter noted the term "Licensee" should be used instead of "FWENC" l

when referring to the decontamination and decommissioning plan, because at the time of

decommissioning, the licensee may not be FWENC.

I

Response 2: FWENC has a contract with DOE to operate the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel I

Facility through 2010 (DOE, 2000; FWENC, 2003e, Appendix C). Beyond this time period, DOE I

has the option to extend its contract with FWENC, transfer the license for the facility to another ]

contractor, or assume the license itself, after obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals from

NRC. Regardless of who holds the license, DOE is responsible for providing funding for |

decontaminating and decommissioning the proposed facility. The availability of funds at the I

time will depend on Congressional appropriations. The text in the final EIS has been changed |

as suggested.

D-12
Appendix D

D.2.6 Mitigation

Comment 1: One commenter expressed concern that the summary of potential impacts and

mitigation measures presented in Table 5-1 of the draft EIS does not acknowledge the

appropriate ecological, historical, and cultural surveys have been performed.

Response 1: As indicated in the environmental report submitted with the license application

(FWENC, 2003b, Appendix B), searches of the INEEL cultural resource management archives

indicated the proposed locations of the 7.2-ha [17.8-acre] facility and construction laydown area

have been surveyed extensively, with only limited historical, cultural, and paleontological

resources identified. In addition, the INEEL facility perimeters are routinely monitored for

archaeological resources. The text in the final EIS has been modified to reference Appendix B

(and the references therein) in the environmental report (FWENC, 2003b).

D.3 REFERENCES

Berenbrock, C. and L.C. Kjelstrom. "Estimated 100-Year Peak Flows and Flow Volumes in the

Big Lost River and Birch Creek at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho."

U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4163. 1996.

DOE. DOE/FEIS-0287-F, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final

Environmental Impact Statement." Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2002.

. Contract Award and Notice to Proceed." Contract No. DE-AC07-001D13729, Spent

Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage Project. Idaho Falls, Idaho: DOE, Idaho Operations Office. 2000.

FWENC. "Contract No. DE-AC07--00D13729, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility, Location of Construction Laydown Area-NRC Docket 72-25,

TAC No. L23389." Letter (June 4) from R.D. zatt to NRC. FW-NRC-IF-03-0149. Richland,

Washington: FWENC. 2003a. [The preceding document is available for public review through

the NRC electronic reading room at http://www.nrc.govlreading-rm/adams.html.]

. Environmental Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RPT-0032. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003b.

. Safety Analysis Report, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RAPT-0033. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003c.

. Emergency Plan, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RAPT-0021. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003d.

- . "License Application, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility." NRC Docket No. 72-25.

ISF-FW-RAPT-0127. Rev. 3. Morris Plains, New Jersey: FWENC. 2003e.

D-13
Appendix D

Hortness, J.E. and J.P. Rousseau. DOE/ID-22181, Estimating the Magnitude of the 100-Year

Peak Flow in the Big Lost River at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory, Idaho." U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4299.

2003.

NRC. Regulatory Guide 1.117, "Tomado Design Classification, Revision 1." Washington, DC:

NRC. 1978.

Ostenaa, D.A., D.R. Levish, R.E. Klinger, and D.R.H. O'Connell. Phase 2 Paleohydrologic and

Geomorphic Studies for the Assessment of Flood Risk for the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory, Idaho." Report 99-7. Denver, Colorado: Geophysics

Paleohydrology, and Seismotectonics Group, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation.

1999.

D-14
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(2.89) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol. Supp., Rev., NRCM 1102. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET and Addendum Numbers, If any.)

3201.3202 BBIGAHCDT HE

(See instructions on the reverse)

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE NUREG-1773

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH YEAR

Final Report January 2004

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

7. PERIOD COVERED (inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION -NAME AND ADDRESS (IfNRC.provide Division. Office orRegion. U.S. NudearRegutatoryCommmsion, andmailingaddress;contractor, provide name and mailing address.)

Division of Waste Management

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS ( NRC, Ape " Same as above'; X contractor, provide NRC Dision, Office or Regsn, US. Nudear Regulatory Commission.

and mading address.)

same as above

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has contracted with Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWENC) to design,

construct, and operate the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Storage Facility that would repackage and store spent nuclear fuel and

associated radioactive material from the Peach Bottom Unit 1 High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor, the Shippingport Atomic

Power Station, and various Training, Research, and Isotope reactors built by General Atomics (TRIGA reactors). The

proposed facility would be located at the DOE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The

proposed facility Is part of a Settlement Agreement, dated October 17, 1995, between the DOE, the U.S. Navy, and the State

of Idaho regarding waste removal and environmental cleanup at the INEEL. Additionally, the proposed facility would be

licensed as an Independent spent fuel storage Installation in accordance with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

regulations found at 10 CFR Part 72.

This environmental Impact statement (EIS) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

the NRC's regulations for implementing NEPA, and the guidance provided by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA. This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed

action and it's reasonable alternatives, describes the environment potentially affected by the proposal, presents and compares

the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action and it's altematives, and describes mitigation

measures.

12. KEY WORDSIDESCRIPTORS (List words orphrases that vassist researchersin rpo) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Idaho Spent Fuel Facility unlimited

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

Docket 72-25 (This Page)

spent nuclear fuel unclassified

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (This Report)

Peach Bottom unclassified

TRIGA

Shippingport 15. NUMBER OF PAGES EIS ofEnergy_16._PRIC Department of Energy 16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (2-89) This form Was electronically prodiced by Elite Federal Forms. Inc.
Prined

on recycleds

Fea Rpaper M

Federal Recycling Program
.-. --- 

-

- --- .. 

-

- --- 

. ;- .- 

.-

--

- -.. 

. .. 

-- I 

.

- I 

-

.

.-

-.

-.

- -- 

--

--

.

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS