[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1095-1099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-411]



[[Page 1095]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for a Dry Storage Container System for the 
Management of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations implementing NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508; and 
Chief of Naval Operations Environmental and Natural Resources Program 
Manual, OPNAV Instruction 5090.1B; the Department of the Navy announces 
its decision to implement the preferred alternative (dual-purpose 
canisters) identified in the final Environmental Impact Statement for a 
Container System for the Management of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel (EIS) 
dated November 1996. The Department of Energy (DOE), which participated 
as a cooperating agency, formally adopted the final EIS on October 9, 
1996 (designated as DOE/EIS-0251) (61 FR 59435) and has concurred in 
this Record of Decision. The DOE was a cooperating agency because the 
DOE, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is responsible for the 
ultimate disposition of all spent nuclear fuel, including civilian and 
military. The DOE is also responsible for the facilities at the Idaho 
National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) where naval spent nuclear fuel 
is currently stored. The Navy will utilize a dual-purpose canister 
system for the management of naval spent nuclear fuel and the 
management of naval special case low-level radioactive waste. A dual-
purpose canister system will be used for the loading, dry storage, 
transport, and possible disposal of naval spent nuclear fuel following 
examination at the INEL. This Record of Decision neither decides nor 
presumes that naval special case waste will be shipped to a geologic 
repository or a centralized interim storage site as naval spent nuclear 
fuel.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final EIS and other information related to 
this Record of Decision are available in the public reading rooms and 
libraries identified in the Federal Register notice that announced the 
availability of the Final EIS (61 FR 59423). For further information on 
the Navy's utilization of a dry storage container system for naval 
spent nuclear fuel, or to receive a copy of the final EIS, contact 
William Knoll, Department of the Navy, Code NAVSEA 08U, 2531 Jefferson 
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22242-5160, (703) 603-6126. For 
information on the DOE's NEPA process, please contact Carol M. 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 
20585, (202) 586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

Introduction

    More than 40% of the Navy's principal combatants are nuclear 
powered. Since 1955, U.S. nuclear powered warships have steamed safely 
more than one hundred million miles and accumulated over 4,700 reactor 
years of safe operation. Continued operation of the Navy's nuclear 
powered warships remains a vital element of the Navy's ability to 
fulfill its national security mission in support of our nation's 
defense.
    The Navy creates spent nuclear fuel through the operation of its 
nuclear powered warships and training reactors. When a warship is 
refueled for continued service or is defueled because it is being 
inactivated, its spent nuclear fuel is removed at a shipyard. 
Similarly, naval spent nuclear fuel is removed from afloat and land-
based training reactors when they are refueled or deactivated. In all 
cases, the naval spent nuclear fuel is transported to the INEL in 
southeastern Idaho where it is examined at the Expended Core Facility 
(ECF) located at the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF). This examination is 
essential to verify the performance of current naval nuclear fuel and 
to support the design of naval fuel with longer lifetimes. After 
examination, the naval spent nuclear fuel is transferred to the Idaho 
Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) for storage in water pools pending 
final disposition. Currently, there are approximately 13 metric tons of 
heavy metal of naval spent nuclear fuel at the INEL. A total of 
approximately 65 metric tons of naval spent nuclear fuel will exist by 
the year 2035.
    The Navy is committed to ensuring that post-examination naval spent 
nuclear fuel is managed in a fashion which (1) facilitates ultimate 
safe shipment to a permanent geologic repository or centralized interim 
storage site outside the State of Idaho;
    (2) protects the Idaho environment while being temporarily stored 
at the INEL;
    (3) is consistent with the DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel 
Management and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement (April 1995); and
    (4) complies with the court ordered agreement among the State of 
Idaho, the DOE, and the Navy, which is discussed in this Record of 
Decision under Legal and Regulatory Considerations.
    Until a geologic repository or centralized interim storage site 
outside the State of Idaho (discussed in Section 2.8.2 of the final 
EIS) is available, the Navy is committed to a number of actions to 
ensure uninterrupted operation of the Navy's nuclear powered fleet. 
These include transfer of all naval spent nuclear fuel at the INEL out 
of wet storage facilities into dry storage, completion of a Dry Cell 
expansion project at the ECF, completion of Hot Cell facility upgrades 
at the ECF, construction of an ECF dry storage container loading 
station, and performance of certain environmental restoration work at 
the NRF. The high integrity and rugged nature of naval spent nuclear 
fuel make it exceptionally well suited for safe transport, storage, and 
ultimate disposal after service. The Navy must make a decision on the 
type of dry storage container system now in order to support planning 
required to meet its commitment as discussed in this Record of Decision 
under Legal and Regulatory Considerations for dry storing naval spent 
nuclear fuel and ultimately shipping it out of the State of Idaho.

Alternatives Considered

    The Navy considered six alternative dry storage container systems 
for the loading, storage, transport, and possible disposal of post-
examination naval spent nuclear fuel and the management of special case 
waste. The alternatives may use either of the existing dry storage 
containers or of dry storage containers that could be produced by 
manufacturers of such equipment. Because of differences in 
configurations of naval spent nuclear fuel assemblies, all of the 
alternatives require containers to have internal baskets designed for 
specific naval spent nuclear fuel types.
    Two time frames were used for analyses. For complete system 
operations, 1996-2035, a time period of 40 years is used. For analyses 
concerning transportation to a spent nuclear fuel repository and 
handling of post-examination naval spent nuclear fuel at the INEL, the 
period 2010 to 2035 (25 years) was used because a repository would be 
expected to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel before 2010. The actual 
date that a repository would begin accepting spent nuclear fuel would 
have minimal impact on the results presented in the final EIS and would 
not change the number of shipments to be made.
    There is also the possibility that a centralized storage site may 
be designated for interim storage of civilian

[[Page 1096]]

spent nuclear fuel until a repository is available. If such a 
centralized interim storage site were opened and if naval spent nuclear 
fuel were allowed by law to be stored there, transportation of naval 
spent nuclear fuel might begin before 2010. A range of transportation 
routes was analyzed in the EIS. As such, the transportation analyses 
are suitable for comparison of the impacts associated with 
transportation to a centralized interim storage site among 
alternatives.
    A brief description of the six alternatives follows:
    (1) No-Action Alterative--Use of existing technology to handle, 
store, and subsequently transport naval spent nuclear fuel to a 
geologic repository or a centralized interim storage site using the 
Navy M-140 transportation cask. Prior to shipment to a repository or 
centralized interim storage site, naval spent nuclear fuel would be 
managed at the INEL in water pools or commercially available dry 
storage containers, then loaded into M-140 transportation casks. At a 
repository, the naval spent nuclear fuel would be unloaded from the M-
140 transportation casks and placed in a geologic repository's surface 
facilities for loading into disposal containers. Following unloading, 
the M-140 transportation casks would be returned to the INEL for reuse. 
Because existing M-140 transportation casks are needed to maintain 
scheduled fleet refuelings and defuelings, approximately 24 additional 
M-140 transportation casks would have to be manufactured to handle the 
shipment of about 425 cask loads of naval spent nuclear fuel to a 
repository between 2010 and 2035. Two hundred and twenty-five dry 
storage containers would be required for use at the INEL, and 300 
disposal containers would be required under this alternative. For the 
management of special case waste, up to 30 additional dry storage 
containers, four additional M-140 transportation casks, and 60 
additional disposal containers would be needed.
    (2) Current Technology/Supplemented by High Capacity Rail 
Alternative--This alternative uses the same storage methods and M-140 
transportation casks described in the no-action alternative, but with 
redesigned internal structures for the M-140 cask to accommodate a 
larger amount of naval spent nuclear fuel per cask, thus reducing the 
total number of shipments required. For the purpose of analysis, the 
EIS assumes that approximately 24 additional M-140 transportation casks 
would be needed in order to expedite shipment of approximately 325 
containers of naval spent nuclear fuel by rail to a repository or 
centralized interim storage site. One hundred and fifty dry storage 
containers would be required for use at the INEL, and 300 disposal 
containers would be required under this alternative. For the management 
of special case waste, up to 26 additional dry storage containers, four 
additional M-140 transportation casks, and 60 additional disposal 
containers would be needed.
    (3) Transportable Storage Cask Alternative--This alternative uses 
an existing, commercially available transportable storage cask for 
storage at the INEL as well as for transportation to a repository or 
centralized interim storage site. At a repository, individual 
assemblies of naval spent nuclear fuel would be unloaded from the casks 
and placed in surface facilities for loading into disposal containers. 
The unloaded transportable storage casks would be returned to the INEL 
for further storage and transport. Approximately 325 shipments of the 
reusable transportable storage cask (150 casks required) would be 
necessary for the shipment of all naval spent nuclear fuel and 300 
containers would be required for disposal. For the management of 
special case waste, up to 21 additional storage casks and 60 additional 
disposal containers would be needed.
    (4) Dual-Purpose Canister Alternative--This alternative uses an 
existing, commercially available canister and overpack system for 
storage at the INEL and shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel to a 
geologic repository or centralized interim storage site. At a 
repository, the naval spent nuclear fuel would be unloaded from the 
canisters and placed in surface facilities for loading into disposal 
containers. Approximately 300 canisters would be required for dry 
storage and shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel by rail to a 
repository or centralized interim storage site. In addition, 150 dry 
storage overpacks for use at the INEL, 15 transportation overpacks, and 
300 disposal containers would be required. For the management of 
special case waste, up to 45 additional canisters, 23 additional 
storage overpacks, three additional transportation overpacks, and 60 
additional disposal containers would be needed.
    (5) Multi-Purpose Canister Alternative--This alternative uses about 
300 large (125-ton) multi-purpose canisters for storage, 
transportation, and disposal of naval spent nuclear fuel, without 
repackaging or further handling of individual spent nuclear fuel 
assemblies. In addition to the sealed metal canisters, specialized 
casks or overpacks would be required for different stages of the 
process, including 150 dry storage overpacks for use at the INEL, 15 
transportation overpacks for transporting naval spent nuclear fuel to a 
geologic repository or centralized interim storage site, and 300 
disposal overpacks for disposal in a repository. For the management of 
special case waste, up to 60 additional canisters, 30 additional 
storage overpacks, three additional transportation overpacks, and 60 
additional disposal overpacks would be needed.
    (6) Small Multi-Purpose Canister Alternative--This alternative uses 
about 500 smaller (75 ton) multi-purpose canisters, rather than large 
multi-purpose canisters. The small multi-purpose canisters would be 
similar in design, operations, and function to the large multi-purpose 
canisters, but would offer a lower weight and size alternative for 
transportation and handling at a geologic repository or centralized 
interim storage site. Two hundred and twenty-five dry storage overpacks 
for use at the INEL, 25 transportation overpacks for transporting naval 
spent nuclear fuel to a geologic repository or centralized interim 
storage site, and 500 disposal overpacks for disposal in a repository 
would be required. For the management of special case waste, up to 85 
additional canisters, 39 additional storage overpacks, five additional 
transportation overpacks, and 85 additional disposal overpacks would be 
needed.

Decisions

    The Navy announces its decision to use a dual-purpose canister 
system for the management of post-examination naval spent nuclear fuel 
and special case low-level radioactive waste. The primary benefits of a 
dual-purpose canister system are efficiencies in container 
manufacturing and fuel reloading operations and potential further 
reduction in radiation exposure. A dual-purpose canister system will 
allow the safe storage and shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel for 
ultimate disposition. The system might also be found to be acceptable 
for disposal purposes once the disposal requirements for a geologic 
repository have been formulated and finalized, making it functionally 
equivalent to a multi-purpose canister system.
    The Navy evaluated each of the alternatives to a set of criteria in 
order to select a preferred alternative. The results of that evaluation 
are summarized briefly below.
    There was no obvious preference for any dry storage container 
system based on public comments. Further, all of the alternative dry 
storage container

[[Page 1097]]

systems technically support the storage, shipment, and disposal of 
naval spent nuclear fuel.
    The Department of the Navy's analysis of the environmental and 
public health impacts from the following would be small and would 
differ little among alternatives: the manufacture of any of the dry 
storage container systems; the operations of handling, storage, 
transportation and unloading at a repository; and the construction of 
facilities. All alternatives are considered comparable and 
indistinguishable under this criterion, thus, there is no 
environmentally preferred alternative.
    Cost comparisons were based on procurement costs for equipment, as 
well as handling, storage, transportation and container disposal costs. 
Under this criterion, the dual-purpose canister system has a medium 
comparative cost. The multi-purpose canister has the lowest comparative 
cost, in part because the fuel assemblies would only be handled one 
time, but since no multi-purpose canisters currently exist the cost 
comparison is somewhat conjectural. If the dual-purpose canister 
alternative meets the repository design criteria for disposal packages 
when those criteria are established, fuel assemblies would be handled 
once instead of twice, and the cost would decrease such that it would 
be comparable with the multi-purpose canister. There is a high 
probability that a dual-purpose canister system for naval spent nuclear 
fuel can be produced successfully and economically because it is 
similar to currently available systems for civilian spent fuel.
    To evaluate operational efficiency, the Navy evaluated the 
processes which must be performed for any of the alternatives, 
including: loading fuel into dry storage containers, unloading fuel 
from dry storage containers for shipment, off-site transport, and 
loading or reloading fuel at a geologic repository surface facility for 
ultimate disposal. Each of these general operations may be performed 
once, multiple times, or not at all, depending on the system 
implemented. Each of the alternatives can be categorized as either a 
cask or a canister system based on whether the naval spent nuclear fuel 
would be transferred from storage for shipment as collections of 
individual fuel assemblies (cask) or as a unit inside a sealed package 
(canister).
    It was concluded from the process evaluation that multi-purpose 
canister systems would be the most efficient systems when considering 
the handling of fuel. Individual fuel assemblies would not have to be 
unloaded from the canisters once they had been loaded for the multi-
purpose canister alternatives. The individual fuel assemblies would be 
handled only one time: during the initial loading of the canister. The 
most inefficient systems from this standpoint are the No-Action and the 
Current Technology/Rail Alternatives because individual fuel assemblies 
must be handled three times, once for each packaging operation.
    For the dual-purpose canister system, the individual fuel 
assemblies would be loaded into a canister prior to storage. The 
canister would not need to be reopened prior to packaging the canister 
for transportation. It is possible that at a geologic repository the 
individual fuel assemblies may need to be handled in the process of 
packing disposal containers. However, if the canisters meet repository 
disposal criteria when these criteria are established, the dual-purpose 
canister system would be functionally equivalent to a multi-purpose 
canister system in that the individual fuel assemblies would be handled 
only once. Although handling fuel is routinely accomplished safely 
without impact on human health or the environment, doing it multiple 
times is inefficient, and incurs additional occupational radiation 
exposure and some risk.
    With respect to regulatory and disposal criteria impacts, the only 
anticipated changes that may affect the selected alternative are in the 
area of repository disposal regulations. The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) is expected to issue revised draft standards (40 CFR part 
197) for a geologic repository in 1997. The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) plans to issue changes to its repository disposal 
regulations (10 CFR part 60) to establish design criteria within one 
year of the issue of the EPA standards.
    Based on the uncertainties and far term nature of the disposal 
regulations, there are no discernible advantages or disadvantages 
associated with any of the alternatives based on potential impact of 
disposal regulations. No changes affecting this evaluation in the 
storage and transportation regulations are anticipated and all of the 
alternatives would meet the current regulations.
    The Navy anticipates that final waste acceptance criteria for a 
geologic repository will not be established for at least five years. As 
a result there is some uncertainty in implementing a multi-purpose 
canister system at this time. The Navy cannot wait five years for the 
establishment of waste criteria plus any additional time required to 
develop a multi-purpose canister based on such criteria in order to 
meet its commitment as discussed in this Record of Decision under Legal 
and Regulatory Considerations. If a multi-purpose canister is not 
compatible with geologic repository criteria, the fuel canisters may 
need to be opened and the individual fuel assemblies handled and placed 
into acceptable disposal containers. In this event the multi-purpose 
canister system would essentially become a dual-purpose canister 
system.
    The Navy also considered the direction of industry and 
standardization in selecting an alternative. In implementing a dry 
storage container system for the management of naval spent nuclear 
fuel, there is an advantage in utilizing a system compatible with the 
systems in use or planned for use by operators of reactors which 
commercially generate electricity. All spent nuclear fuel, commercial 
and naval, is destined for the same geologic repository or could be 
destined for the same centralized interim storage site if such a site 
were opened and naval spent nuclear fuel were allowed by law to be 
stored there. Naval spent nuclear fuel containers will represent only 
about one to four percent of the total number of containers that would 
be shipped to a repository or centralized interim storage facility. 
Therefore, to the extent that the most widely used systems for 
commercial spent nuclear fuel drive any repository design or acceptance 
criteria, it is considered prudent to utilize a system which is similar 
to the systems being used or planned for use by commercial electric 
utilities. Other advantages to using the same system or one similar to 
that which the commercial utilities have recently licensed through the 
NRC include prior completion of extensive technical reviews, prior 
completion of peer and public review, and some proven applications 
which may be in operation.
    The majority of the new spent nuclear fuel storage systems being 
designed or in review by the NRC are dual-purpose systems with 
different overpacks for storage and transport. The 125-ton multi-
purpose canister, the 75-ton multi-purpose canister, the transportable 
storage cask and the dual-purpose canister system were all found to 
reflect current industry direction. The No-Action and the Current 
Technology/Rail Alternatives do not.
    Finally, the Navy looked at technical uncertainties and risks. 
There are no substantial technical uncertainties associated with the 
loading of naval nuclear spent fuel into dry storage containers, the 
storage of the containers at the INEL, or the transportation off-site

[[Page 1098]]

to a geologic repository. All of the alternatives assume the use of dry 
storage containers which will meet the storage requirements of 10 CFR 
part 72 and the transportation requirements of 10 CFR part 71. Several 
licensed systems are currently in use and other new systems are in the 
review cycle for NRC approval for use.
    As discussed in this Record of Decision under Legal and Regulatory 
Considerations, the Navy must select a dry storage container system now 
to support completion of its commitments for dry storing naval spent 
nuclear fuel. Thus, the Navy cannot wait a minimum of five years 
anticipated for the establishment of waste criteria plus any additional 
time required to develop a multi-purpose canister based on such 
criteria. Dual-purpose canisters represent the best system given the 
need to make a decision now and their favorable comparison to the other 
alternatives considering cost, operational efficiency, industry trends, 
regulatory acceptance, and the other criteria discussed above.

Mitigation

    The strictly controlled conduct of operations associated with the 
DOE and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program spent fuel management 
activities are mitigation measures integral to the selected 
alternative. The DOE and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program have 
directives and regulations for conduct of spent nuclear fuel management 
operations. All government spent fuel shipments must comply with the 
DOE and Department of Transportation regulations. The DOE and the Navy 
have adopted stringent controls for minimizing occupational and public 
radiation exposure. The policy of these programs is to reduce radiation 
exposures to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Singly and 
collectively, these measures avoid, reduce, or eliminate any 
potentially adverse environmental impacts from spent nuclear fuel 
management activities, including those associated with 
containerization. The Navy and the DOE have not identified a need for 
additional mitigation measures.

Legal and Regulatory Considerations

    The Record of Decision for the DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel 
Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact 
Statement was issued on June 1, 1995 (60 FR 28680). On October 17, 
1995, the federal District Court entered a Consent Order that resolved 
all issues related to the EIS raised by the State of Idaho and the 
Governor of Idaho. The Consent Order incorporated as requirements all 
of the terms and conditions of the parties' Settlement Agreement, 
including a reduction in the number of spent nuclear fuel shipments 
coming to the State of Idaho.
    All proposed actions by the Navy will be in full compliance with 
the requirements of the Consent Order/settlement agreement among the 
State of Idaho, the U.S. Navy, and the DOE. The settlement agreement 
included an obligation of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to fund 
a dry storage container loading station at ECF, expending no less than 
$20 million on that project by October 2000. This Record of Decision is 
consistent with that obligation. The settlement agreement also 
obligates the DOE to commence moving spent nuclear fuel currently in 
water pool storage into dry storage by July 1, 2003.
    In addition to the Consent Order, Chapter 8 of the final EIS 
identifies the major applicable laws and regulations which the 
Department of the Navy is mandated to comply with in the fabrication 
and utilization of a dry storage container system for the management of 
naval spent nuclear fuel.

Public Involvement

    On October 24, 1994, the DOE published a Notice of Intent in the 
Federal Register (59 FR 53442) to prepare an EIS for a multi-purpose 
canister system for the management of civilian spent nuclear fuel. As 
part of the public scoping process, the scope of the EIS for the multi-
purpose canister system was broadened to include naval spent nuclear 
fuel. This determination was included in the Implementation Plan whose 
availability was announced in the Federal Register on August 30, 1995 
(60 FR 45147). However, the DOE halted its proposal to fabricate and 
deploy a multi-purpose canister based system and ceased preparation of 
that EIS.
    On December 7, 1995 the Department of the Navy published a notice 
in the Federal Register (60 FR 62828) assuming the lead responsibility 
for an Environmental Impact Statement evaluating dry storage container 
systems for the management of naval spent nuclear fuel. The Department 
of the Navy assumed the lead responsibility from the DOE and narrowed 
the focus of the EIS to include only naval spent nuclear fuel. Despite 
the narrowing of the focus to only naval spent nuclear fuel and the 
change in lead agency, the range of dry storage container alternatives 
being considered did not change. Thus the EIS did not require another 
scoping process. The DOE became a cooperating agency rather than the 
lead agency in the preparation of that EIS.
    On May 1, 1996, the Navy distributed the Draft EIS. The Notice of 
Availability of the Draft EIS was announced in the Federal Register on 
May 14, 1996 along with the locations and dates of public hearings (61 
FR 24293). The Draft EIS was widely distributed to public officials, 
tribal officials, and state agencies in the areas of potential 
interest, as well as to individuals requesting the document. The public 
comment period for the EIS was originally scheduled to be 45 days, but 
a 15-day extension was granted based on a request from the State of 
Nevada. During the public comment period, six public hearings were held 
and both written and oral comments were received. Oral and written 
comments were received from 51 parties, representing: federal, state, 
and local agencies and officials; special interest groups; and 
individuals.
    Although no substantive changes to the Draft EIS were needed as a 
result of public comments, several clarifications and editorial changes 
were made in response to comments. For example, the Final EIS was 
modified to clearly state that the effect of a terrorist attack or an 
act of sabotage is expected to be conservatively bounded by the 
limiting accidents already discussed. The discussion of transportation 
routes used in the analysis was expanded to explain their application. 
In addition, the EIS was modified to enhance the reader's ability to 
use the results of analyses to evaluate the possibility that any of the 
alternatives might have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on 
minority or low-income populations.
    A new Chapter 11 was added to the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement in which each comment was reprinted in its entirety, followed 
immediately by individual responses to each of the major points. The 
EPA formally announced the availability of the final EIS on November 
22, 1996 (61 FR 59435). The Navy also announced the availability of the 
final EIS on November 22, 1996 (61 FR 59423).

Approval

    This Record of Decision constitutes the Department of the Navy's 
final action with regard to selection of a dry storage container system 
for the management of post-examination naval spent nuclear fuel and 
naval special case low-level radioactive waste. This Record of Decision 
does not constitute

[[Page 1099]]

final action for location(s) for dry loading naval spent nuclear fuel 
which is currently stored at the ICPP or which will be stored at ICPP 
prior to establishment of a dry storage facility, or for location(s) 
for temporary dry storage of naval spent nuclear fuel at the INEL. 
Those actions will be the subject of an upcoming Record of Decision.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., this 26th day of December 1996.
Richard Danzig,
Acting Secretary of the Navy.
Alvin L. Alm,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management U.S. Department of 
Energy.
[FR Doc. 97-411 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P