[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25647-25655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12861]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Electrometallurgical Treatment Research and Demonstration Project 
in the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne National Laboratory--West; 
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Energy has prepared an 
environmental assessment, DOE/EA-1148 (finalized on May 15, 1996), on 
the proposed Electrometallurgical Treatment Research and Demonstration 
Project in the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne National 
Laboratory--West. The Proposed Action is to conduct a research and 
demonstration project involving electrometallurgical processing of up 
to 100 Experimental Breeder Reactor-II driver assemblies and 25 
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II blanket assemblies in the Fuel 
Conditioning Facility at Argonne National Laboratory--West. 
Electrometallurgical processing involves the dissolution of spent 
nuclear fuel by use of an electric current in a molten salt mixture. 
The uranium in the fuel is collected at the cathode and subsequently 
melted to form a metal ingot; the structural metals and some fission 
products are retrieved undissolved from the anode and are cast into a 
metal ingot; and eventually most fission products and all transuranic 
elements are isolated in a ceramic waste form. The number of driver 
fuel assemblies covered by the Proposed Action would provide the 
minimum fission product loading (3 percent) necessary to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the removal of fission products from the 
electrorefiner salt and their concentration in the ceramic waste form. 
In addition, the 25 blanket assemblies proposed would provide a 
sufficient quantity of material to evaluate the higher efficiency 
electrorefining necessary to process the much larger blanket 
assemblies. The Proposed Action would require approximately three 
years, and is designed to address demonstration goals for 
electrometallurgical treatment technology outlined by the National 
Research Council in a 1995 report to the Department. In accordance with 
the Council on Environmental Quality requirements contained in 40 CFR 
Parts 1500-1508, the environmental assessment examined the 
environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and potential 
alternatives.
    The Department distributed a draft environmental assessment for 
public review and comment from February 5, 1996 to March 22, 1996 (61 
FR 3922, January 29, 1996), and conducted public meetings on the draft 
assessment in Idaho Falls, Idaho on February 21, 1996, and Washington, 
D.C. on February 27, 1996. In response to several requests, the 
Department reopened the public review period until May 3, 1996 (61 FR 
16471, April 15, 1996).
    The Department has considered all comments on the draft 
environmental assessment, including comments submitted by 5 members of 
Congress, 17 organizations, and 53 individuals. Those comments and the 
Department's responses are presented in an appendix to the final 
environmental assessment entitled, ``Comment Response Document.'' A 
summary of the major public comments and the Department's responses is 
provided under Supplementary Information below.
    The Department has decided to proceed with the proposed 
demonstration. Even if successful, however, the demonstration will not 
automatically lead to the treatment of more Experimental Breeder 
Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or to other broader applications of 
electrometallurgical technology. The Department will not make any 
significant additional use of the electrometallurgical refining 
technology without first preparing an environmental impact statement. 
Specifically, the Department will not use this technology to treat the 
remaining Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel or make another 
production-scale use of the technology without preparing an 
environmental impact statement.
    The Department would exercise its authority to prevent 
proliferation sensitive information and technology advances resulting 
from the proposed demonstration from becoming available to potential 
proliferant-risk countries, including exercising its authority under 
the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 and the 
Department's implementing regulations.
    Based on the analysis in the environmental assessment, which is 
incorporated herein by reference, and after consideration of all the 
comments received as a result of the public review process, the 
Department of Energy has determined that the Proposed Action does not 
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment within the meaning of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Therefore, an environmental impact 
statement is not required.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Persons requesting additional information regarding the 
Electrometallurgical Treatment Project or a copy of the environmental 
assessment should contact: Mr. Robert G. Lange, Associate Director for 
Facilities (NE-40), Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, 
U.S. Department of Energy (GTN), 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, 
Maryland 20874.
    Mr. Lange may also be reached by calling (301) 903-2915.
    Persons requesting general information on the Department of 
Energy's National Environmental Policy Act process should contact: Ms. 
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-
42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585.
    Ms. Borgstrom may also be reached by calling (202) 586-4600, or by 
leaving a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department of Energy is responsible for managing spent nuclear 
fuel in its inventory, including spent nuclear fuel from the 
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. The Department manages 25.5 metric 
tons (heavy metal) of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II fuel at Argonne 
National Laboratory-West and the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, both 
located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls. 
The Department has a legally binding commitment to remove spent nuclear 
fuel from the State of Idaho by the year 2035, including fuel from the 
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. The Experimental Breeder Reactor-II 
fuel is unlikely to be suitable for direct disposal in a geologic 
repository because it is saturated with sodium, which is a reactive 
material. Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel may also be 
unsuitable for direct disposal in a geologic repository because of 
criticality concerns associated with fuels containing highly-enriched 
uranium.
    The Department has identified electrometallurgical treatment as a 
promising technology to treat

[[Page 25648]]

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel to make it suitable 
for repository disposal, but an appropriate demonstration is needed to 
provide sufficient information for the Department to evaluate the 
feasibility of the technology. At the Department's request, the 
National Research Council conducted an independent assessment of the 
potential application of electrometallurgical technology to treat spent 
nuclear fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. In its 1995 
report, the Council recommended that the Department proceed to 
demonstrate the feasibility of electrometallurgical technology using 
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel. A successful 
demonstration of the electrometallurgical technology on a sufficient 
sample of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel, 
combined with research and testing of the resulting waste forms, is 
expected to provide information the Department needs to determine 
whether to propose applying this technology to the remainder of the 
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or other spent 
nuclear fuel.

Proposed Action

    The Proposed Action is to conduct a research and demonstration 
project involving electrometallurgical processing of up to 100 
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II driver assemblies and 25 Experimental 
Breeder Reactor-II blanket assemblies in the Fuel Conditioning Facility 
at Argonne National Laboratory-West. Electrometallurgical processing 
involves the dissolution of spent nuclear fuel by use of an electric 
current in a molten salt mixture. The uranium in the fuel is collected 
at the cathode and subsequently melted to form a metal ingot; the 
structural metals and some fission products are retrieved undissolved 
from the anode and are cast into a metal ingot; and eventually most 
fission products and all transuranic elements are isolated in a ceramic 
waste form. The number of driver fuel assemblies covered by the 
Proposed Action would provide the minimum fission product loading (3 
percent) necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the removal of 
fission products from the electrorefiner salt and their concentration 
in the ceramic waste form. In addition, the 25 blanket assemblies would 
provide a sufficient quantity of material to evaluate the higher 
efficiency electrorefining necessary to process the much larger blanket 
assemblies. The Proposed Action would require approximately three 
years, and is designed to address demonstration goals for 
electrometallurgical treatment technology outlined by the National 
Research Council in its 1995 report.
    The one hundred driver assemblies involved in the Proposed Action 
would require multiple batch operations of the processing equipment in 
a remote, radioactive hot cell with an inert argon atmosphere. These 
operations would be sufficient to demonstrate the overall dependability 
and predictability of the process, considering equipment reliability, 
repair and maintenance, and operability of linked process steps. In 
addition, processing 100 driver fuel assemblies is expected to produce 
waste-form samples with representative radioactive waste loadings in 
quantities sufficient for testing. It is expected that the testing of 
these samples will assist in the development and characterization for 
future repository acceptance of the two process waste forms (ceramic 
and metal) produced by the electrometallurgical processing technique.
    In order to evaluate higher efficiency electrorefining, 25 blanket 
assemblies would be processed in a second electrorefiner to be 
installed in the Fuel Conditioning Facility hot cell. Testing of the 
electrorefining concept with nonradioactive surrogate materials and 
construction of the second electrorefiner are currently underway at the 
Argonne National Laboratory-East site near Chicago, Illinois. Under the 
Proposed Action, this electrorefiner would be transported to Argonne 
National Laboratory-West, installed in the Fuel Conditioning Facility 
hot cell, and used to process the 25 blanket assemblies. This 
processing would require about seven batch operations in the high 
efficiency electrorefiner. These operations would demonstrate a one-day 
throughput of approximately 160 kilograms (353 pounds) per batch.
    The Fuel Conditioning Facility is a small research facility, and 
its material handling equipment could not sustain the continued 
preparation of spent nuclear fuel for operation of the high- efficiency 
electrorefiner at a throughput equivalent to a production operation. 
Even though a production-scale operation in the Fuel Conditioning 
Facility is not possible with existing equipment, however, this 
demonstration would show the feasibility of batch operation 
electrorefining at a capacity approaching 200 kilograms per day (441 
pounds per day) of radioactive Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent 
nuclear fuel in a suitably designed and equipped facility, as 
recommended by the National Research Council. Seven batch operations 
should be sufficient to evaluate the reliability of the equipment and 
to meet the intent of the National Research Council's recommendation 
regarding high-efficiency electrorefining.

Alternatives Analyzed

    The environmental assessment analyzed in detail the following 
alternatives to the Proposed Action:
    1. Conducting the research and demonstration project in a facility 
at an alternative location, i.e., the Test Area North Hot Shop at the 
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory;
    2. Conducting an equipment performance verification project by 
treating 50 driver assemblies and 10 blanket assemblies in the Fuel 
Conditioning Facility; and
    3. Taking no action, i.e., placing all the Experimental Breeder 
Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel in interim storage, and not demonstrating 
the electrometallurgical treatment technology.
    Alternative 1, Demonstration at an Alternative Facility and 
Location, would result in higher program cost and extensive additional 
waste generated from required facility modifications and relocation of 
the nuclear materials presently stored in the Test Area North Hot Shop 
to allow for the appropriate reconfiguration of that facility to 
accommodate electrorefining equipment. This alternative would also 
require the transportation on public highways of spent nuclear fuel and 
the electrometallurgical equipment from the Argonne National 
Laboratory-West to the Test Area North Hot Shop, which would not be 
necessary for the Proposed Action.
    Alternative 2, Equipment Performance Verification, is very similar 
to the Proposed Action in terms of its environmental impacts. However, 
this alternative would not fully satisfy the purpose and need for 
Department of Energy action because this alternative would not provide 
sufficient quantities of fission products, transuranics, and sodium 
impurities to test the electrorefiner under conditions comparable to 
production-scale operation and to address the recommendations of the 
National Research Council.
    Alternative 3, No Action, is also similar to the Proposed Action in 
that the environmental impacts that would result from packaging and 
storing all the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel 
would be small. However, the No-Action Alternative would not provide 
the information and data needed to determine whether to

[[Page 25649]]

continue the development of this technology as a potential management 
option for the disposal of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II sodium-
bonded spent nuclear fuel.

Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail in the Environmental 
Assessment

    Demonstration of a technology other than electrometallurgical 
processing was not analyzed in detail because there are no other 
``innovative'' spent nuclear fuel treatment technologies that have 
reached a stage of development to warrant testing by the Department of 
Energy with irradiated fuel. The environmental assessment discussed, 
but did not analyze in detail, the following alternative treatment 
technologies:
    <bullet> Chloride Volatility: This very high temperature process 
would convert spent nuclear fuel to chloride compounds in a gaseous 
state, from which the constituents could be separated into appropriate 
streams for further treatment. Demonstration of chloride volatility 
technology would require development of very high temperature, 
corrosion-resistant equipment. This technology has not reached a stage 
of development suitable for demonstration with spent nuclear fuel.
    <bullet> Glass Material Oxidation and Dissolution: This treatment 
concept would dissolve spent nuclear fuel using a system of lead and 
lead oxide with the intent of incorporating most spent nuclear fuel 
constituents in a glass waste form. It too has not reached a stage of 
development suitable for demonstration with spent nuclear fuel.
    <bullet> Plasma Arc Process: This extremely high temperature 
process would use an electric arc to melt spent nuclear fuel, allowing 
the constituents to separate into glass and metal phases. However, this 
technology is still in the early stages of research and development and 
is not currently suitable for demonstration with spent nuclear fuel.
    <bullet> Hot, Water-Saturated Carbon Dioxide and Alcohol/Water 
Rinsing Processes: These processes, which would react the sodium to 
form sodium carbonate, would require extensive development to safely 
control the reactions and to stabilize the products of the reactions 
before they could be considered ready for a demonstration with sodium-
bonded fuel.
    <bullet> Low-Temperature Vacuum Distillation: This process would 
evaporate the sodium from around the uranium fuel. It would not work 
for the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II driver fuel, however, because 
from 20 to 40 percent of the sodium in the driver fuel has been 
absorbed into the porous metal fuel alloy.
    In addition, the environmental assessment considered, but did not 
analyze in detail, existing technologies that would require some 
development and modification. These technologies include:
    <bullet> Mechanical Processing: This process has been used on some 
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II blanket fuel assemblies to strip away 
the layer of metallic sodium under the fuel's cladding. Considerable 
development of optical and control systems would be required for safe 
and reliable remote operation of a high-power laser to remove the fuel 
cladding in a radioactive hot cell environment. The sodium adhering to 
the cladding material, as well as the uranium, would be contaminated by 
cesium-137 during the cutting process and would require additional 
treatment and perhaps creation of a new waste form for disposal 
purposes. Mechanical processing would not work for the driver fuel 
assemblies, however, because from 20 to 40 percent of the sodium in the 
driver assemblies has been absorbed within the fuel, and therefore 
could not be removed except by dissolving or melting the fuel.
    <bullet> Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Processing at the 
Idaho Chemical Processing Plant: Modifying this reprocessing plant to 
dissolve the modern Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel 
would require changes in the dissolution process. These changes would 
be necessary because the zirconium in the modern Experimental Breeder 
Reactor-II fuel alloy inside a stainless steel cladding would require 
chemical additives to control the dissolution reaction safely. In 
addition, the plant would have to be restarted to carry out the 
demonstration. Because of excessive cost and the development required, 
processing of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel at the 
Idaho Chemical Processing Plant is not a reasonable alternative to the 
proposed limited demonstration of electrometallurgical treatment 
technology.
    <bullet> Dissolution and Vitrification: This process, which would 
dissolve spent nuclear fuel in acid (initial stage of PUREX process) 
and then vitrify it in borosilicate glass, would require a major 
modification to the existing dissolution process at the Savannah River 
site in order to be used in a demonstration with Experimental Breeder 
Reactor-II fuel. This modification would be similar to the modification 
that would be required for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant 
discussed above. Further, the fuel would have to be packaged and 
shipped to Savannah River, which would be inconsistent with the Records 
of Decision (60 Fed. Reg. 28680, June 1, 1995 and 61 Fed. Reg. 9441, 
March 8, 1996) for the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and 
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and 
Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement. These decisions 
require the regionalization of the type of spent fuel that would be 
involved in the demonstration to the Idaho National Engineering 
Laboratory.

Treatment at a Location Outside of the Idaho National Engineering 
Laboratory

    The Department also considered electrometallurgical treatment at a 
location outside of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. This 
alternative would require the removal, decontamination and relocation 
of existing equipment to a newly constructed hot cell facility where 
the demonstration project would be conducted. This is not considered a 
reasonable alternative for a limited demonstration, because of the 
excessive cost and time involved for these preparative activities. This 
alternative would also be contrary to the Records of Decision for the 
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National 
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
Environmental Impact Statement.

Spent Fuel, Byproduct, and Waste Material Management

    The Proposed Action would generate process wastes from the 
treatment operations and incidental wastes from the normal support 
operations of a hot cell facility. The process wastes include the fuel 
assembly hardware, metal waste form and ceramic waste form. The 
incidental wastes include operational wastes such as broken equipment, 
rags, packaging materials and other miscellaneous items. After use of 
the demonstration equipment has been completed, decommissioning wastes 
would include the disposal of the process equipment and process fluids 
such as the electrorefiner salt and cadmium. These materials would be 
categorized and disposed of according to existing Department of Energy 
orders and the Argonne National Laboratory radioactive waste management 
procedures. Two uranium byproducts would be recovered from the 
demonstration: low-enriched uranium blended down from the highly-
enriched uranium in the driver fuel assemblies,

[[Page 25650]]

and depleted uranium from the blanket fuel assemblies. The uranium 
byproducts would be characterized according to the level of residual 
contamination. Adequate storage locations exist at Argonne National 
Laboratory-West to accommodate the small volume of spent nuclear fuel, 
waste materials, and byproduct uranium.
    These materials, except the metal waste form and ceramic waste 
form, are currently produced at the Argonne National Laboratory-West 
site and would continue to be produced under all alternatives. The 
metal waste form and ceramic waste form, which would be classified as 
high level waste, would contain the fission products from the spent 
nuclear fuel and would be stored in the Radioactive Scrap and Waste 
Facility at Argonne National Laboratory-West. Both the high-level waste 
forms and the spent nuclear fuel elements are highly radioactive, 
requiring identical double containment and shielding, as well as 
special handling procedures.
    Because processing assemblies would result in waste forms that are 
more compact, less storage volume would be required for the waste forms 
and uranium byproducts of the treated assemblies than for the untreated 
spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Under the Proposed Action, the 
Radioactive Scrap and Waste Facility storage requirement would be 38 
liners (vertical underground storage cylinders). Byproduct uranium 
ingots would total 0.15 cubic meters (5.3 cubic feet) in volume 
[equivalent to two Radioactive Waste and Scrap Facility canisters 
(engineered storage containers with welded tops that fit into the 
storage liners)]. The Equipment Performance Verification Alternative 
(see Alternatives Analyzed, above) would require 59 Radioactive Waste 
and Scrap Facility storage liners and storage space for 0.07 cubic 
meters (2.5 cubic feet) of uranium byproduct ingots (equivalent to one 
Radioactive Waste and Scrap Facility canister). A larger number of 
storage liners would be required in this alternative because more spent 
fuel would have to be stored. The No-Action Alternative would require 
81 Radioactive Waste and Scrap Facility storage liners. The number of 
storage liners required under the Demonstration in the Alternative 
Facility at the Test Area North Hot Shops at the Idaho National 
Engineering Laboratory is the same as the Proposed Action because only 
the location of the treatment process is different.
    Low level radioactive wastes would be generated by routine facility 
operations under all alternatives, ranging in volume from 20 cubic 
meters (700 cubic feet) in the Proposed Action to 70 cubic meters (2475 
cubic feet) in the No-Action Alternative. Fifty cubic meters (1750 
cubic feet) of transuranic waste would be generated in the action 
alternatives.
    Comparisons of waste that would be generated under the Proposed 
Action and the current Idaho National Engineering Laboratory inventory 
of similar waste are shown in Table 1. Adequate waste storage capacity 
exists for all alternatives.

Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action

    Surface Water Impacts: As described in Section 4.3.5 of the 
environmental assessment, the Proposed Action would not produce liquid 
effluents, so there would not be any impacts to surface waters or 
groundwater from effluents. To prevent potential releases to surface or 
subsurface waters resulting from spills of hazardous materials used in 
buildings, the Fuel Conditioning Facility and other buildings are 
designed, constructed and maintained to contain these materials.

    Table 1. Comparisons of Waste Generated Under the Proposed Action   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Current     Percent of 
                                   Proposed        INEL         INEL    
         Waste streams              Action      inventory*    inventory 
                                    (m\3\)        (m\3\)         (%)    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High level waste...............          0.52       10,000        0.0052
TRU waste......................         50          65,000        0.092 
Low level waste................         20           9,500        0.21  
Mixed waste....................          1           1,100        0.10  
Greater than class C waste.....          1.4         9,100        0.015 
Environmental restoration                                               
 waste**.......................        192         320,000        0.06  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Source: ``Intergration of EM activities at the INEL,'' Idaho National  
  Engineering Laboratory, March 31, 1995.                               
**Waste that would be generated from decommissioning activities         
  following the demonstration.                                          

    Land Impacts: Land use at Argonne National Laboratory-West has been 
dedicated to nuclear reactor and spent fuel research since 1955. All 
activities associated with the Proposed Action would take place on 
previously disturbed land and within existing structures.
    Cultural Resources: All activities associated with the Proposed 
Action would be conducted within existing facilities. No archeological 
or historic sites and structures would be affected.
    Threatened or Endangered Species: There are no known threatened or 
endangered species or sensitive habitats that would be affected by the 
Proposed Action.
    Nonradioactive Air Emissions: As summarized in Section 4.1.1.1 of 
the environmental assessment, potential impacts from nonradioactive 
releases associated with the Proposed Action are very small. A small 
amount of refrigerant gas (freon R-22) may escape from the argon cell 
cooling system at the Fuel Conditioning Facility and electrical 
equipment cleaning will also contribute a small amount. No adverse 
consequences would be expected to result from the estimated total 
refrigerant gas release of about 90 kilograms (200 pounds) per year, 
which is small (400 times less) compared with the 36,000 kilograms per 
year (40 tons per year) Idaho regulatory threshold for ``significant'' 
release of volatile organic compounds.
    Radioactive Air Emissions: As summarized in Section 4.1.1.2 of the 
environmental assessment, potential offsite doses from routine 
operations during this Proposed Action are quite small, less than 
1.1 x 10<SUP>-6 rem per year to the maximally exposed individual. This 
is more than a factor of 9,000 less than the 0.01 rem per year annual 
dose limit imposed by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutents program. No increased radiation levels, above background, 
would be detectable at the Argonne National Laboratory-West site or at 
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory site boundary.

[[Page 25651]]

    Worker Health Effects (Normal Operating Conditions): As described 
in Section 4.1.2 of the environmental assessment, under the Proposed 
Action, the average exposure of workers to radiation is small, and is 
not expected to increase to levels above those of the No-Action 
Alternative. The average annual exposure for a worker in the Fuel 
Conditioning Facility directly involved in the project is estimated to 
be 0.06 rem per year, and 0.03 rem per year for those not directly 
involved. These numbers are less than the 0.35 rem per year annual 
natural background radiation in the surrounding Eastern Snake River 
Plain. The probability of a single additional latent cancer fatality 
among workers involved in the project from the increased exposure is 
estimated to be one chance in 1,000.
    Transportation Impacts: Transportation risks at the Idaho National 
Engineering Laboratory are small and would not be increased as a result 
of this Proposed Action. The Argonne National Laboratory-West workers 
travel over public highways to reach work. Since the Proposed Action 
would not require an increase in the total number of employees, there 
is no increase in transportation risk for employees. Likewise, there 
would be no increase in waste shipments over public highways from 
Argonne National Laboratory-West facilities to the Radioactive Waste 
Management Complex (such shipments are associated with routine facility 
operations and would also be required for the No-Action Alternative). 
High-level waste, spent nuclear fuel and low-enriched uranium transfers 
between Argonne National Laboratory-West facilities do not use public 
highways. The net number of transfers within the Argonne National 
Laboratory-West site would not increase as a result of the Proposed 
Action.
    Socioeconomic Impacts: As described in Section 4.3.2 of the 
environmental assessment, it is not anticipated that the Proposed 
Action would have any measurable socioeconomic impacts on the area 
surrounding the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Any additional 
research personnel hired to help plan, conduct and interpret the 
experiments would be more than offset by a reduction in force that has 
been occurring due to shutdown of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II. No 
net additional personnel would be hired as a result of the Proposed 
Action.
    Procurements of materials or services required for the Proposed 
Action would be minimal, and would be very small compared to the 
overall Idaho National Engineering Laboratory budget.
    Potential Environmental Impacts of Facility Accidents: As described 
in Section 4.2 of the environmental assessment, the Final Safety 
Analysis Report (Revision 0, May 1, 1995) for the Fuel Conditioning 
Facility evaluated the consequences of a broad range of potential 
facility accidents which could possibly release radioactivity to the 
environment.
    The largest radiological risk to an individual worker from any of 
the reasonably foreseeable accidents would be an increase of 3 chances 
in 10,000 of death by cancer due to radiation exposure following an 
accidental spent fuel transfer cask drop outside the facility. (The 
estimated probability of this accident is in a range from 1 chance in 
100 to 1 chance in 10,000.) Since this accident would involve spent 
nuclear fuel, it would apply to each of the alternatives, including the 
No-Action Alternative. If such an accident occurred, up to 600 workers 
might be exposed to radiation, resulting in approximately 0.2 latent 
cancer fatalities; an estimated 0.003 latent cancer fatalities among 
the off-site population (within 50 miles of the site) could occur. This 
accident also represents the largest risk to the maximally exposed 
(public) individual, with an increase of 1 chance in 20 million of 
developing a fatal cancer if the accident did occur. The probability of 
developing a nonfatal cancer would be 1 chance in 2 million for the 
maximally exposed individual worker and 1 chance in 100 million for the 
maximally exposed individual member of the public.
    An air cell exhaust system flow reversal accident represents the 
largest risk from an accident that distinguishes the action 
alternatives, including the Proposed Action, from the No-Action 
Alternative. (The probability of this accident is estimated to be 
between 1 chance in 10,000 and 1 chance in 1 million.) If this accident 
occurred, an individual worker would have 1 chance in 400,000 of 
developing a fatal cancer. A member of the public at the site boundary 
receiving the maximum dose would have 1 chance in 20 million of 
contracting a fatal cancer as a result of such an accident.
    Consequences of Beyond-Design-Basis Accidents: Beyond-design-basis 
accidents are those accidents with probabilities of occurrence 
estimated to be between 1 in a million and 1 in 10 million. As 
described in Section 4.2.1.2 of the environmental assessment, two 
beyond-design-basis accidents have been evaluated for the modified Fuel 
Conditioning Facility. The first accident is a metal fire occurring 
simultaneously with small breaches in the argon cell confinement and 
with concurrent failure of abatement by the two separate stages of 
high-efficiency particulate air filtration provided by the safety 
exhaust system. The second accident, an aircraft crash into the 
facility, is described in detail in DOE/ID-10471, ``Accident 
Assessments for Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Facilities.''
    The airplane crash accident assumes that a large commercial jet 
crashes into the Fuel Conditioning Facility, resulting in penetration 
of the argon cell and a fire in the facility involving aviation fuel. 
This accident would result in a radiation dose of 250 person-rem among 
the potentially exposed population within an 80 kilometer (50 mile) 
radius. The estimated increase in latent cancer fatalities is 0.13, or 
approximately 1 chance in 8, of an additional cancer fatality. The 
corresponding increase in nonfatal cancers is estimated to be 0.025, or 
1 chance in 40, of an additional nonfatal cancer. Based on conservative 
estimates (i.e., estimates that tend to overstate the impacts), 2 
radiation-induced cancer fatalities among 600 potentially-exposed 
workers would result.
    In the metal fire accident, a fire in the hot process metal is 
assumed to start after sufficient oxygen enters through argon cell 
breaches resulting from a beyond-design-basis earthquake. This accident 
would result in a radiation dose of 74 person-rem among the population 
within an 80 kilometer (50 mile) radius. The estimated increase in 
latent cancer fatalities is 0.037, or approximately 1 chance in 24, of 
an additional cancer fatality among potentially exposed members of the 
public. Based on conservative estimates, three radiation-induced cancer 
fatalities among workers would result.
    Taking account of the potential consequences and probabilities of 
occurrence, the accident risks associated with the Proposed Action are 
small.
    Natural Hazards: As described in Section 4.2.2 of the environmental 
assessment, the Fuel Conditioning Facility Final Safety Analysis Report 
provides a discussion of natural phenomena hazards. The principal 
potential natural hazard is earthquakes. The air cell, argon cell, 
general building and safety equipment building were analyzed and were 
confirmed to maintain structural integrity during and after the design-
basis earthquake (0.21 g acceleration). All structures can easily 
accommodate the straight wind loading of 95 mph and the snow loading of 
40 pounds per square foot.
    Spent Nuclear Fuel, Uranium By-Products and Waste Management

[[Page 25652]]

Impacts: As discussed in Section 4.5 of the environmental assessment, 
using a common comparison basis for estimating waste volumes for each 
alternative, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a 
net decrease in the combined volume of high-level waste and spent 
nuclear fuel at Argonne National Laboratory-West. For the volume of 
high level wastes generated by the process, adequate storage capacity 
currently exists on-site. The Proposed Action would increase the volume 
of low-enriched uranium and high-level radioactive waste stored at the 
Argonne National Laboratory-West site. The increased volumes, however, 
would occupy a small percentage of the available storage space.
    Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would 
also result in a net decrease in the amount of low-level waste 
generated and shipped to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 
Radioactive Waste Management Complex, because some of the waste 
generated from normal facility operations would be characterized as 
transuranic waste. Therefore, the reduction in low-level waste volumes 
would be offset by a net increase in the amount of transuranic waste. 
Argonne National Laboratory-West and the Idaho National Engineering 
Laboratory Radioactive Waste Management Complex have adequate interim 
storage capacity to accommodate the transuranic waste, which would be 
less than one-tenth of one percent of the current inventory at the 
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
    The amounts of mixed waste and nonradioactive waste generated under 
the Proposed Action are the same as would be expected under the No-
Action Alternative. Existing, adequate storage capacity exists for any 
of the wastes that would be generated.
    Cumulative Impacts: A cumulative impact is the result of the 
incremental impact of the Proposed Action added to all other past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts 
associated with Idaho National Engineering Laboratory spent nuclear 
fuel, environmental restoration, and waste management activities have 
been described and analyzed in Volume 2, Section 5.15 of the Spent 
Nuclear Fuel and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental 
Impact Statement. As discussed in Section 4.3 of the environmental 
assessment, the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action would be 
small and would add only a small increment to past, present or 
reasonably foreseeable impacts at the Idaho National Engineering 
Laboratory. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in 
significant cumulative impacts.
    Environmental Justice: As discussed above and described in Section 
4.6 of the environmental assessment, the potential environmental 
impacts calculated for activities associated with the Proposed Action 
are small, and present little or no risk to any segment of the 
surrounding population. Therefore, the impacts also do not constitute 
disproportionately high or adverse impacts on any minority or low-
income population.
    Consistency with United States Nonproliferation Policy: It is the 
policy of the United States not to encourage the civil use of 
plutonium. The proposed demonstration project would not separate 
plutonium from the processed Experimental Breeder Reactor-II fuel. 
Moreover, the technology employed is not capable of separating 
plutonium. Even with extensive modification, the technology would not 
be capable of separating plutonium that would be suitable for a 
proliferant nuclear weapons program. Further, by removing and then 
blending down the highly enriched uranium in the Experimental Breeder 
Reactor-II driver fuel, the project supports the United States goal of 
seeking to eliminate, where possible, the accumulation of stockpiles of 
highly enriched uranium. As a result, the proposed demonstration 
project is consistent with United States nonproliferation policy.
    Principal Concerns Raised During Public Comment Period: As noted 
above, a draft environmental assessment was available for public 
comment from February 5, 1996 through May 3, 1996. The Department 
carefully considered all comments received and prepared a detailed 
``Comment Response Document,'' which is an appendix to the final 
environmental assessment. The following discussion summarizes the 
principal concerns raised by commentors and the Department's responses.
    Reprocessing: Some commentors suggested that the proposed 
demonstration of electrometallurgical treatment technology is 
``reprocessing'' because it involves the separation of spent nuclear 
fuel constituents, could involve the future reuse of the separated 
materials, and/or has evolved from a technology that was originally 
intended to support the now-terminated Integral Fast Reactor project. 
As a result, some commentors suggested that the Department's National 
Environmental Policy Act regulation (10 CFR Part 1021, Appendix D to 
Subpart D) requires the preparation of an environmental impact 
statement for the proposed demonstration program.
    It is important to note that preparation of an environmental impact 
statement is not automatically required by Appendix D, which is 
entitled ``Classes of Actions That Normally Require Environmental 
Impact Statements'' (emphasis added). At most, the inclusion of a class 
of actions in Appendix D establishes a presumption that activities 
falling within that class are generally ``major'' activities requiring 
the preparation of an environmental impact statement. That presumption 
is overcome when an evaluation of a specific proposal indicates that it 
is not a ``major'' activity and would not produce any significant 
environmental impacts.
    The particular provision of Appendix D at issue originated in 1990, 
when the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (55 Federal 
Register 46444, November 2, 1990) that eventually was promulgated in 
1992 as 10 CFR Part 1021. Among the new classes of actions proposed as 
``normally requiring Environmental Impact Statements'' was the 
``siting, construction, operation, and decommissioning of reprocessing 
facilities.'' The preamble to the proposed rule described this 
provision's intended scope as one of several new classes of activity 
``related to the siting, construction and operation of major nuclear 
facilities'' (emphasis added). It is apparent from this preamble 
language that the Department regarded the scale of the proposed 
activity and its potential for significant impacts, not the designation 
of an activity as ``reprocessing,'' as the important factor in 
establishing the need for an environmental impact statement.
    Unlike the large reprocessing facilities existing at the time the 
regulations were promulgated, the proposed demonstration project does 
not generate large volumes of liquid high-level waste or have other 
significant impacts. The Proposed Action is simply a demonstration of 
electrometallurgical treatment technology involving equipment whose 
size and configuration cannot accommodate full-scale treatment 
activities. As demonstrated in the environmental assessment, the 
demonstration project would generate 640 kilograms (0.52 cubic meters, 
or approximately the size of a three-drawer file cabinet) of solid 
high-level waste in metal or ceramic form, but no liquid high-level 
waste. In light of these minimal impacts, it was appropriate for the 
Department to prepare an environmental assessment to assist in 
determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement.

[[Page 25653]]

    Indeed, the Department does not regard the proposed treatment 
process as ``reprocessing'' as that term has been used historically and 
is used in the Department's National Environmental Policy Act 
regulations. The purpose of the Department's historical reprocessing 
activities was to recover plutonium and highly-enriched uranium from 
spent nuclear fuel for reuse in defense-related activities, including 
weapons production. These activities required large production-scale 
buildings and ancillary facilities. The Department of Energy 
regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act were 
drafted with these reprocessing activities in mind. In contrast, the 
much smaller-scale proposed demonstration of electrometallurgical 
technology would not involve the separation of plutonium from fission 
products or the reuse or recycling of any separated materials for 
defense-related purposes.
    As noted in Section 2.3 of the environmental assessment, this 
technology does separate spent nuclear fuel constituents into certain 
groups. For driver spent nuclear fuel, these groups are (1) highly-
enriched uranium (which would promptly be blended with depleted uranium 
to form low-enriched uranium), (2) a mixture of fission products and 
plutonium, and (3) cladding metal. For the blanket fuel, these groups 
are (1) low-enriched uranium, (2) a mixture of fission products and 
plutonium, and (3) cladding metal.
    With regard to the potential reuse of separated materials, the 
treatment of the 100 driver assemblies would result, after blending, in 
approximately 1400 kilograms (3080 pounds) of low-enriched uranium. As 
described in Section 2.3 of the environmental assessment, this low-
enriched uranium would be stored at Argonne National Laboratory-West 
until a decision is made regarding its ultimate disposition. The 
disposition of this material would be consistent with future 
departmental decisions regarding other similar materials, but it would 
not involve reuse for defense-related purposes. Potential disposition 
options for this material include its sale to the commercial nuclear 
industry for use as power reactor fuel.
    For all of these reasons, the Department of Energy does not believe 
that the proposed demonstration of electrometallurgical technology 
constitutes ``reprocessing'' within the meaning of 10 CFR Part 1021, 
Appendix D to Subpart D, even if it does fall within some broader 
definitions of ``reprocessing'' that are used in other contexts.
    Nonproliferation: Some commentors suggested that the proposed 
demonstration project is contrary to the nonproliferation policy of the 
United States regarding materials that could be used by other countries 
or groups to construct nuclear weapons. The United States policy on 
nonproliferation is contained in Presidential Decision Directive 13, a 
classified document. On September 27, 1993, at the time Presidential 
Decision Directive-13 was signed, an unclassified press release 
summarizing its contents was issued. Among other things, the summary 
states that the United States does not encourage the civil use of 
plutonium, and accordingly the United States does not itself engage in 
plutonium reprocessing for either nuclear weapons or nuclear power 
purposes. As described in Section 4.7 of the environmental assessment, 
the electrorefining equipment that would be a part of the proposed 
demonstration project is not capable of separating plutonium from spent 
nuclear fuel. The plutonium contained in the spent nuclear fuel, along 
with other actinides and most constituent fission products, would be 
immobilized in the zeolite ceramic waste form. Thus, because it does 
not separate plutonium, the proposed demonstration is consistent with 
the nonproliferation policy of the United States.
    Some of the commentors suggested, however, that with adjustment to 
or refinements of either of the electrorefiners that would be a part of 
the Proposed Action, this technology could be made to separate 
plutonium for weapons use. During the Integral Fast Reactor Program, 
which was canceled in 1994, the Department attempted to develop an 
electrorefiner that included a liquid cadmium cathode to collect and 
concentrate plutonium and all other transuranic elements present in the 
spent nuclear fuel. Successful application of this process would have 
resulted in a plutonium product contaminated or mixed with uranium, 
other transuranic elements, and rare earth fission products. 
Development of the cathode progressed only to the point where the 
technical feasibility of the concept was established. No prototype or 
working model was ever commissioned for the Fuel Conditioning Facility.
    As conceived, however, the liquid cadmium cathode would have 
produced a metal-alloy product containing up to 70 percent plutonium; 
this plutonium alloy could have been obtained only after subsequent 
processing in a high-temperature vacuum furnace. The balance of 
materials remaining in the plutonium product after electrorefining, but 
prior to subsequent processing, would be those most difficult to 
separate from plutonium by any chemical means: uranium, americium, 
neptunium, curium, and the rare earth fission products. This plutonium 
metal-alloy product would have high transuranic content, a high heat 
source, a high neutron radiation source, and a high gamma radiation 
source, any one of which would make design of a weapon extremely 
difficult. Neutron and gamma radiation sources would be three to four 
orders of magnitude higher than weapons-grade or reactor-grade 
material. These levels of radiation are lethal and would require 
handling of the material by remote means. As a result of the high heat, 
neutron, and gamma radiation sources, and the transuranic 
contamination, any attempt to use plutonium in this form for weapons 
purposes would add significant difficulties to any potential 
proliferant's efforts.
    The Department requested a study by the Defense Technologies 
Engineering Division of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to 
determine the feasibility of misusing electrometallurgical technology 
in order to produce plutonium that could be used in a proliferant 
nuclear weapons program. While the report from that study is 
classified, an unclassified presentation on the conclusions from the 
report was given to the Department by Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory in March 1994 and is summarized in Section 4.7 of the 
environmental assessment. The unclassified presentation stated that the 
report concluded that significant new process inventions and new 
weapons designs would be required before material resulting from the 
process could be used in a nuclear weapons program. The major problems 
for prospective weapons designers would be:
    (a) the actinides collected with the fission products would result 
in a very high heat output, which would complicate and might even 
preclude the design of even a simple nuclear device due to the heat 
output's effect on high explosive and plutonium components; (b) 
radiation levels from the material would be incapacitating and lethal 
to individuals coming in contact with the material for the purpose of 
weapons fabrication; (c) designing processes to deal with these 
radiation levels would significantly complicate a proliferant's 
development and deployment programs and production activities; and (d) 
over time, high radiation fields would

[[Page 25654]]

negatively impact material behavior and electronic circuitry.
    Some of the commentors also suggested that, because this technology 
separates highly-enriched uranium from the Experimental Breeder 
Reactor-II driver spent nuclear fuel, use of the technology would 
violate United States policy on nonproliferation. While it is correct 
that the technology would separate the highly-enriched uranium from the 
driver spent nuclear fuel, under the proposed demonstration project the 
highly-enriched uranium would be melted in the casting furnace and 
combined with depleted uranium to produce low-enriched uranium (less 
than 20 percent enrichment) without ever leaving the argon cell. This 
blending-down activity would, in fact, be part of the spent nuclear 
fuel treatment process. Blending down would be done to reduce costs 
associated with the higher levels of security required for safeguarding 
highly-enriched uranium. Also, it should be noted that this technology 
is incapable of increasing the level of enrichment of uranium contained 
in spent nuclear fuel being treated. Therefore, this technology would 
not be useful to a nation seeking to enrich uranium to weapons-grade 
level. However, because the technology permits the separation of 
highly-enriched uranium, which could, in the wrong hands, pose a 
proliferation risk, the Department would exercise its authority to 
prevent proliferation sensitive information and technology advances 
resulting from the proposed demonstration from becoming available to 
potential proliferant-risk countries, including exercising its 
authority under the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act 
of 1978 and the Department's implementing regulations. Separating the 
highly-enriched uranium from Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent 
nuclear fuel and blending it down to less than 20 percent enrichment is 
consistent with United States nonproliferation policy.
    Appropriate Level of National Environmental Policy Act Review: 
Several commentors suggested that the Proposed Action is part of a 
larger program, and that the Department must prepare an environmental 
impact statement that analyzes the larger program, including full-scale 
implementation of electrometallurgical treatment. Commentors further 
expressed concern that the Proposed Action would prejudice the 
Department's choice of options under a larger program, either because 
of the commitment of resources that would be invested in studying the 
electrometallurgical technology, or because the proposed demonstration 
would set a precedent for the technology's further, broader 
application.
    The Department does not agree with these assertions. The Department 
has no current proposal to apply the technology more broadly. The 
Department prepared this environmental assessment to assess the 
environmental impacts of a proposal to apply electrometallurgical 
treatment technology only to a limited number of Experimental Breeder 
Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel assemblies sufficient for the purpose of 
further research and development as recommended by the National 
Research Council. The Department needs the information from the 
proposed demonstration to determine whether electrometallurgical 
treatment is a feasible technology for treating the remainder of the 
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or other spent 
nuclear fuel requiring processing for disposal. Only after data from 
such a demonstration are analyzed can the Department assess whether to 
propose a broader application of the technology. In the absence of a 
proposal for broader application, no ``program'' or broader activity 
exists to be analyzed.
    The Department has decided to proceed with the proposed 
demonstration. Even if successful, however, the demonstration would not 
automatically lead to the treatment of more Experimental Breeder 
Reactor-II spent nuclear fuel or to other broader applications of 
electrometallurgical technology. The Department will not make any 
significant additional use of the electrometallurgical refining 
technology without first preparing an environmental impact statement. 
Specifically, the Department will not use this technology to treat the 
remaining Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel or make another 
production-scale use of the technology without preparing an 
environmental impact statement.
    Public Comment Process: Several commentors suggested that the 
Department did not allow the public proper and timely access to the 
documents referenced in the draft environmental assessment. The draft 
environmental assessment was transmitted for public review and comment 
on January 29, 1996, with an initial comment period from February 5 to 
March 22. References cited in the draft environmental assessment 
originally were not sent to the public reading rooms, but were 
available upon request from the Department of Energy document manager 
in Idaho.
    In the course of public hearings in Idaho Falls, Idaho, on February 
21, 1996, a commentor requested that the documents referenced in the 
draft environmental assessment be made available in the Department's 
public reading rooms and that the public comment period be extended by 
another two months. The Department agreed to place the references in 
the public reading rooms but deferred the decision on extending the 
comment period. A member of the Department of Energy panel stated that 
he would ``* * * try to have them (the references) in the public 
reading rooms within the next week.'' Thirty-seven of the 48 references 
were reproduced and sent to each of the nine public reading rooms by 
March 8. The Department believed the remaining 11 references were 
already in the reading rooms as references to the Department of Energy 
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National 
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
Programs Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0203-F). On March 25, 
another commentor brought to the Department's attention the fact that 
not all documents were in the public reading rooms in Washington, D.C. 
and in Idaho Falls. In response, the missing documents were sent 
directly to the commentor, and duplicates were placed in the reading 
rooms. The comment response period was extended to April 5.
    In response to additional comments that not all documents had been 
found in the public reading rooms, an inventory of each of the reading 
rooms was taken by Department of Energy or Argonne National Laboratory 
personnel on April 6. Missing documents were provided, and all 
documents were personally verified by Department of Energy or Argonne 
National Laboratory personnel to be in place in the reading rooms on 
April 8. Further, an additional document and reference location was 
established in the main library of the University of California at 
Irvine. On April 15, 1996, the public comment period was reopened until 
May 3. The Department believes that making the reference documents 
available to the public and reopening the comment period have allowed 
an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the environmental 
assessment and to consult the reference documents.

Finding

    Based on the analysis in the environmental assessment and after 
considering all comments received

[[Page 25655]]

through the public review process, the Department of Energy has 
determined that the Electrometallurgical Treatment Research and 
Demonstration Project in the Fuel Conditioning Facility at Argonne 
National Laboratory - West does not constitute a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the 
meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Therefore, an 
environmental impact statement is not required.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., this 15th day of May 1996.
Terry R. Lash,
Director Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology U.S. 
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 96-12861 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P