National Environmental Policy Act - Energy.gov · ity impacts from Idaho National Engineering and...

National Environmental Policy Act

Environmental Impact Statement:

A detailed environmental analysis for

any proposed major Federal action that

could significantly affect the quality of

the human environment. A tool to

assist in decision-making, it describes

the positive and negative environmental

effects of the proposed undertaking

and alternatives. A draft EIS is issued,

followed by a final EIS.

Scoping:

An early and open process in which the

public is invited to participate in identi-

fying issues and alternatives to be con-

sidered in this EIS. DOE allows a

minimum of 30 days for the receipt of

public comments.

Alternatives:

A range of courses of action that would

meet the agency’s purpose and need for

action. NEPA requires that an EIS con-

sider a No Action Alternative.

Comment Period:

A regulatory minimum 45-day

period for public review of a draft

EIS during which the public may

comment on the environmental

analyses and suggest revisions or

additional issues or alternatives

to be evaluated in the final EIS.

The agency considers these com-

ments in its preparation of the

final EIS.

Record of Decision:

A public record of the agency deci-

sion, issued no sooner than 30

days after publication of a final

EIS. It describes the decision,

identifies the alternatives (speci-

fying which were considered envi-

ronmentally preferable) and the

factors balanced by an agency in

making its decision.

A thorough understanding of environmental impacts that may occur when implementingproposed actions is a key element of Department of Energy decision-making. TheNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides Federal agency decision-makers witha process to consider potential environmental consequences (beneficial and adverse) ofproposed actions before agencies make decisions. An important part of this process isthe opportunity for the public to learn about and comment on proposed agency actionsbefore a decision is made.

Passed by Congress in 1969, NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the potentialenvironmental impacts of their proposed major actions before implementing them. If aproposed action could have a significant impact on the environment, the agency mustprepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Copies of the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact

Statement are available at the locations listed at the end of this document. The EIS also

will be available on the internet at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documentspub.html.

To request a copy of this EIS, please call 1-208-526-0833 or send a note electronically to

Brad Bugger at: [email protected]

COVER SHEET

Responsible Agency: Lead Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Cooperating Agency: The State of Idaho

Title:

Contact: For additional information on this EIS and the tribal, agency and public involvement process con-ducted in conjunction with its preparation, write or call:

This Final EIS is composed of a Summary, Chapters 1 through 13, and appendices. Copies of the EIS orappendices may be requested from Richard Kimmel at the address, phone number, or email address shownabove. The EIS and appendices are available in "hard copy," on a compact disk, or both if desired.

The EIS also will be available on the Internet at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documentspub.html,http://www.id.doe.gov, or http://www.oversight.state.id.us.

For information on the process DOE follows in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act pro-cess, write or call:

Abstract: This EIS analyzes the potential environmental consequences of alternatives for managing high-level waste (HLW) calcine, mixed transuranic waste/sodium bearing waste (SBW) and newly generated liq-uid waste at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) in liquid and solidforms. This EIS also analyzes alternatives for the final disposition of HLW management facilities at theINEEL after their missions are completed. After considering comments on the Draft EIS (DOE/EIS-0287D), as well as information on available treatment technologies, DOE and the State of Idaho have iden-tified separate preferred alternatives for waste treatment. DOE's preferred alternative for waste treatment isperformance based with the focus on placing the wastes in forms suitable for disposal. Technologies avail-able to meet the performance objectives may be chosen from the action alternatives analyzed in this EIS.The State of Idaho's Preferred Alternative for treating mixed transuranic waste/SBW and calcine is vitrifi-cation, with or without calcine separations. Under both the DOE and State of Idaho preferred alternatives,newly generated liquid waste would be segregated after 2005, stored or treated directly and disposed of aslow-level, mixed low-level, or transuranic waste depending on its characteristics. The objective of each pre-ferred alternative is to enable compliance with the legal requirement to have INEEL HLW road ready by atarget date of 2035. Both DOE and the State of Idaho have identified the same preferred alternative forfacilities disposition, which is to use performance-based closure methods for existing facilities and to designnew facilities consistent with clean closure methods.

Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42U.S. Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20585Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave message at (800) 472-2756

Richard Kimmel, Document ManagerU.S. Department of Energy,Idaho Operations Office850 Energy Drive, MS 1154Idaho Falls, ID 83401-1563Telephone: (208) [email protected]

Jaime Fuhrman, Public Information OfficerState of Idaho INEEL Oversight Program1410 North Hilton, Floor 3Boise, Idaho 83706-1255Telephone: (208) [email protected]

Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement(DOE/EIS-0287) (Final EIS)

iii DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

READERS GUIDEThe Idaho High Level Waste and Facilities DispositionEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) is composed of a Summary,Chapters 1 through 13, and appendices. The EIS structure is illus-trated in Figure 1. The EIS Summary stands alone and contains all theinformation necessary to understand the issues dealt with in detail inthe EIS.

The public comment period on the Draft EIS was from January 21,2000 to March 20, 2000 and was extended to April 19, 2000 inresponse to public request. Public hearings were held in Idaho Falls,Pocatello, Twin Falls, Boise and Fort Hall, Idaho; Jackson, Wyoming;Portland, Oregon and Pasco, Washington. Changes between the Draftand Final EIS, including those made in response to public comment,are printed in bold italics where occurring with text repeated from theDraft EIS, or are identified by the header "New Information" at thetop of each page composed of all new text as shown in Figure 2.

Changes and information added to the Final EIS resulting from pub-lic comment on the Draft EIS or from further U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) and State of Idaho review include:

• DOE reorganized portions of the Final EIS. Purpose and Need for Agency Action is now presentedas Chapter 1 and Background as Chapter 2. The glossary and distribution list (Appendix D and E,respectively, of the Draft EIS) are presented as Chapters 7 and 12. A new Chapter 8 lists the contentsof the appendixes. References were moved to Chapter 9. The list of preparers and organizational con-flict of interest statements were merged as Chapter 10. The index for the Final EIS is in Chapter 13.

• Section 2.3.5 "Other Information and Technologies Reviewed" was added to address technologies andvariations on alternatives proposed to DOE both during and apart from public comment.

• An additional alternative and an option have been added. They are the Direct VitrificationAlternative, which is the State of Idaho's preferred waste processing alternative, and the SteamReforming Option. The Steam Reforming Option includes steam reforming for the treatment ofmixed transuranic waste/sodium bearing waste and shipping the high-level waste calcine directly to ageologic repository without further treatment.

• Chapter 3 has been reorganized to present the State of Idaho and the DOE Preferred Alternatives.

• Section 3.3, "Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis" has been updated to review why somealternatives and technologies were not considered further by DOE.

• Discussion of Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Determination under DOE Order 435.1 has beenexpanded. The expanded discussion of the procedure is located in the text box on page 2-9.

• Tables 3-1 and 3-3 and Tables 3-2 and 3-5 were combined. Table 3-5 was added to summarize theimpacts associated with the facility disposition alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS as well as theState of Idaho and DOE Preferred Alternative for facility disposition.

• Chapter 4 "Affected Environment" has been updated.

- New Information -

The Final EIS Summary replaces the Draft Summary and provides in abstract form a description of the entire EIS from purpose and need and alternatives analyzed, to comparison of impacts and major results.

FIGURE 1

DOE/EIS-0287 iv

Summary

• "CALPUFF" modeling wasconducted to analyze air qual-ity impacts from IdahoNational Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory(INEEL) emissions onYellowstone and Grand TetonNational Parks and Craters ofthe Moon NationalMonument. The results of thismodeling are presented inSection 5.2.6 and AppendixC.2.

• A higher volume of wastewould be produced from vitri-fication of calcine at theHanford Site than presented inthe Draft EIS analysis of theMinimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative (see AppendixC.8). The higher volumeresulted in increases in trans-portation impacts, which arepresented in Section 5.2.9 andAppendix C.5.

• Waste inventory informationwas refined including updatedsource term data in AppendixC.7. Corresponding changeswere made in long-term facil-ity disposition modeling(Appendix C.9) and facilityaccident analysis (AppendixC.4). The results of this anal-ysis are shown in Section5.2.14 and Tables 5.3-8, 5.3-16 and 5.3-17.

• Summaries of the public comments with responses prepared by DOE in coordination with the Stateof Idaho as a cooperating agency are located in Chapter 11 of this Final EIS. Copies of the written and transcribed comments are located in Appendix D.

If there are any questions concerning this EIS, the information or analysis it presents, or its availabilityplease contact Richard Kimmel at (208) 526-5583 or by e-mail at [email protected].

- New Information -

B.8 AdditionalAlternatives/Optionsand TechnologiesIdentified during thePublic CommentProcess

B.8.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS wasissued in 65 FR 3432 on January 21, 2000.Additional alternatives for the treatment and dis-posal of mixed transuranic waste/SBW andmixed HLW calcine were proposed by the pub-lic during the public comment period. Publiccomments, along with other relevant factors,such as information received after the Draft EISwas approved, had a bearing on the developmentof the Preferred Alternatives. This section iden-tifies and describes the new alternatives andtreatment technologies and their disposition.The new alternatives (Steam Reforming andGrout-in-Place) were identified from publiccomment on the Draft EIS. The additional treat-ment technologies described here include thoseidentified by:

• The National Academy of Sciences(NAS 1999)

• The public comment process, and

• HLW treatment experts during thePreferred Alternative identification pro-cess

The evaluation process for the alternatives andtechnologies included environment, safety, andhealth impacts; treatment process effectivenessfor both mixed transuranic waste/SBW andmixed HLW calcine; technical maturity of treat-ment technologies and risk of failure; publiccomment; ability to meet legal commitments fortreating and preparing mixed transuranicwaste/SBW and mixed HLW calcine to meet theSettlement Agreement/Consent Order andNotice of Noncompliance Consent Orderrequirements; agency concerns; adherence toDOE's mission and policies; uncertainties;schedule risk; project and operational costs; final

waste form shipping and disposal costs; andmaximizing the potential for early disposal ofthe final waste form.

B.8.2 ALTERNATIVES/OPTIONSEVALUATED AFTER THE DRAFTEIS WAS ISSUED

Waste processing methods were identified andevaluated during the review of public commentson the Draft EIS, from other reports, and duringDOE internal review. Most of these methods,including Steam Reforming, were variations onthe waste processing alternatives presented inthe Draft EIS. However, application of SteamReforming and Grout-In-Place as proposedwaste treatment alternatives was identified dur-ing public comment and considered in the FinalEIS alternative identification process. Theseproposed alternatives are described in the fol-lowing subsections.

B.8.2.1 Steam Reforming

The steam reforming process proposed for pro-cessing mixed transuranic waste/SBW involvesreaction of the waste in a fluidized bed withsteam and certain reductants and additives, toproduce a small volume of inorganic residueessentially free of nitrates and organic materials.The mixed transuranic waste/SBW, after mixingwith sucrose, would be fed to the reactor. Solidcarbon would be fed separately as a reactant inthe steam-reforming process. Additional addi-tives may also be used to alter the physical andchemical properties of the final product. Waterin the waste would be vaporized to superheatedsteam. Additional energy would be supplied tothe bed by injecting oxygen to react with the car-bon sources. Organic compounds in the wastewould be broken down through thermal pro-cesses (pyrolysis) and through reaction with hotnitrates, steam, and oxygen.

The fine solid-waste products, including smallamounts of fixed carbon and alumina fines fromthe bed, would be separated from the largersemi-permanent fluid-bed particles in a cyclonewithin the reactor. The resultant vapor streamwould be passed through ceramic candle filterswhere the solids would be separated from the

DOE/EIS-0287 B-18

Appendix B - New Information -

FIGURE 2

v DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

TABLE OF CONTENTSREADERS GUIDE..................................................................................................................................... iii

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AGENCY ACTION ........................................................................... S-11.1 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................... S-11.2 Role of this EIS in the Decision-making Process ......................................................... S-31.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ S-31.4 Timing and Regulatory Considerations for this EIS ..................................................... S-4

2.0 ACTIVITIES SINCE THE ISSUANCE OF THE DRAFT EIS ....................................................... S-52.1 Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses ............................................... S-52.2 Other Considerations for EIS Alternatives.................................................................... S-82.3 Changes from the Draft EIS ..........................................................................................

3.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................... S-103.1 Identifying Alternatives ............................................................................................... S-103.2 EIS Alternatives ........................................................................................................... S-10

3.2.1 Waste Processing Alternatives ........................................................................ S-103.2.2 Facility Disposition Alternatives .................................................................... S-33

3.2.2.1 RCRA Closure of Facilities ............................................................... S-343.2.2.2 CERCLA Coordination ...................................................................... S-343.2.2.3 Facility Disposition Identification ..................................................... S-343.2.2.4 Alternative Descriptions .................................................................... S-35

4.0 AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY .............................................................................................................S-364.1 Waste Acceptance Criteria ........................................................................................... S-364.2 Waste Incidental to Reprocessing ................................................................................ S-384.3 Technical Maturity of Alternative Treatment Processes .............................................. S-384.4 Timeframes .................................................................................................................. S-384.5 Costs.............................................................................................................................. S-38

5.0 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ........................................................................................................... S-395.1 Mixed Low-level/Low-level Waste Disposal Locations ............................................. S-395.2 Repository Capacity - Metric Tons of Heavy Metal ................................................... S-395.3 Differences in Flood Studies ....................................................................................... S-39

6.0 CONCLUSIONS OF ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... S-406.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... S-406.2 Impacts of the Waste Processing Alternatives ............................................................. S-41

6.2.1 Air Resources .................................................................................................. S-416.2.2 Traffic and Transportation .............................................................................. S-426.2.3 Health and Safety ............................................................................................ S-436.2.4 Waste and Materials ........................................................................................ S-456.2.5 Facility Accidents (Off-Normal Operations) .................................................. S-46

6.3 Impacts of the Facility Disposition Alternatives ......................................................... S-496.3.1 Air Resources ................................................................................................. S-496.3.2 Traffic and Transportation .............................................................................. S-496.3.3 Health and Safety ........................................................................................... S-496.3.4 Waste and Materials ....................................................................................... S-506.3.5 Facility Disposition Accidents ....................................................................... S-50

DOE/EIS-0287 vi

Summary

TABLE OF CONTENTS(continued)

6.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... S-516.4.1 Air Resources ................................................................................................ S-516.4.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................ S-516.4.3 Traffic and Transportation ............................................................................. S-526.4.4 Health and Safety .......................................................................................... S-536.4.5 Waste and Materials ...................................................................................... S-53

6.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................... S-53

7.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ......................................................... S-697.1 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................. S-697.2 Clean Air Act .............................................................................................................. S-697.3 Floodplain/Wetlands Management ............................................................................. S-69

8.0 READING ROOMS AND INFORMATION LOCATIONS ........................................................ S-69

vii DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

DOE U.S. Department of EnergyEIS environmental impact statementEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyERPG Emergency Response Planning GuidelineHLW high-level wasteINEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (formerly known as the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory or INEL)

INTEC Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center(formerly known as the Idaho Chemical Processing

LCF latent cancer fatalityLLW low-level wasteMTHM metric tons of heavy metalNEPA National Environmental Policy ActRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActROD Record of DecisionSBW sodium-bearing wasteSNF and INEL EIS U.S. Department of Energy Programmatic Spent

Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restorationand Waste Management Programs EIS

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

DOE limited the use of acronyms and abbreviations in this Summary to provide a morereader friendly document. These acronyms and abbreviations are listed below.

Plant or ICPP)

ix DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

What is ...High-level waste?High-level waste (HLW) is the highly radioactive material resulting from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, includ-ing liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from the liquid waste that con-tains fission products in sufficient concentrations, and other highly radioactive material that is determined,consistent with existing law, to require permanent isolation. HLW stored at the Idaho Nuclear Technology andEngineering Center (INTEC) contains a combination of:

• Highly radioactive, but relatively short-lived (approximately 30 year half-life) fission products(primarily cesium-137 and strontium-90)

• Long-lived radionuclides - technetium-99, carbon-14, and iodine-129 as well as transuranics (elementswith atomic numbers greater than uranium).

At INTEC, all the liquid HLW recoverable with the use of the existing transfer equipment has been converted toa granular solid called calcine, which is stored in bin sets. HLW calcine is considered mixed HLW because it con-tains hazardous waste subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended.

Transuranic waste?Transuranic waste is radioactive waste that contains isotopes with 93 or greater protons (atomic number) inthe nucleus of each atom (such as neptunium or plutonium), a half-life greater than 20 years, and an alpha-emit-ting radionuclide concentration of greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste.

Low-level waste?Low-level waste (LLW) is radioactive waste that is not high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel,transuranic waste, byproduct material (as defined in section 11e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,amended), or naturally occurring radioactive material. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations (10CFR Part 61) provide a classification system for LLW. This classification system includes:

• Class A waste - radioactive waste that is usually segregated from other wastes at disposal sites toensure stability of the disposal site. Class A waste can be disposed of along with other wastes if therequirements for stability are met. Class A waste usually has lower concentrations of radionuclidesthan Class C waste.

• Class C waste - radioactive waste that is suitable for near surface disposal but due to its radionu-clide concentrations must meet more rigorous requirements for waste form stability. Class C wasterequires protective measures at the disposal facility to protect against inadvertent intrusion.

These waste classifications are not applicable to DOE LLW. However, the terms Class A-type and Class C-typeare used in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to refer to DOE LLW streams that could be disposedof at offsite facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mixed waste?Mixed waste is waste that contains both source, special nuclear, or by-product material subject to the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended, and hazardous waste subject to RCRA, as amended. When referring to aspecific classification of radioactive waste that also contains hazardous waste, “mixed” is used as an adjective,followed by high-level, transuranic, or low-level, as appropriate.

Spent nuclear fuel?Spent nuclear fuel is fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation. When it is takenout of a reactor, spent nuclear fuel contains some unused enriched uranium, radioactive fission products, andactivation products. Because of its high radioactivity (including gamma-ray emitters), it must be properlyshielded.

DOE/EIS-0287 x

Summary

What is(continued)

Waste fractions?Waste fractions are produced when radioactive waste is treated to separate radionuclides according to activitylevel. Depending upon the characteristics of resulting fractions, waste may be classified as high-level,transuranic, or low-level.

Sodium-bearing waste?Sodium-bearing waste (SBW) is a liquid mixed radioactive waste produced from the second and third cycles ofspent nuclear fuel reprocessing and waste calcination, liquid wastes from INTEC closure activities stored in theTank Farm, solids in the bottom of the tanks, and trace contamination from first cycle reprocessing extractionwaste. SBW contains large quantities of sodium and potassium nitrates. Typically, SBW is processed throughan evaporator to reduce the volume, then stored in the Tank Farm. It has historically been managed within theHLW program because of the existing plant configuration and some physical and chemical properties that aresimilar to HLW. Radionuclide concentrations for liquid SBW are generally 10 to 1,000 times less than for liquidHLW. SBW contains hazardous and radioactive components and is a mixed waste. DOE assumes that the SBWis mixed transuranic waste. This EIS refers to SBW as mixed transuranic waste/SBW.

Newly generated liquid waste?Newly generated liquid waste refers to liquid waste from a variety of sources that has been evaporated andadded to the liquid mixed HLW and mixed transuranic waste/SBW in the below-grade tanks at INTEC. Sourcesinclude leachates from treating contaminated high efficiency particulate air filters, decontamination liquids fromINTEC operations that are not associated with HLW management activities, and liquid wastes from other INEELfacilities. Newly generated liquid waste is used in this EIS because INTEC has historically used this term torefer to liquid waste streams (past and future) that were not part of spent fuel reprocessing.

Tank heel?A tank heel is the amount of liquid remaining in each tank after lowering to the greatest extent possible by useof the existing transfer equipment, such as ejectors.

Tank residual?The tank residual is the amount of radioactive waste remaining in each tank, the removal of which is not con-sidered to be technically and economically practical. This could be the tank heel or the amount of radioactivewaste remaining after additional removal using other methods than the existing transfer equipment.

other wastes. The first extraction cycle of thereprocessing operation generated mixed HLW.Subsequent extraction cycles, treatment pro-cesses, and follow-up decontamination activitiesgenerated liquid mixed transuranicwaste/sodium-bearing waste, referred to asmixed transuranic waste/SBW. Newly gener-ated liquid waste results from a variety ofsources not associated with spent fuel repro-cessing at INTEC. At INTEC these wastes arestored in ten of the eleven 300,000-galloncapacity below grade storage tanks (theeleventh tank is a spare), known as the “TankFarm.”

Since 1963, much of the liquid waste was fed toa treatment facility and converted to a dry gran-ular substance called calcine. The calcine,which is stored in large bin sets, is a more stablewaste form that poses less environmental riskthan storing liquid radioactive waste in belowgrade tanks. All the calcine currently in the binsets is mixed HLW. Presently, the calcine doesnot meet expected waste acceptance criteria forthe proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.Further treatment may be necessary to convertthe mixed HLW calcine into a waste formacceptable for disposal in the repository.

Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing was discontin-ued at INTEC in 1991, so liquid mixed HLWceased to be generated. However, since thattime, mixed transuranic waste/SBW has contin-ued to accumulate in the tanks from calcineoperations, decontamination, and other activi-ties. In 1995, DOE and the State of Idahoreached an agreement, called the IdahoSettlement Agreement/Consent Order, as towhen the liquid waste would be calcined and seta target date of December 31, 2035 for all of themixed HLW and mixed transuranic waste/SBW

S-1 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Summary

1.0 Purpose and Need forAgency Action

1.1 Purpose and Need

From 1952 to 1991, the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies repro-cessed spent nuclear reactor fuel at the IdahoChemical Processing Plant, located on the SnakeRiver Plain in the desert of southeast Idaho (FigureS-1). This facility, now known as the IdahoNuclear Technology and Engineering Center(INTEC), is part of the Idaho NationalEngineering and Environmental Laboratory(INEEL), a nuclear research complex that hasserved the nation through both peaceful anddefense-related missions.

Reprocessing operations at INTEC used solventextraction systems to remove primarily uranium-235 from spent nuclear reactor fuel and, in the pro-cess, generated high-level waste (HLW) as well as

Regional Setting

The INEEL occupies approximately 890square miles (570,000 acres) of high desertsagebrush steppe in Bingham, Bonneville,Butte, Clark, and Jefferson counties in south-eastern Idaho. Approximately 2 percent ofthis land (11,400 acres) has been developed tosupport INEEL facility and program opera-tions associated with energy research,defense missions, and waste managementactivities.

Smaller communities and towns near theINEEL include Mud Lake and Terreton to theeast; Arco, Butte City, and Howe to the west;and Atomic City to the south. Larger commu-nities and towns near the INEEL include IdahoFalls, Rexburg, Rigby, Blackfoot, Pocatello andthe Fort Hall Indian Reservation to the eastand southeast.

Idaho Nuclear Technology andEngineering Center

INTEC occupies approximately 250 acresand consists of more than 150 buildings.Primary facilities include storage, treat-ment, and laboratory facilities for spentnuclear fuel, mixed HLW, and mixedtransuranic waste/SBW.

DOE/EIS-0287 S-2

Summary

BirchCreek

EastButte

MiddleButte

BigSouthern

Butte

LAVA

Black CanyonWildernessStudy Area

Hell's Half AcreWildernessStudy Area

CH

AL

LI

SN

AT

IO

NA

LF O R E S T

T A R G H E EN

AT

I ON

AL

FO

RE

ST

FORT HALLINDIAN

RESERVATION

Bittero

otRange

LostR

ive r RangeLemhi Range

To Grand TetonNational Park &Jackson Hole

To YellowstoneNational Park

Craters ofthe Moon

WildernessArea

Market Lake WildlifeManagement Area

Mud LakeWildlifeManagementArea

BANNOCK

BINGHAM

BONNEVILLE

CASSIA

FRANKLIN

FREMONT

LINCOLN

MADISON

MINIDOKA

ONEIDA

POWER

BLAINE

BUTTE

CLARK

JEFFERSON

BigLo

stRi

ver

Snake Riv

er

Snake Riv

er

22

22

33

39

28

INEEL

INTEC20

20

26

26

30

30

91

91

15

15

15

84

86

Rigby

Shelley

American Falls

Rupert

Burley

Arco

Howe

Atomic City

Mud Lake Terreton

Butte City

Rexburg

Idaho Falls

Blackfoot

Pocatello

LEGEND

County LineFort Hall Indian ReservationNational Wildlife Refuge FIGURE S-1.

Idaho National Engineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory vicinity map.

S

EW

NN

S

EW

0 10 20 30 MILES

0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS

Camas NationalWildlife RefugeCamas NationalWildlife Refuge

S-3 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

to have been treated and made road-ready forshipment out of Idaho.

Consistent with this agreement, DOE completedcalcining all of the liquid mixed HLW in 1998.At present, approximately 4,400 cubic meters ofmixed HLW calcine remain stored in bin sets,and 1 million gallons of mixed transuranicwaste/SBW remain in the below grade tanks.DOE now has to decide how to treat and dis-pose of the mixed transuranic waste/SBW, howto place the mixed HLW calcine in a form suit-able for disposal in the proposed national geo-logic repository, and how to dispositionfacilities at INTEC involved in HLW treatment.DOE has prepared this EIS to inform agencyofficials and the public of the environmentalimpacts of alternatives, including the no-actionalternative, available for consideration in thedecision making process.

1.2 Role of this EIS in theDecision-making Process

This EIS describes the environmental impactsof the range of reasonable alternatives formeeting DOE’s purpose and need for action.In finalizing this EIS, DOE considered publiccomments received on the Draft EIS and otherrelevant factors and information received afterthe Draft EIS was published. DOE will con-sider the information in this EIS and other rel-evant information before making a decision onthe proposed action.

If on the basis of this EIS, DOE proposes mod-ifications to the Settlement Agreement/ConsentOrder, the information in this document andthe cooperative process used to ensure its ade-quacy will benefit related discussions betweenthe State of Idaho and DOE.

1.3 Proposed ActionTo meet the purpose and need for agencyaction, DOE proposes to:

• Select appropriate technologies and con-struct facilities necessary to prepareINTEC mixed transuranic waste/SBW forshipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

• Prepare the mixed HLW calcine so that itwill be suitable for disposal in a repository

• Treat and dispose of associated radioactivewastes

• Provide safe storage of HLW destined for arepository

• Disposition INTEC HLW managementfacilities when their missions are completed

Elements of the 1995 IdahoSettlement Agreement/Consent

Order Pertaining to HLWManagement

• Complete calcination of liquid mixedHLW by June 30, 1998 (completedFebruary 1998).

• Begin calcination of liquid mixedtransuranic waste/SBW by June2001 (begun February 1998).

• Complete calcination of liquid mixedtransuranic waste/SBW by December2012.

• Start negotiations with the State ofIdaho regarding a plan and schedulefor treatment of calcined waste byDecember 31, 1999 (begunSeptember 1999).

• "DOE shall accelerate efforts to eval-uate alternatives for the treatmentof calcined waste so as to put it intoa form suitable for transport to apermanent repository or interimstorage facility outside of Idaho."

• "It is presently contemplated by DOEthat the plan and schedule shall pro-vide for the completion of the treat-ment of all calcined waste located atINEL by a target date of December31, 2035."

DOE/EIS-0287 S-4

Summary

• Data are needed on the cumulativeimpacts associated with cleanup activ-ities at INTEC that are carried outunder the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct (CERCLA).CERCLA remediation projects at INTECare in progress. These projects involve thecleanup and/or removal of contaminatedsoils and other environmental media, por-tions of which are within those areas or pro-jects being evaluated in the variousalternatives in this EIS. To avoid the possi-bility that CERCLA decisions may inappro-priately preclude some waste processing orfacility disposition alternatives, the CER-CLA and National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) processes at INTEC are beingcoordinated.

• The lead-time required for facilitydevelopment and funding of alternativetechnologies means that a DOE RODon a treatment technology would beneeded sooner than previously esti-mated.This EIS is being prepared sooner thanrequired by the Idaho SettlementAgreement/Consent Order in order toaccommodate time estimates to obtain pro-ject approval and funding, and to completetreatment/storage facility design, construc-tion, and operation. This should make itpossible for DOE to meet the target dates ofDecember 31, 2012 for ceasing use of theTank Farm and December 31, 2035, forhaving the treated waste ready to leaveIdaho.

1.4 Timing and RegulatoryConsiderations forthis EIS

Some INTEC wastes (mixed transuranicwaste/SBW) are stored as liquids in 300,000-gallon tanks that do not meet current hazardouswaste management standards. Five of the eleventanks currently in use are known as “pillar andpanel” tanks. DOE's objective is to cease use ofthe five pillar and panel tanks by June 30, 2003and all remaining tanks by December 31, 2012in compliance with the 1998 Modification tothe Notice of Noncompliance Consent Order.Previously, DOE's plan was to cease use of thetanks by calcining all the liquid waste asdescribed in the following documents:

• Record of Decision (ROD) for theProgrammatic Spent Nuclear FuelManagement and Idaho NationalEngineering Laboratory EnvironmentalRestoration and Waste ManagementPrograms EIS (SNF and INEL EIS) (June1995)

• Idaho Settlement Agreement/Consent Order(October 1995)

• INEEL Site Treatment Plan/Consent Order(November 1995).

However, because of new technologies andchanges in regulatory requirements DOE isnow reconsidering this plan by evaluating vari-ous waste processing alternatives. This EIShas been prepared as part of the evaluation anddecision making process.

Other timing considerations important to theissuance of this EIS include the following:

S-5 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

2.0 Activities since the Issuance of theDraft EIS

2.1 Summary of PublicComments andAgency Responses

The Draft EIS was mailed to the public andmade available on the Internet(http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/) in January 2000. ANotice of Availability was published by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (65 FR3448, January 21, 2000) formally initiating thepublic comment period. DOE also published aNotice of Availability (65 FR 3432, January 21,2000) that provided information on how the pub-lic could obtain copies of the Draft EIS andencouraged comments on the Draft EIS via mail,electronically by the World Wide Web, or at pub-lic hearings during a 60-day public commentperiod. Public hearings were held in: IdahoFalls, Pocatello, Twin Falls, and Boise, Idaho;Jackson, Wyoming; Portland, Oregon; andPasco, Washington. DOE subsequentlyextended the public comment period to 90 days(65 FR 9257, February 24, 2000) and addedanother public hearing in Fort Hall, Idaho.

DOE received more than 1,000 comments fromabout 100 individuals and organizations, all ofwhich have been considered in preparing theFinal EIS. (See the Comment ResponseDocument, Chapter 11, which summarizes thecomments received and provides responses tothose summaries. See Appendix D for commentdocuments.) In developing its responses, DOEassembled a group including representatives ofthe INEEL Citizen's Advisory Board, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, State of Idaho, and the manage-ment and operating contractor for INEEL tosummarize key concerns identified during thepublic comment period. Based on these efforts,the key issues of concern to the public and DOEresponses include:

• Preference for treatment alternatives -Commentors expressed opinions insupport of, or against, various alter-natives.

DOE and the State of Idaho have identifiedtheir preferred alternatives for treating cal-

cine and mixed transuranic waste/SBW.DOE carefully considered commentsreceived on the Draft EIS in the process ofidentifying a Preferred Alternative. DOEalso considered a variety of factors such asenvironmental impacts, programmaticneeds, safety and health, technical viability,ability to meet regulatory milestones andagreements, and cost. In addition, informa-tion received after the Draft EIS was pub-lished was considered (see Section 2.2 ofthis Summary). Each of the treatment alter-natives and options offers advantages anddisadvantages, which are presented in thisEIS.

• Calciner operations and thermal treat-ment - Comments relating to opera-tion of the New Waste CalciningFacility calciner fell into two groups:those supporting the use of the cal-ciner, and those opposing its use.Although commentors expressed arange of positions relating to tech-nologies (and thus alternatives) thatemploy thermal treatment, includingsupport for vitrification, othersopposed thermal treatment such asincineration.

DOE considered all comments regarding theuse of the calciner and thermal and non-thermal treatment technologies as well astheir relative advantages and disadvantagesfor treatment of mixed HLW and mixedtransuranic waste/SBW. The alternativesevaluated in this EIS include thermal treat-ment technologies, such as calcination andvitrification (which are not consideredincineration), and non-thermal treatmenttechnologies, such as direct cement and sep-arations. In addition, Steam Reforming, athermal treatment technology similar to cal-cination, was also considered. The result ofthis evaluation process was the addition of aSteam Reforming Option, including ship-ment of the calcine to the repository, and aDirect Vitrification Alternative with twooptions: vitrification of the mixedtransuranic waste/SBW and vitrificationwith or without separations for the mixedHLW calcine.

- New Information -

DOE/EIS-0287 S-6

Summary

• Schedule for treatment - Some com-mentors urged DOE to treat liquidwaste first because it represents amore serious threat to the environ-ment than mixed HLW calcine.

DOE recognizes there are risks associatedwith liquid waste storage, and over the yearsconverted millions of gallons of mixedHLW and mixed transuranic waste/SBWinto calcine, a more stable solid form.Though wastes in liquid form are not neces-sarily the most hazardous, they tend to bemore difficult to contain and also representthe greatest potential threat to the aquifer, ifstorage facilities are not properly main-tained or were to fail unexpectedly.

DOE considered these risks and as a resultincluded the treatment of liquid wastebefore processing the calcine. Such anapproach will also enable DOE to meetstipulations of the SettlementAgreement/Consent Order and Notice ofNoncompliance Consent Order, whichrequire DOE to treat all the liquid in thetanks and cease use of the eleven Tank Farmtanks by December 31, 2012.

• Classification of waste - Commentorswere divided in their positions as towhether waste could or should bereclassified as mixed transuranicwaste.

In developing the waste processing alterna-tives analyzed in the EIS, DOE made certainassumptions about how the radioactivewaste streams associated with treatmentwould be classified. In all cases, wasteswould be classified in accordance with therequirements of the DOE Order 435.1 andits companion manual. Where appropriate,DOE will use the waste incidental to repro-cessing process described in that manual todetermine if a waste is high-level,transuranic, or low-level. The objective isnot reclassification of the waste but amethod to ensure proper treatment and dis-posal, consistent with DOE requirements.For example, DOE is currently conducting awaste incidental to reprocessing evaluationfor the SBW to determine whether it is

transuranic waste or HLW. If it is deter-mined to be transuranic waste then it may betreated and disposed of at the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico.Otherwise, it would be made ready for dis-posal in a HLW repository such as the onecurrently proposed at Yucca Mountain,Nevada. Under current requirements, thiswould require the mixed HLW to be delistedunder the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA).

• Repository issues - Commentorsexpressed concerns about the meth-ods of calculating metric tons of heavymetal (MTHM), and DOE's current pol-icy that would preclude repositoryacceptance of RCRA listed waste, suchas INEEL's mixed HLW.

DOE recognizes that several methods existto calculate MTHM equivalency, each ofwhich would affect the amount of INEELHLW that could be disposed of in the pro-posed repository at Yucca Mountain.However, a final determination of themethod used for calculating MTHM for thepurposes of disposal in a repository is out-side the scope of this EIS. MTHM equiva-lency is addressed in the FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement for aGeologic Repository for the Disposal ofSpent Nuclear Fuel and High-LevelRadioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, NyeCounty, Nevada (DOE/EIS-0250).

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, asamended, the Secretary of Energy has rec-ommended that the President approve YuccaMountain for development of a geologicrepository. The President and Congresshave approved the site. Nevertheless,Nuclear Regulatory Commission approvalmust be obtained to construct and operatethe facility. Consequently, a schedule forthe disposal of INEEL mixed HLW remainsuncertain.

Lastly, DOE's current approach to addressRCRA-regulated HLW includes implemen-tation of the delisting process as discussedin this EIS (see Section 4.1 of thisSummary, for example). Given the uncer-

- New Information -

S-7 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

tainties of whether the delisting processwould enable the disposal of mixed HLW inthe proposed repository at Yucca Mountain,DOE may consider alternative strategiesunder initiatives such as EPA's Project XLor pursue a strategy that would exclude thetreated mixed HLW from regulation underRCRA as discussed in Chapter 6.

• Impacts to air and water, including theSnake River Plain Aquifer -Commentors generally agreed thatprotection of air and water resources,particularly the Snake River PlainAquifer, should be a primary concern.

The EIS addresses the potential impacts tothe environment, and specifically to theSnake River Plain Aquifer, from the rangeof reasonable alternatives and No Action.Storage facilities that could fail from naturalphenomena could potentially result inreleases to the environment. Concerns suchas these underlie the purpose and need forthis EIS, which will enable DOE to selectprocessing technologies for preparing thewaste for disposal so that it poses less risk tothe environment and is ready to leave Idaho.

• Public involvement - Commentorsasked for continuing opportunities toparticipate in making decisions aboutHLW management.

DOE is committed to ensuring that the pub-lic continues to have opportunities to pro-vide input to Departmentaldecision-making. In the context of environ-mental reviews such as this EIS, DOE fol-lows the Council on Environmental Qualityand DOE regulations for public involve-ment, participation, and disclosure. Thisincluded opportunities for the public to par-ticipate in the development of the scope ofthe environmental review, and to commenton the Draft EIS. Outside of this context,DOE maintains other avenues of communi-cation with the public that are germane tocleanup and waste management activities

and decisions. For example, DOE estab-lished the multidisciplinary INEEL CitizensAdvisory Board in 1994 to review and makeconsensus-based recommendations to DOEon its activities and plans at the INEEL.Board meetings are open to the public, andthe public is encouraged to attend and par-ticipate. DOE also routinely interacts withthe media and other stakeholders to helpkeep the public informed of new initiatives,significant issues, and upcoming decisionsof public interest.

• Decision-making and obligations tostates versus funding constraints -Commentors submitted a range ofcomments relating to the costs ofimplementing the EIS alternatives.Some commentors recommended thatcosts not be considered in decision-making while others were concernedthat the cost estimates providedwould result in biased decision-makingor that alternatives were biasedbecause of high costs. Commentorsrequested information about fundingand asked to be involved if DOE has toreprioritize cleanup and waste man-agement activities because of budgetshortfalls.

DOE acknowledges in this EIS that costsare a factor in its decision-making. DOEremains committed to meeting its obliga-tions to the state. Nevertheless, in estab-lishing commitments and in determining themechanism to meet its commitments, DOEneeds to be cognizant of funding availabil-ity. Thus, while costs are not an over-ridingfactor, as a practical matter they are a realissue that DOE must consider as part of theprocess of making reasonable and informeddecisions.

DOE bases its funding requests for cleanupand waste management on addressing riskand meeting compliance requirements.There are opportunities for public involve-ment under NEPA, RCRA, and CERCLAwhich DOE considers in setting priorities.

- New Information -

DOE/EIS-0287 S-8

Summary

• Meeting agreements/requirements ver-sus making sound technical decisions- Commentors were divided as to whichshould receive a higher priority: expe-diting treatment to meet SettlementAgreement/Consent Order and regula-tory milestones, or taking more timeto decide on an alternative that istechnically sound.

DOE considered the maturity of the tech-nologies in identifying the range of reason-able alternatives analyzed in this EIS. Thepotential environmental impacts, health andsafety, regulatory and SettlementAgreement/Consent Order milestones, andestimated cost will be balancing factorsDOE will use in making a decision.

DOE also recognizes additional technologyrefinement, engineering studies, proof ofprocess and scale-up demonstrations couldbe required to implement any of the actionalternatives analyzed in this EIS. In antici-pation of this situation, DOE could issue anEIS record of decision to implement analternative in phases that may includeinterim decision points or amend the recordof decision, if necessary. In this way DOEcould address its commitments without pre-maturely committing to a single course ofaction.

• Honoring policies/agreements/treatieswith tribes - Shoshone-Bannock Tribalmembers maintained that DOE musthonor all its promises to NativeAmericans.

DOE recognizes the concerns of theShoshone-Bannock Tribes and thusinvolved them early and frequently duringthe preparation of this EIS to ensure thattribal concerns and issues were considered.This involvement included hearings beforeand during the EIS scoping period, subse-quent briefings and open discussions attribal facilities, and a public hearing on theFort Hall Reservation. DOE entered into anAgreement in Principle with the tribes thatprovides a process for consultation underNEPA, and DOE conducted consultations inaccordance with this agreement. The agree-

ment also includes the process for the tribesto obtain the needed resources and expertisefor reviews or involvement in DOE activi-ties.

2.2 Other Considerationsfor EIS Alternatives

Information was received after the Draft EIS wasapproved for publication in response to DOE’srequests to the National Academy of Sciences'National Research Council and DOE's TanksFocus Area to conduct separate, independentreviews of treatment technologies. DOE hasconsidered the results of these independentreviews as part of its analyses of the alternativesand in its identification of the PreferredAlternative.

National Academy of SciencesAssessment of Alternatives

In January 1998, DOE requested that theNational Academy of Sciences' NationalResearch Council review the technologies beingconsidered for treatment of the mixed HLW cal-cine and the mixed transuranic waste/SBW. TheNational Academy of Sciences issued its reviewof the technologies in its document AlternativeHigh-Level Waste Treatments at the IdahoNational Engineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory in December 1999.

Tanks Focus AreaAssessment of Technologies

In June 2000, the DOE Tanks Focus Area wasrequested to review waste treatment technolo-gies that were under consideration for this EIS.The Tanks Focus Area assessed the technicalmaturity and status of research and development,and identified technology gaps and uncertaintiesfor each treatment technology.

The Tanks Focus Area also conducted a follow-up independent technical review of a proposedsteam reforming treatment process for mixedtransuranic waste/SBW. The purpose of thisreview was to determine the feasibility, applica-bility, and cost of this treatment option.

- New Information -

S-9 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

2.3 Changes from theDraft EIS

This EIS responds to public comments andreflects modifications from the Draft EIS inresponse to comments, and includes refined ornew information and analyses that became avail-able after the Draft EIS was published.

Modifications include:

• Description of the PreferredAlternative. DOE and the State of Idahoidentified their Preferred Alternativesbased on consideration of public com-ments and other information, includingenvironment, safety, and health, sched-ule commitments, cost, technical risk,and disposal.

• Analysis of the new Direct VitrificationAlternative and the Steam ReformingOption. This alternative and option aredescribed in Chapter 3. Impacts fromthese new analyses are included in tablesand discussion in Chapter 5. As a com-ponent of the Steam Reforming Option,calcine would be retrieved from the binsets and packaged for shipment to aHLW repository for disposal.

• Refined air dispersion modelingresults. "CALPUFF", an air dispersionmodel, was used to estimate potential airquality impacts at more distant pointsfrom the INEEL within national parksthat are characterized by Class I airsheds(see Section 5.2.6 and Appendix C.2).

• Discussion of additional technologiesand variations on alternatives. As partof the analyses of the alternatives andprocess used to identify the PreferredAlternative, DOE assessed other tech-nologies and options recommended bythe public and the National Academy ofSciences (see Section 3.3, AlternativesEliminated from Detailed Analysis, andAppendix B).

• Increased waste volumes. Five timeshigher waste volumes would be gener-ated from vitrification of calcine at theHanford Site than those analyzed under

the Minimum INEEL Waste ProcessingAlternative in the Draft EIS. Thisincrease was due to updated informationregarding the process at the HanfordSite. This increased waste generationled to changes in the impacts for thisalternative (see Section 5.2.9 andAppendix C.8).

• Refined source term information.Using updated source terms (seeAppendix C.7), facility accident analysis(see Appendix C.4 and Section 5.2.14)and long-term facility disposition analy-sis (see Appendix C.9 and Section 5.3.5)were performed to provide more refinedestimates of potential impacts.

• Sensitivity analyses. The results ofquantitative sensitivity analyses fromthe effects of changes in time of groutfailure, infiltration rates, and distributioncoefficients on the resulting impacts tohuman receptors have also been updated(see Appendix C.9).

• Relevant discussion regarding the DOERecord of Decision for waste manage-ment. DOE issued its Record ofDecision to establish regional low-leveland mixed low-level waste disposal atthe Hanford Site and the Nevada TestSite. The Record of Decision alsoaddressed the continuation of disposal ofthese wastes at the INEEL (see Section2.3.1).

• Waste Incidental to Reprocessing.Information about the status of the wasteincidental to reprocessing determinationprocess under DOE Order 435.1 hasbeen expanded (see Chapter 2, Section2.2.2), and the possible designation anddisposal destination of wastes under thisprocedure are reflected in more detailthroughout the text of this EIS.

• Updated affected environment.Chapter 4, Affected Environment, hasbeen updated by adding information toSections 4.2, Land Use; 4.7, AirResources; 4.8, Water Resources; 4.9,Ecological Resources; and 4.11, Healthand Safety.

- New Information -

DOE/EIS-0287 S-10

Summary

3.0 Alternatives

For purposes of analysis, DOE used a modularapproach in developing alternatives for this EIS.Under this approach, DOE identified a series ofdiscrete projects, which can be linked togetherin different combinations to achieve the goals ofthe proposed action. Thus, some projects areincluded in more than one waste processingalternative. This modular approach providesDOE flexibility in analyzing waste processingalternatives and treatment options and in select-ing the preferred alternative.

The facility disposition alternatives analysis con-siders all of the facilities that would be requiredto implement each waste processing alternative.

3.1 Identifying Alternatives

DOE undertook and documented a process toidentify the range of reasonable alternatives forthis EIS that would satisfy the purpose and needand proposed action to manage wastes atINTEC.

This EIS analyzes the impacts of implementingeach of the alternatives through 2035. Eachalternative has a specific time line for associatedactivities.

The Settlement Agreement/Consent Orderrequires DOE to have its mixed HLW ready forshipment out of Idaho by a target date of 2035.From 2035 through 2095, DOE would no longerbe processing waste, but would be shipping andmaintaining mixed HLW road-ready for subse-quent shipment and would be decommissioningHLW facilities.

DOE is required to maintain controls on radio-active waste or materials under its jurisdictionuntil such controls are no longer needed. Nev-ertheless, for the purposes of analysis in this EIS,it is assumed that institutional controls to protecthuman health and the environment at theINEEL would not be in effect after the year2095. This assumption is consistent withassumptions in the INEEL ComprehensiveFacility and Land Use Plan and the planningbasis for Waste Area Group 3 at INTEC, under

CERCLA. This assumed loss of institutionalcontrol means that, at some future date, DOEwould no longer control the site and, therefore,could no longer ensure that unmitigated radioac-tive doses to the public are within establishedlimits or that actions would be taken to reducedose levels to as low as reasonably achievable.

Further, although accident impacts discussed inSection 6 of this Summary do not include miti-gation, the Federal government is required torespond to any radiological emergency at theINEEL. DOE and other Federal agencies wouldbe available to provide resources to assist in theevaluation of any accident, mitigate potentiallong-term exposure pathways to humans, anddirect subsequent clean-up activities to decon-taminate affected areas and reduce radiation lev-els.

3.2 EIS Alternatives

3.2.1 WASTE PROCESSINGALTERNATIVES

The EIS analyzed the following six waste pro-cessing alternatives:

• No Action

• Continued Current Operations

• Separations(with three treatment options)

• Non-Separations(with four treatment options)

Institutional controls...

are measures DOE takes to limit or prohibitactivities that may interfere with opera-tions or result in exposure to hazardoussubstances at a site. They can take theform of physical measures (such as fencesor barriers) or legal and administrativemechanisms (such as land use restrictionsor building permits).

S-11 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

this EIS is the commitment to have all calcinetreated and ready for shipment out of Idaho bya target date of December 31, 2035. A separateNotice of Noncompliance Consent Order withthe State of Idaho requires DOE to cease use ofthe Tank Farm by December 31, 2012. Basedon the analysis in this EIS, DOE expects thatall alternatives, except for No Action andContinued Current Operations, would meet the2035 target date. However, the analysis alsoindicates that under some alternatives it wouldbe difficult to treat all the waste by 2012 soDOE can cease use of the Tank Farm unlessremaining waste is transferred to RCRA-com-pliant tanks. For any of the waste processingalternatives or options the schedule could beaccelerated to meet the treatment of mixedtransuranic waste/SBW by 2012. A number ofprocesses would have to be accelerated, andfunding would have to be available, so that con-ceptual design could begin, followed by accel-erated permitting, procurement, andconstruction.

Another key element in the SettlementAgreement/Consent Order is the use of the cal-ciner as the treatment process for liquid mixedtransuranic waste/SBW in the tanks. Sincethere are several treatment technologies evalu-ated in this EIS that do not require a calcina-tion step, a decision to use a different processwould require a modification of the SettlementAgreement/Consent Order and related DOEdecisions.

• Minimum INEEL Processing

• Direct Vitrification Alternative(with two treatment options)

Figures (S-2 through S-13) are provided foreach waste processing alternative or treatmentoption to help clarify the basic processes. DOEdeveloped these alternatives using a modularapproach, in which each alternative is comprisedof specific projects analyzed in this EIS. Thisapproach permits projects within an alternativeto be combined with projects of other alterna-tives. The resulting creation of hybrid alterna-tives can increase DOE's flexibility fordecision-making. For example, the EIS ana-lyzes treatment of post-2005 newly generatedliquid waste as mixed transuranic waste/SBWfor comparability of impacts between alterna-tives. Under any alternative, DOE could treatthe post-2005 newly generated liquid waste bygrouting (see Project P2001 in Appendix C.6),which would result in 1,300 cubic meters ofgrouted waste and a small reduction in thetreated SBW volume. The grout would be man-aged as transuranic or low-level waste depend-ing on its characteristics.

Table S-1 provides an overview of the modularwaste management elements that make up theEIS alternatives and options, plus other elementsthat could be considered in constructing hybridalternatives and options with respect to mixedHLW treatment technologies, mixed transuranicwaste/SBW pretreatment requirements, andpost-treatment storage and disposal options.

Not all of the waste processing alternativesmeet key requirements of the SettlementAgreement/Consent Order. DOE is committedto meeting regulatory requirements, as well asthe Settlement Agreement/Consent Order withthe State of Idaho. However, the agreementprovides for a process whereby DOE may pro-pose changes to specific requirements, providedthey are based on an adequate environmentalanalysis under NEPA. In order to evaluate therange of reasonable waste processing alterna-tives, some of the alternatives analyzed in thisEIS may not meet specific requirements of theSettlement Agreement/Consent Order.

A key element in the SettlementAgreement/Consent Order that is relevant to

Modular Approach

This EIS shows the projects and facilitiesassociated with the waste processingalternatives and treatment options.Projects and facilities are identified individ-ually and can be combined in a building blockfashion to develop other waste processingalternatives. For example, the ion exchangeand grouting process used to treat mixedtransuranic waste/SBW under theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternativecould support other alternatives, wheremixed transuranic waste/SBW is treated bythe same method.

DOE/EIS-028

7S-12

Summ

ary

Alternativesand

Options

Pre-treatmentStorage

Wastein

tanks1

Calcinein

bin sets Cs Sr TRU HLW LLWNGRHLW

WIPPTRU On INEEL Off INEELTRU

SeparationsGrout/cement

ceramicNear surface landfill

options for LLW

VitrificationPermittedCalciner

Post-treatmentstorage onthe INEEL

Treatment ProcessPost-treatment

Disposal Destinations

WASTE MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS

NON-SEPARATIONS ALTERNATIVE

· HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE

· DIRECT CEMENT WASTE

· EARLY VITRIFICATION

MINIMUM INEELPROCESSING ALTERNATIVE

SEPARATIONS ALTERNATIVE

· FULL SEPARATIONS

· PLANNING BASIS

· TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS

CONTINUED CURRENT OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

1. DOE must cease use of five pillar and panel vault tanks by 2003 (these are single-shell tanks with an external secondary contaminant structure that is not expected to meet seismic design criteria). Except for the No Action Alternative, DOE would cease use of the monolithic vault tanks by (these are single-shell tanks with a external secondary contaminant structure that is more likely to meet seismic design criteria than the pillar and panel tanks).2. These waste management elements are currently not included in the alternatives or treatment options but could be considered for development of hybrid alternatives. 3. Mixed transuranic waste/SBW in underground tanks at INTEC would be treated and sent to WIPP. In the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative, cesium would be separated and sent to Hanford to be treated with INTEC HLW.4. Vitrification of calcine would be performed at Hanford. 5. Hanford's design decision would determine if these separation technologies would be used and, therefore, what waste fractions will be generated.

CesiumLow-level wasteNational geologicrepositoryStrontiumTransuranic wasteWaste IsolationPilot PlantWaste Incidentalto Reprocessing

CsLLW

NGR

SrTRU

WIPP

WIR

7 86 6 6

2,3

4 35

3

LEGEND

TABLE S-1. Modular waste management elementsincluded in EIS alternatives and options.

7 8

5 5 5


Council on Environmental Quality regulationsrequire analysis of a No Action Alternative(Figure S-2) as a baseline for comparison toother alternatives. Under this alternative:

• The New Waste Calcining Facility calcinerwould remain in standby (placed in standbyin May 2000). It would not undergoupgrades and no liquid mixed transuranicwaste/SBW would be calcined.

• The Process Equipment Waste and High-Level Liquid Waste Evaporators would con-tinue to operate to reduce the liquid mixedtransuranic waste/SBW volume and enableDOE to cease use of the five pillar and paneltanks by 2003. Newly generated liquidwaste would accumulate in the Tank Farmuntil 2017, at which time DOE assumes thatthe five remaining tanks would be full.

• The mixed HLW calcine from bin set 1would be transferred to bin set 6 or 7 as dis-cussed in the SNF and INEL EIS, but bin set1 would not be closed. DOE is continuingto evaluate the structural integrity of bin set1.

Implementation of this alternative would notenable DOE to cease use of the Tank Farm byDecember 31, 2012 nor make its mixed HLWready for shipment to a storage facility or repos-itory outside of Idaho by a target date of 2035.

CONTINUED CURRENT OPERATIONSALTERNATIVE

This alternative (Figure S-3) involves calciningthe liquid mixed transuranic waste/SBW andadding it to the bin sets, where it would be storedwith mixed HLW calcine. Under this alterna-tive:

• The New Waste Calcining Facility calcinerwould remain in standby, pending receipt ofa RCRA permit from the State and upgradesto air emission controls required by EPA.

• The calciner would operate from 2011through 2014 to calcine the remaining mixedtransuranic waste/SBW, which would be

stored in the bin sets. After 2014, the cal-ciner would operate as needed until the endof 2016.

• Beginning in 2015, Tank Farm heels (mate-rial left in the tanks after initial processing)and newly generated liquid waste would beprocessed through an ion exchange column.Low-level waste would be grouted for dis-posal at the INEEL, and transuranic wasteswould be disposed of at the Waste IsolationPilot Plant.

• The mixed HLW calcine in bin set 1 wouldbe transferred to bin set 6 or 7 as discussedin the SNF and INEL EIS, and bin set 1would be closed in accordance with RCRAregulations. The calcine would be stored inthe bin sets indefinitely.

Implementing this alternative would not enableDOE to cease use of the Tank Farm byDecember 31, 2012, and it would not enableDOE to make its mixed HLW ready for shipmentto a storage facility or repository outside ofIdaho by a target date of 2035.

SEPARATIONS ALTERNATIVE

The Separations Alternative comprises threeoptions, each of which uses a chemical separa-tions process, such as solvent extraction, to di-vide the waste into waste fractions suitable fordisposal in either a HLW repository or theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico or ata low-level waste disposal facility, depending onthe characteristics of the fractions. Separatingthe radionuclides in the waste into fractionswould decrease the amount of waste that wouldhave to be shipped to a repository, saving neededrepository space and reducing disposal costs.

Because HLW would be separated into fractions,before undertaking the separation process DOEwould follow the waste incidental to reprocess-ing determination process to determine whetherany of the fractions would be managed astransuranic or low-level waste rather than HLW.The waste streams that meet the requirements ofthe waste incidental to reprocessing determina-tion process established by DOE Order 435.1and Manual 435.1-1, either by the citation or by

S-13 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

DOE/EIS-0287 S-14

Summary

S BW storage in Tank Far mS BW storage in Tank Far m

Calc

ine

stor

age

in

bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age

in

bin sets

Mixed transuranic waste

/Mixed transuranic waste

/

FIGURE .No Action Alternative.

2095

2000

No Action Milestones

2017

Tank StorageCapacity Reached

LEGENDNewly generated liquid wasteNGLW

S-15DO

E/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS

Calcine

Mixed transuranicwaste/SBW

Low-level/

Tank heels

transuranic waste

(from tank heels)

FIGURE .Continued Current OperationsAlternative.

LEGEND

* Including high-temperature and maximum achievable control technology upgrades.

Newly generated liquid wasteNew Waste Calcining Facility

** Location determined by Waste Management Programmatic EIS decision and may be on or off the INEEL.

NGLWNWCFSBW

Ion exchange resin

Mixed transuranic waste/sodium-bearing wasteWaste Isolation Pilot Plant

SB

W storage in Tank Fa rm

SB


2095

2035

2000

2011

Calcinationof SBW

Resumes

2014

Calcination of SBW Ends

2015

NGLW Management Project Begins

Calciner Shutdown2016

NGLW Management Ends

Continued Current Operations Milestones

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

NWCF*NWCF*

Cesium ion exchange &grouting

Cesium ion exchange &grouting Low-level/Low-level/

Mi xed transuranic w a st

e/Mi xed transuranic w a st

e/

disposal**disposal** waste waste

DOE/EIS-0287 S-16

Summary

the evaluation method, are excluded from HLWmanagement requirements.

The Separations Alternative could include asmall incinerator to destroy organic solventsused in the chemical separations process. Thesesolvents would be radioactively contaminated.The project data sheet for the incinerator (Proj-ect P118 in Appendix C.6) indicates that thefacility would operate approximately 30 days peryear. The three waste treatment options underthe Separations Alternative are described below.

Full Separations Option

This option (Figure S-4) would separate the mosthighly radioactive and long-lived radioisotopesfrom both mixed HLW calcine and the mixedtransuranic waste/SBW, resulting in a mixedHLW fraction and a mixed low-level wastefraction. Under this option:

• DOE would retrieve and dissolve the mixedHLW calcine from the bin sets and treat thedissolved calcine and mixed transuranicwaste/SBW (including tank heels) in a newchemical separation facility to removecesium, strontium, and transuranics from theprocess stream. These constituents, termedthe "high-level waste fraction," account formost of the radioactivity and long-livedradioactive characteristics of HLW andmixed transuranic waste/SBW.

• The mixed HLW fraction would be vitrifiedin a new facility at INTEC, placed in stain-less steel canisters, and stored onsite untilshipped to a storage facility or geologicrepository.

• The process stream remaining after separat-ing out the mixed HLW fraction would bemanaged as mixed low-level waste. Aftersome pretreatment, the "mixed low-levelwaste fraction" would be solidified into agrout in a new grouting facility. The con-centrations of radioactivity in the grout areexpected to result in its classification asClass A-type low-level waste, which is suit-able for disposal in a near-surface landfill.

• DOE would dispose of the Class A-typelow-level grout in the empty vessels of theclosed Tank Farm and bin sets, in a newINEEL mixed low-level waste disposalfacility, or at an offsite DOE or commerciallow-level waste disposal facility.

Implementing this option would enable DOE tocease use of the Tank Farm by 2016 and make itsmixed HLW ready for shipment to a storagefacility or repository outside of Idaho by a targetdate of 2035.

Planning Basis Option

This option (Figure S-5) reflects previously an-nounced DOE decisions and agreements regard-ing the management of mixed HLW and mixedtransuranic waste/SBW with the State of Idaho.It is similar to the Full Separations Option exceptthat, prior to separation, the mixed transuranicwaste/SBW would be calcined and stored in thebin sets along with the mixed HLW. Under thisoption:

• The New Waste Calcining Facility calcinerwould remain in standby, pending receipt ofa RCRA permit from the State and upgradesto air emission controls required by EPA.

• Under an accelerated schedule, DOE couldcomplete calcining by December 31, 2012and meet the Settlement Agreement/ConsentOrder.

• Calcine would be retrieved, dissolved, andseparated into high-level and low-levelwaste fractions using the process describedin the Full Separations Option.

• The high-level fraction would be vitrified toform HLW glass and placed in stainlesssteel canisters. The vitrified HLW fractionwould be stored in a new storage facility atthe INEEL until shipped to a storage facilityor repository outside of Idaho.

• The mixed low-level waste fraction wouldbe grouted to form a waste stream that meetsthe Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s defi-

S-17DO

E/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS

Calcine

Mixed high-levelwaste fraction

high-levelwaste

high-levelwaste

Mixed low-levelwaste fraction

Ionexchangeresin

Low-level/

wasteClass A - type grout

oror

oror

oror

NewINEEL disposal

facilityNew

INEEL disposalfacility

FIGURE .Full Separations Option.

LEGEND

* Some newly generated liquid waste may not need to be treated with ion exchange and could be sent directly to the grouting facility.

SBW Mixed transuranic waste/sodium-bearing waste

NGLW Newly generated liquid waste

Cesiumion exchangeCesiumion exchange**

2095

2035

2000

2016

2015

OffsiteOffsitedisposaldisposal

All Treatment EndsHLW Road Ready

Separations Begins All SBW Removed from Tank Farm/Vitrification Begins

Full Separations Milestones

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

S eparationsS eparations

storagestorageInterimInterim

VitrificationVitrification

Grou tin g

Grou tin g

Disposal inbin sets &Tank Farm


SB


SB




e/

Mixed transuranicwaste/SBW and

tank heels

DOE/EIS-028

7S-18

Summ

ary

Tank heels

transuranic waste

(from tank heels)

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets



NWCF*NWCF*

Calcine

Calcine

high-levelwaste

high-levelwaste


Grou tin g

Grou tin g



Low-level/waste

Ion exchange resin

FIGURE .Planning Basis Option.

LEGEND


New Waste Calcining FacilityNWCFNewly generated liquid wasteNGLW

SBW Planning Basis Milestones

2095

2035

2012

2000

2010

Calcination ofSBW Resumes


2020

SeparationsBegins

2021

Vitrification Begins

Treated CalcinedWaste Ready for

Shipment out of Idaho



Mixedhigh-level

wastefraction


Low-level/waste Class A -

type groutOffsiteOffsite

disposaldisposal

Low-level/Low-level/


SB


SB




e/

Mixedtransuranicwaste/SBW

S-19 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

nition of a Class A low-level waste. Underthe Planning Basis Option, DOE would dis-pose of the Class A-type grout in an offsitelow-level waste disposal facility.

• Tank heels would be flushed out of the TankFarm tanks, dried in a new facility, pack-aged, and sent to the Waste Isolation PilotPlant for disposal.

Under this option DOE would be able to ceaseuse of the Tank Farm by December 31, 2012(using an accelerated schedule) or 2014 andwould be able to make its mixed HLW ready forshipment to a storage facility or repository out-side of Idaho by a target date of 2035.

TransuranicSeparations Option

There would be no mixed HLW after separa-tions under this option (Figure S-6). Rather, theresulting fractions would be managed as mixedtransuranic waste and mixed low-level waste.Under this option:

• DOE would retrieve the calcine and mixedtransuranic waste/SBW and treat the wastein a new chemical separations facility. Theprocess would remove transuranics, result-ing in a mixed transuranic waste fractionand remaining mixed low-level waste frac-tion.

• The mixed transuranic waste fraction wouldbe solidified, packaged, and shipped to theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal.

• The mixed low-level waste fraction wouldbe solidified in a new grouting facility alongwith newly generated liquid waste. Becausethe mixed low-level waste fraction wouldcontain both cesium and strontium, the con-centrations of radioactivity in the groutwould be higher than that in the FullSeparations Option and would result in itsclassification as a Class C-type low-levelwaste.

• DOE would dispose of the Class C-typegrout in the empty vessels of the closed TankFarm and bin sets, in a new INEEL low-level

waste disposal facility, or at an offsite DOE orcommercial Class C disposal facility.

Implementing this option would enable DOE tocease use of the Tank Farm by 2016 and makethe mixed transuranic waste fraction ready forshipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant by atarget date of 2035.


The Non-Separations Alternative includes fouroptions for solidifying mixed HLW and mixedtransuranic waste/SBW. These four treatmentoptions are:

• Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Option

• Direct Cement Waste Option

• Early Vitrification Option

• Steam Reforming Option

In the Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Option andDirect Cement Waste Option, all the liquidmixed transuranic waste/SBW would beremoved from the Tank Farm and calcined in theNew Waste Calcining Facility calciner followinghigh-temperature and Maximum AchievableControl Technology upgrades. In the EarlyVitrification Option and Steam ReformingOption, the mixed transuranic waste/SBWwould be retrieved from the Tank Farm and sentdirectly to a treatment facility, bypassing calci-nation.

Hot Isostatic PressedWaste Option

This option (Figure S-7) would calcine the liquidmixed transuranic waste/SBW and add the cal-cine to the mixed HLW calcine. All of the cal-cine would then be treated in a high pressure,high temperature process that would convertthe calcine to an impervious, non-leaching,glass-ceramic waste form. This process has thecapability to reduce waste volumes by about 50percent. Under this option:

• After receipt of a RCRA permit from theState and upgrades to air emission controls

DOE/EIS-028

7S-20

Summ

ary

Calcine

transuranic fraction

Transuranic

s eparation

FIGURE .Transuranic Separations Option.

LEGEND

SBW

oror

oror

oror

Mixed transuranic waste/sodium-bearing waste

NGLW Newly generated liquid waste

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant


Low-level/

wasteClass C -

type grout

2095

2035

2016

2000

2015

Transuranic Separations Milestones

Separations Begins All SBW Removedfrom Tank Farm

All Treatment EndsTRU Road Ready

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

Grou tin g

Grou tin g

NewINEEL disposal

facilityNew





SB


SB




e/

Mixed transuranic waste/SBW and tank heels

s

S-21DO

E/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS

Calcine

Calcine

high-levelwaste

high-levelwaste

Hot isostaticpressing

Hot isostaticpressing

Tank heels

transuranic waste

Ion exchange resin

(from tank heels)

Mixedtransuranic

waste/SBW


FIGURE .Hot Isostatic Pressed WasteOption.

LEGEND




SBW Mixed transuranic waste/sodium-bearing wasteWaste Isolation Pilot Plant



2095

2035

2014

2000

2011

Calcinationof SBW

ResumesCalcination of SBW Ends

2015

NWCF*NWCF*

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Milestones


Hot Isostatic Press& Grouting Begins

SB


SB




e/

Low-level/Low-level/

disposal**disposal**waste wasteLow-level/

waste

DOE/EIS-0287 S-22

Summary

required by EPA, the calciner would operatefrom 2011 through 2014 to calcine theremaining liquid mixed transuranicwaste/SBW, which would be stored in thebin sets. After 2014, the calciner wouldoperate as needed until the end of 2016 totreat newly generated liquid waste.

• The calcine would be retrieved from the binsets, blended with silica and titanium pow-der, added to special cans, and subjected tohigh temperature and pressure in a hot iso-static press to form a glass-ceramic product.

• The final product would be packaged in can-isters for storage and subsequent disposal ina HLW repository.

• Before 2015, newly generated liquid wastewould be concentrated, the effluents storedin new RCRA-compliant tanks, and thencalcined with the mixed transuranicwaste/SBW in the New Waste CalciningFacility. Starting in 2015, newly generatedliquid waste would be processed through acesium ion-exchange column, evaporated,and grouted as mixed low-level waste orlow-level waste for disposal at the INEEL oroffsite.


This option would require a determination ofequivalent treatment from EPA since in this casethe final waste form (glass ceramic) is not cur-rently an approved RCRA treatment process forHLW exhibiting the hazardous characteristicsof corrosivity and toxicity for certain metals (asdiscussed in Section 6.2.5 of the EIS). Underthis option, DOE would be able to cease use ofthe Tank Farm by 2014 and make mixed HLWready for shipment to a storage facility or repos-itory outside of Idaho by a target date of 2035.

Direct Cement Waste Option

This option (Figure S-8) would involve calciningthe liquid mixed transuranic waste/SBW andadding the calcine to the mixed HLW calcine.

All calcine would be converted to a cement-likesolid. Under this option:

• After receipt of a RCRA permit from theState and upgrades to air emission controlsrequired by EPA, the calciner would operatefrom 2011 through 2014 to calcine theremaining liquid mixed transuranicwaste/SBW, which would be stored in thebin sets. After 2014, the calciner wouldoperate as needed until the end of 2016 totreat newly generated liquid waste.

• The calcine would be retrieved and blendedwith clay, blast furnace slag, caustic soda,and water and the resulting grout would bepoured into stainless-steel canisters. Thegrout would be cured at elevated tempera-ture and pressure.

• The final product would be packaged incanisters for storage and subsequent dis-posal in a HLW repository.

• Before 2015, newly generated liquid wastewould be concentrated, the effluents storedin new RCRA-compliant tanks, and thencalcined with the mixed transuranicwaste/SBW in the New Waste CalciningFacility. Starting in 2015, newly generatedliquid waste would be processed through acesium ion-exchange column, evaporatedand grouted as mixed low-level waste orlow-level waste for disposal at the INEEL oroffsite.


This option would require a determination ofequivalent treatment from EPA since in this casethe final waste form (cement) is not currentlyan approved RCRA treatment process for HLWexhibiting the hazardous characteristics of cor-rosivity and toxicity for certain metals (as dis-cussed in Section 6.2.5 of the EIS). Under thisoption, DOE would be able to cease use of theTank Farm by 2014 and make mixed HLW readyfor shipment to a storage facility or repositoryoutside of Idaho by a target date of 2035.

S-23DO

E/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS


Calcine

Calcine

high-levelwaste

high-levelwaste

Tank heels

transuranic waste

(from tank heels)

CementingCementing

Mixedtransuranic

waste/SBW

Ion exchange resin

LEGEND



FIGURE .Direct Cement Waste Option.


SBW Mixed transuranic waste/sodium-bearing wasteWaste Isolation Pilot Plant


Cesium ion exchange &grouting Low-level/Low-level/


SB


SB




e/

Low-level/waste

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

NWCF*NWCF*

2095

2035

2014

2000

2011

Calcinationof SBW

Resumes


2015

Direct Cement Waste Milestones

Cementing &Grouting Begins


DOE/EIS-0287 S-24

Summary

Early Vitrification Option

This option (Figure S-9) would involve vitri-fying both the mixed HLW calcine and themixed transuranic waste/SBW into a nonleach-ing, glass-like solid. Under this option:

• DOE would construct a vitrification facilitythat would process the mixed transuranicwaste/SBW from the Tank Farm and themixed HLW calcine stored in the bin setsinto borosilicate glass suitable for disposalin a repository.

• The mixed transuranic waste/SBW andmixed HLW calcine would be treated in sep-arate vitrification campaigns.

• Mixed transuranic waste/SBW would beblended with one type of glass frit to form aslurry that would be fed to the melter. Glassproduced from the mixed transuranicwaste/SBW would be poured into suitablecontainers and disposed of at the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant as remote-handledtransuranic waste, provided a waste inciden-tal to reprocessing determination confirmsthat this waste could be managed astransuranic.

• Mixed HLW calcine would be blended withanother type of glass frit and fed to themelter in a dry state. Glass produced fromthe mixed HLW calcine would be pouredinto stainless steel canisters and stored untilshipped to a HLW storage facility or reposi-tory.

• Newly generated liquid waste would be sentdirectly to the vitrification facility, bypass-ing calcination. Glass produced from newlygenerated liquid waste would be disposed ofat the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant as remote-handled transuranic waste.

Under this option DOE would be able to ceaseuse of the Tank Farm by 2016 and make mixedHLW ready for shipment to a storage facility orrepository outside of Idaho by a target date of2035.

Steam Reforming Option

This option (Figure S-10) would involve treat-ment of mixed transuranic waste/SBW bysteam reforming to a calcine-like powder forsubsequent shipment to the Waste IsolationPilot Plant and packaging of mixed HLW cal-cine for shipment to the geologic repository.Under this option:

• DOE would construct a steam reformingfacility that would process the mixedtransuranic waste/SBW (including tankheels) from the Tank Farm for shipment tothe Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal.

• The calcine would be retrieved from the binsets and packaged in HLW canisters forultimate shipment to the geologic reposi-tory.

• Newly generated liquid waste would be pro-cessed with the mixed transuranicwaste/SBW while the steam reformer wasoperating. When the steam reformer com-pleted its mission for mixed transuranicwaste/SBW, the newly generated liquidwaste would be grouted for shipment to theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal.

This option would require a determination ofequivalent treatment from EPA since in thiscase the final waste form (calcine) is not cur-rently an approved RCRA treatment process forHLW exhibiting the hazardous characteristicsof corrosivity and toxicity for certain metals (asdiscussed in Section 6.2.5 of the EIS). Underthis option, DOE would be able to cease use ofthe Tank Farm by 2013 and make the mixedHLW ready for shipment to a storage facility orrepository outside of Idaho by a target date ofDecember 31, 2035.

MINIMUM INEELPROCESSING ALTERNATIVE

The Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative(Figure S-11) involves the minimum amount ofwaste treatment at the INEEL, by including the

S-25DO

E/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS


Calcine high-level waste

high-levelwaste

transuranic waste

Mixed transuranic waste/SBW and tank heels

FIGURE .Early Vitrification Option.

LEGEND


SBWNewly generated liquid wasteNGLW

2095

2035

2016

2000

2015

Early Vitrification Milestones


Vitrification ofSBW Ends

Vitrification ofCalcine Ends/HLW

Road Ready

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets


SB


SB




e/

DOE/EIS-028

7S-26

Summ

ary

FIGURE S-10.Steam Reforming Option.

2095

2035

2016

2000

2013

Steam Reforming Milestones20

11

SBW Treatment BeginsSBW Treatment Ends

Calcine Packaging andShipments Begin

Calcine Packaging andShipments Completed

Calc

ine

stor

age i

n bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age i

n bin sets

Newly generatedliquid waste


SB


SB




e/

LEGEND


Newly generated liquid wasteNGLWSBW

SteamReformerSteam

Reformer

Packaging &transport

Packaging &transport

Calcine

High-level waste


Mixedtransuranicwaste/SBW

Grou tin g

Grou tin g

Newly generated liquid waste Newly generated liquid waste


2005

CeaseIntroduction

of NGLWto the

TankFarm

- New

Information -

S-27DO

E/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS

NewINEEL disposal

facilityNew


at Hanford

at Hanford

Calcine packaging &transport to HanfordCalcine packaging &

transport to Hanford

Shipment toShipment to

or

or

or

or

Low-level/

waste

Mixedlow-levelwaste

fraction



CalcineCalcine

Ionexchangeresin

high-levelwaste

high-levelwaste

high-levelwaste

transuranicwaste

Shipment toShipment to

at Hanford


Mixed high-levelwaste fraction

FIGURE .Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative.

LEGEND


SBWNewly generated liquid wasteNGLW


2095

2009

2000

SBWTreatment

Begins

2012

SBW Treatment Ends/Calcine Shipment begins

2025

CalcineShipmentEnds

All VitrifiedHLW Returnedfrom Hanford/All HLWRoad Ready

2030

Minimum INEEL Processing Milestones

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age in bin sets



Mixedtransuranic

waste/SBW



SB


SB




e/

DOE/EIS-0287 S-28

Summary

use of a vitrification facility planned for theHanford Site in the State of Washington. Thisalternative could substantially reduce the amountof construction, handling, and processing ofmixed HLW at the INEEL. However, shipmentof mixed HLW to the Hanford Site and back tothe INEEL adds a transportation componentnot present in other waste processing options.This alternative presents a representative analy-sis of offsite transport of mixed HLW calcinefollowed by a return of treated HLW and low-level waste to the INEEL for storage pendingdisposal. Under this alternative:

• DOE would retrieve and transport the mixedHLW calcine to a packaging facility, whereit would be placed into shipping containers.

• The containers would then be shipped toDOE's Hanford Site in Richland,Washington, where the mixed HLW calcinewould be dissolved and separated into high-activity and low-activity fractions.

• Each fraction would be vitrified. For pur-poses of analysis, DOE assumes the treatedmixed HLW and mixed low-level wastefractions would be returned to the INEEL.(Alternatively, the treated wastes could beshipped directly to appropriate storage ordisposal facilities rather than returning to theINEEL.)

• The treated mixed HLW would be stored atthe INEEL until it is shipped to a storagefacility or repository.

• The treated mixed low-level waste fractionwould be disposed of at the INEEL orshipped to an offsite low-level waste dis-posal facility.

• The mixed transuranic waste/SBW andnewly generated liquid waste, including tankheels, would be retrieved, filtered, and trans-ported to a treatment facility on the INEEL,where it would be processed through an ionexchange column to remove cesium. TheHLW fraction would be packaged and sentto the Hanford Site. The remaining frac-tion would be grouted, packaged in 55-gal-lon drums, and transported to the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant for disposal as contact-handled transuranic waste.

DOE cannot determine at this time whethertreating INEEL mixed HLW calcine in Hanfordfacilities would be technically feasible or costeffective. Even if it were feasible to processINEEL mixed HLW at the Hanford Site, DOEwould have to consider the potential regulatoryimplications and any impacts to DOE commit-ments regarding completion of Hanford tankwaste processing. Before making a decision topursue the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative, DOE would determine if additionalNEPA documentation were needed associatedwith treatment of INEEL mixed HLW calcineat the Hanford Site.

Under this alternative DOE would be able tocease use of the INTEC Tank Farm byDecember 31, 2012 and make mixed HLW readyfor shipment to a storage facility or repositoryoutside of Idaho by a target date of 2035.

DIRECT VITRIFICATIONALTERNATIVE

The Direct Vitrification Alternative is to vitrifythe mixed transuranic waste/SBW and vitrifythe calcine with or without separations. Inaddition, newly generated liquid waste could bevitrified in the same facility as the mixedtransuranic waste/SBW or DOE could con-struct a separate facility to grout the newly gen-erated liquid waste. DOE has identified twooptions for this alternative: Vitrification with-out Calcine Separations (Figure S-12) andVitrification with Calcine Separations (FigureS-13).

The option to vitrify the mixed transuranicwaste/SBW and calcine without separations

The Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative

would involve the treatment of INEELmixed HLW at the Hanford Site nearRichland, Washington. Appendix C.8describes the Hanford Site, focusing on the200-East Area, where INEEL mixed HLWwould be treated under this alternative.

S-29DO

E/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS

FIGURE S-12.Vitrification without CalcineSeparations.

LEGEND



* Disposal path based on Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Determination.

Calc

ine

stor

age i

n bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age i

n bin sets



Calcine VitrifiedCalcine

Mixedhigh-level

waste

Mixedhigh-level waste

Mixedtransuranic waste

VitrifiedSBW&NGLW

Mixed transuranic waste/SBW, tank heels, and

Newly generated liquidwaste (until 2005)

Newly generated liquid waste

(after 2005)



SB


SB




e/

or

or

Disposalpath*

Disposalpath*

2095

2035

2015

2000

2013

Vitrification without Calcine Separations Timeframe

EmployCompliant

Tanks

2012


Vitrification ofSBW Ends


Road Ready

CeaseIntroduction

of NGLWto the

Tank Farm 2005

- New

Information -

DOE/EIS-028

7S-30

Summ

ary

FIGURE S-13.Vitrification with CalcineSeparations Option.

2095

2035

2015

2000

2013

Vitrification with Calcine Separations Milestones

EmployCompliant

Tanks

2012


Vitrificationof SBW Ends


Road Ready

2005

CeaseIntroduction

of NGLWto the

Tank Farm 2022 Separations

Begins


Calcine


VitrifiedCalcine

Mixedhigh-level

waste

Mixedhigh-level

waste

Mixedtransuranic waste

VitrifiedSBW&NGLW

Mixedhigh-level

wastefraction

Mixed low-level waste fraction Low-level/ mixed low-levelwaste grout

S eparation sS eparation s

Grouting

Grouting

Mixed transuranic waste/SBW, tank heels, and

Newly generated liquidwaste (until 2005)

Calc

ine

stor

age i

n bin sets

Calc

ine

stor

age i

n bin sets




SB


SB




e/

or

orDisposalpath*

Disposalpath*

Newly generated liquid waste

(after 2005)

LEGEND



* Disposal path based on Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Determination.

- New

Information -

S-31 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

If the waste incidental to reprocessing determi-nation results in a decision to treat and dispose ofthe SBW as transuranic waste, DOE would vit-rify the waste and transport it to the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant. However, if the waste inci-dental to reprocessing determination results in adecision to treat, store, and dispose of the SBWas HLW, then DOE would vitrify the waste anddispose of it in a HLW geologic repository. If arepository were not immediately available, thetreated HLW would be stored at INTEC in aninterim storage facility until a repository wasavailable. Chapter 5 presents the impacts asso-ciated with interim storage and transportation ofthe treated SBW for both possible outcomes ofthe waste incidental to reprocessing determina-tion.

Calcine Treatment

The Direct Vitrification Alternative for calcinetreatment is to retrieve the calcine presentlystored in the six bin sets at INTEC, vitrify it, andplace it in a form to enable compliance with thecurrent legal requirement to have HLW roadready by a target date of 2035. Concurrent withthe program to design, construct, and operate thevitrification facility for mixed transuranicwaste/SBW, DOE would initiate a program tocharacterize the calcine, and develop methods toconstruct and install the necessary equipment toretrieve calcine from the bin sets. DOE wouldfocus technology development on the feasibilityand benefits of performing calcine separations aswell as refine costs and engineering designs.Conditioned on the outcome of future technol-ogy development and resulting treatment deci-sions, DOE could design and construct theappropriate calcine separations capability at theINEEL.

For calcine vitrification at the INEEL, the mixedtransuranic waste/SBW vitrification facilitycould be scaled-up by a new modular addition ormodification of unit(s) to accommodate calcinetreatment. The size of the vitrification facilitywould depend on whether the entire inventory ofcalcine or only a separated mixed HLW fractionwould need to be vitrified. Vitrified calcine orany vitrified mixed HLW fraction resulting fromcalcine separations would be stored in an interimstorage facility to be constructed at INTECpending transport to a storage facility or national

would be similar to the Early VitrificationOption. Mixed transuranic waste/SBW wouldbe retrieved from the INTEC Tank Farm and vit-rified. Calcine would be retrieved from the binsets, vitrified, and interim stored pending dis-posal in a geologic repository.

The option to vitrify the mixed transuranicwaste/SBW and vitrify the HLW fraction aftercalcine separations would be similar to the FullSeparations Option. Mixed transuranicwaste/SBW would be retrieved from the INTECTank Farm and vitrified. The calcine would beretrieved and chemically separated into a HLWfraction and transuranic or low-level waste frac-tions depending on the characteristics. TheHLW fraction would be vitrified and interimstored pending disposal in a geologic repository.The transuranic or low-level waste fractionswould be disposed of at an appropriate disposalfacility.

The waste vitrification facility would bedesigned, constructed, and operated to treat themixed transuranic waste/SBW and the calcine.The vitrified glass waste form would be pouredinto stainless steel canisters for transport and dis-posal out of Idaho. Although, the EIS assumesthat treatment of the mixed transuranicwaste/SBW under this alternative would not becompleted until 2015, it may be possible toeither complete treatment or transfer any remain-ing waste to RCRA-compliant tanks byDecember 31, 2012 in order to meet the Noticeof Noncompliance Consent Order requirement tocease use of the HLW Tank Farm by that date. Ifit is technically and economically practical,chemical separations would be integrated intothe INTEC vitrification facility for the treatmentof calcine.

Mixed Transuranic Waste/SBW Treatment

A program would be implemented to determinethe specific vitrification technology to be usedand would result in the design and constructionof a facility with module(s) or unit(s) sized totreat the mixed transuranic waste/SBW andremovable tank heels. DOE would cease use ofthe 11 tanks that comprise the INTEC Tank Farmby December 31, 2012.

- New Information -

DOE/EIS-0287 S-32

Summary

geologic repository outside of Idaho.Alternatively, if calcine were separated at theINEEL, DOE could decide to send the HLWfraction to Hanford for vitrification. DOE wouldevaluate the advantages of this option as theHanford treatment facility is being developed(see Appendix C.8).

If separations technologies were used, DOEwould make a waste incidental to reprocessingdetermination under DOE Order 435.1 andManual 435.1-1 to determine if the non-HLWfractions would be managed as transuranic wasteor low-level waste. If it were determined that awaste fraction was transuranic, then it would betreated, packaged, and shipped to the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant. Low-level or mixed low-level waste fractions would be packaged anddisposed of at licensed commercial facilities orat the Hanford Site or Nevada Test Site in accor-dance with the DOE's Record of Decision for theWaste Management Programmatic EIS (65 FR10061, February 25, 2000). For purposes ofassessing risks associated with transportation oflow-level waste, DOE used the commercialradioactive waste disposal site operated byEnvirocare of Utah, Inc., located 80 miles westof Salt Lake City.

Newly Generated LiquidWaste Treatment

After September 30, 2005, DOE intends to seg-regate newly generated liquid waste from themixed transuranic waste/SBW. The post-2005newly generated liquid waste could be vitrifiedin the same facility as the mixed transuranicwaste/SBW or DOE could construct a separatefacility to grout the newly generated liquidwaste. The vitrified or grouted waste would bepackaged and disposed of as low-level ortransuranic waste, depending on its characteris-tics.

Under this alternative, DOE analyzed impacts oftreating newly generated liquid waste as mixedtransuranic waste/SBW (by vitrification). Thiswas done for comparability of impacts with theother waste processing alternatives, whichassumed newly generated liquid waste would betreated in the same manner as the mixedtransuranic waste/SBW. This EIS also presentsthe impacts for a grout facility (see Project

P2001 in Appendix C.6) that could be used totreat the waste generated after 2005. For pur-poses of assessing transportation impacts, DOEassumed the grouted waste would be character-ized as remote-handled transuranic waste andtransported to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant fordisposal (see Appendix C.5).

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

DOE and the State of Idaho have jointly under-taken a process to select the PreferredAlternative for waste processing and havereached separate conclusions. Consequently,this EIS presents two Preferred Alternatives: onefor DOE and one for the State of Idaho. ThePreferred Alternatives were developed after con-sideration of public comment; factors such asenvironmental impacts, programmatic needs,safety and health, technical viability, ability tomeet regulatory milestones and agreements, andcost; and information received after the DraftEIS was published. This information includedthe National Research Council report onAlternative High-Level Waste Treatments at theIdaho National Engineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory, DOE Tanks Focus Area findings,DOE Office of Project Management review ofthe Cost Analysis of Alternatives for the IdahoHigh-Level Waste and Facilities DispositionEIS, and public comments from the commercialsector supporting various treatment technolo-gies.

Among the choices from which the preferredwaste processing alternatives were selected arethe five alternatives (comprised of nine majorchoices including the options) identified in theDraft EIS, a new option under the Non-Separations Alternative called Steam Reforming,and a new alternative called Direct Vitrification,which is comprised of two options: Vitrificationwithout Calcine Separations and Vitrificationwith Calcine Separations.

The Direct Vitrification Alternative was ulti-mately selected by the State of Idaho as itsPreferred Alternative for waste processing.DOE's preferred waste processing alternative isto implement the proposed action (see text boxon next page) by selecting from among theaction alternatives, options and technologiesanalyzed in this EIS based on the criteria dis-

- New Information -

S-33 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

cussed below. Options excluded from DOE'sPreferred Alternative are, storage of calcine inthe bin sets for an indefinite period under theContinued Current Operations Alternative, theshipment of calcine to the Hanford Site fortreatment under the Minimum INEELProcessing Alternative, and disposal of mixedlow-level waste on the INEEL under any alter-native. The selection of any one of, or combi-nation of, technologies or options used toimplement the proposed action would be basedon performance criteria that include risk, cost,time, and compliance factors. The selectionmay also be based on the results of laboratoryand demonstration scale evaluations and com-parisons using actual wastes in proof of processtests.

3.2.2 FACILITY DISPOSITIONALTERNATIVES

The waste processing alternatives and treatmentoptions described in the Draft EIS do not includedisposition options for specific facilities exceptwhen they are part of treatment and disposaloptions (e.g., disposal of Class A-type or ClassC-type low-level waste grout in the Tank Farmand bin sets). The facility disposition alterna-tives address the final risk component of actionsDOE could take after waste processing mis-sions are complete. The facility dispositionalternatives are as follows:

• No Action

• Clean Closure

• Performance-Based Closure

• Closure to Landfill Standards

• Performance-Based Closure with Class A Grout Disposal

• Performance-Based Closure with Class C Grout Disposal.

Implementing any of the waste processing alter-natives would involve a variety of different fa-cilities that will need to be properly closed whenmissions are complete. Chapter 5 of the EISidentifies any major new facilities and any exist-ing facilities that would be needed for each

waste processing alternative, all of which wouldbe closed in accordance with regulatory require-ments.

Except for the No Action Alternative, the restof the facility disposition alternatives canbe implemented in accordance withregulatory requirements. Clean Closure andPerformance-Based Closure methods are basedon how much contamination can be left in theenvironment. With Clean Closure, contami-nated residuals must be at or below backgroundlevels; with Performance-Based Closure, resid-ual contaminant levels are based on risk.Closure to Landfill Standards differs fromPerformance-Based in that design, construc-tion and operation of the landfill is dictated byspecified requirements rather than risk calcula-tions that determine how much can be left inthe environment. Regulations require thatmonitoring be conducted to ensure contami-nants have not migrated to the environment atlevels that exceed established standards.

The general time frame for waste processingactions is through 2035. From 2035 through2095 (the assumed end of institutional controlfor the INEEL), DOE would be implementingfacility disposition actions, maintaining road-ready waste pending shipment to a repository,and shipping waste. Where there may be post-closure impacts (i.e., to health and safety or eco-logical resources), the analysis of impacts is

Proposed Action• Select appropriate technologies and

construct facilities necessary to pre-pare INTEC mixed transuranicwaste/SBW for shipment to the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant.

• Prepare the mixed HLW calcine so thatit will be suitable for disposal in a repos-itory.

• Treat and dispose of associatedradioactive wastes.

• Provide safe storage of HLW destinedfor a repository.

• Disposition INTEC HLW managementfacilities when their missions are com-pleted.

DOE/EIS-0287 S-34

Summary

extended for 10,000 years. This time frame isconsistent with the period of analysis for long-term impacts in other DOE EISs. It also repre-sents the longest time period for the performancestandards in potentially applicable regulationsand DOE Orders governing facility dispositionactivities.

This EIS considers the requirements and con-straints on each alternative in order to complywith environmental regulations and agreements.Applicable requirements include those under theAtomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Waste PolicyAct, RCRA, CERCLA, a 1992 Notice of Non-compliance Consent Order (plus modifications),and the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order.

3.2.2.1 RCRA Closure of Facilities

The facility disposition analysis considers clo-sure of existing facilities and those facilities thatwould be constructed for HLW storage, treat-ment, and disposal. However, because of tech-nological, economic, and health risks, it may notbe practical to remove all residual material fromthe tanks, decontaminate all equipment, and re-move all surrounding soils to achieve clean clo-sure. RCRA regulations state that if allcontaminated system components, structures,and equipment cannot be adequately decontami-nated, then tank systems must be closed in ac-cordance with the closure and post-closurerequirements that apply to landfills.

3.2.2.2 CERCLA Coordination

The CERCLA program divides the INEEL into10 Waste Area Groups. INTEC, where the fa-cility disposition actions would occur under thisEIS, is in Waste Area Group 3. Except for thecontaminated soils surrounding the Tank Farm,DOE has completed a comprehensive evaluationfor the cleanup program at INTEC under therequirements of CERCLA. Under the CERCLAcleanup program, the Federal government andthe State of Idaho have made decisions in theOperable Unit 3-13 ROD, which was approvedin October 1999, regarding disposition of con-taminated soils and other environmental media.While the CERCLA cleanup program is not thesubject of this EIS, decisions regarding disposi-

tion of HLW facilities have been and will con-tinue to be coordinated with decisions under theCERCLA program.

3.2.2.3 Facility DispositionIdentification

DOE used the following systematic process toidentify the existing facilities that would be ana-lyzed in detail in this EIS:

1. Performed a complete inventory of allINTEC facilities

2. Identified which of these facilities areconsidered HLW facilities or could beaffected by HLW programs

3. Determined which facility dispositionalternatives would be most appropriatefor analysis for each facility, based onthe potential characteristics of the resid-ual waste

DOE included the Tank Farm and bin sets as partof the analysis of all six facility dispositionalternatives, because they would contain themajority of the residual radioactivity and wouldcontribute the most to residual risk. Residualrisk would vary with the different facility dispo-sition alternatives.

For purposes of bounding the analysis, DOEassumed that it would use a single facility dispo-sition alternative (i.e., Closure to Landfill Stan-dards) for closure of most other HLW facilities.The residual radioactive or hazardous materialassociated with these facilities would be muchless than that of the Tank Farm and bin sets, andthe overall residual risk at the INEEL would notincrease substantially due to the contributionfrom these facilities. For new HLW facilities,DOE analyzed the Clean Closure alternative.This assumption is consistent with the objec-tives and requirements of DOE Order 430.1A,Life Cycle Management, and DOE Manual435.1-1, Radioactive Waste ManagementManual, that all newly constructed facilitiesnecessary to implement the waste processingalternatives would be designed and constructedconsistent with measures that facilitate cleanclosure.

S-35 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

3.2.2.4 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS


Under the No Action Alternative, DOE wouldnot close its HLW facilities at INTEC.Nevertheless, over the period of analysisthrough 2035, many of the facilities could beplaced in an industrially safe condition (deacti-vated). Surveillance and maintenance of HLWfacilities would be routinely performed to ensurethe safety and health of workers and the publicuntil 2095. For purposes of analysis, DOEassumed that institutional controls to protecthuman health and the environment would not bein effect after 2095.

CLEAN CLOSURE ALTERNATIVE

Under the Clean Closure Alternative, facilitieswould have the hazardous wastes and radiologi-cal contaminants, including contaminated equip-ment, removed from the site or treated so thehazardous and radiological contaminants areindistinguishable from background concentra-tions. Clean Closure may require total disman-tlement and removal of facilities. This mayinclude removal of all buildings, vaults, tanks,transfer piping, and contaminated soil. Thisalternative would require a large quantity ofsoil for backfilling and would also require top-soil for revegetation. Use of the facilities (or thefacility sites) after Clean Closure would presentno risk to workers or the public from hazardousor radiological components.

PERFORMANCE-BASEDCLOSURE ALTERNATIVE

Under the Performance-Based ClosureAlternative, contamination would remain thatis below the levels that would impact humanhealth and the environment as established byregulations, and closure methods would be dic-tated on a case-by-case basis. These levels,commonly referred to as action levels, areeither risk-based (e.g., residual contaminantlevels established by RCRA/CERCLA require-ments) or performance-based (e.g., drinkingwater standards). Once the performance-basedlevels are achieved, the unit/facility is deemedclosed according to RCRA and/or DOE

requirements. Other activities may then occurto the unit/facility such as decontamination anddecommissioning or future operations (wherenon-hazardous waste can enter the unit/facil-ity). Most above-grade facilities/units would bedemolished and most below-gradefacilities/units (tanks, vaults, and transfer pip-ing) would be stabilized and left in place. Theresidual contaminants would no longer poseany unacceptable exposure (or risk) to workers,the public, and the environment.

CLOSURE TO LANDFILLSTANDARDS ALTERNATIVE

Under the Closure to Landfill StandardsAlternative, the facilities would be closed inaccordance with state, Federal and/or DOErequirements for closure of landfills. For land-fill closures, wastes are removed to the extentpracticable. However, quantities remainingwould not meet clean closure or performance-based closure action levels. Therefore, there isa greater potential risk from a landfill closurewhen compared to a Performance-Based orClean Closure. Because of this, capping andpost-closure monitoring would be required toprotect the health and safety of the workers andthe public from releases of contaminants fromthe facility. Waste residuals within tanks,vaults, and piping would be stabilized in orderto minimize the release of contaminants intothe environment. Once waste residues werestabilized, protection of the environment wouldbe ensured by installing an engineered cap,establishing a groundwater monitoring system,and providing post-closure monitoring and careof the waste containment system, depending onthe type of contaminants, to protect the healthand safety of the workers and the public fromreleases of contaminants from the facility/unitin accordance with the closure performancestandards. The unit/facility cap requires main-tenance and ground water monitoring of thelandfill for 30 years (a waiver may be appliedfor after 5 years). Also, a landfill closure isrequired to have a Corrective Action Plan thatwould be implemented in the event any con-tamination is detected beyond the boundary ofthe landfill. Implementing a corrective actionresets the time for maintenance and monitoringfor another 30 years.

DOE/EIS-0287 S-36

Summary

PERFORMANCE-BASEDCLOSURE WITH CLASS AGROUT DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE

This is one of two alternatives that would ac-commodate the potential use of the Tank Farmand bin sets for disposal of the low-level wastefraction. The facility would be closed as de-scribed for the Performance-Based Closure Al-ternative. Following completion of thoseactivities, the Tank Farm or bin sets would beused to dispose of low-level waste Class A-typegrout produced under the Full SeparationsOption.

PERFORMANCE-BASEDCLOSURE WITH CLASS CGROUT DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE

This alternative would also accommodate thepotential use of the Tank Farm and bin sets fordisposal of the low-level waste fraction. Thefacility would be closed as described above forthe Performance-Based Closure Alternative.Following completion of those activities, theTank Farm or bin sets would be used to disposeof low-level waste Class C-type grout producedunder the Transuranic Separations Option.


Both DOE and the State of Idaho have desig-nated performance-based closure methods asthe Preferred Alternative for disposition ofHLW facilities at INTEC. These methodsencompass three of the six facility dispositionalternatives analyzed in this EIS: CleanClosure, Performance-Based Closure, andClosure to Landfill Standards. Performance-based closure would be implemented in accor-dance with applicable regulations and DOEOrders. However, any of the disposition alter-natives analyzed in this EIS, not including theNo Action Alternative, could be implementedunder performance-based closure criteria.Consistent with the objectives and requirementsof DOE Order 430.1A, Life CycleManagement, and DOE Manual 435.1-1,Radioactive Waste Management Manual, allnewly constructed facilities necessary to imple-ment the waste processing alternatives would

be designed and constructed consistent withmeasures that facilitate clean closure.Therefore, the Preferred Alternative for dispo-sition of new facilities is Clean Closure.

Waste management activities associated withany of the facility disposition alternativeswould be carried out over a long period of time.Disposition actions would be implementedincrementally as the facilities associated withthe generation, treatment, and storage of high-level and associated wastes approached thecompletion of their missions. Dispositionactions would be systematically planned, docu-mented, executed, and evaluated to ensure pub-lic, worker, and environmental protection inaccordance with applicable regulations.

4.0 Areas of Uncertainty

This section discusses uncertainties associatedwith alternatives and options that are outsidethe scope of this EIS and that remain unre-solved at the time of Final EIS issuance. DOEwill appropriately factor these uncertainties intodecisions made pursuant to this EIS.

4.1 Waste AcceptanceCriteria

The disposal facility operator or regulatordetermines what materials can be received fordisposal by establishing waste acceptance crite-ria. These criteria define parameters such aspackaging requirements, waste form require-ments, acceptable radiation levels, and limits onradionuclide content.

HLW REPOSITORY

DOE has identified preliminary waste accep-tance criteria for disposal of HLW at the pro-posed Yucca Mountain repository. DOE hasused these preliminary criteria in the design ofits vitrification facilities at the Savannah RiverSite and the West Valley Demonstration Project.However, until such time as the criteria are

DOE/EIS-0287 S-36

Summary

PERFORMANCE-BASEDCLOSURE WITH CLASS AGROUT DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE

This is one of two alternatives that would ac-commodate the potential use of the Tank Farmand bin sets for disposal of the low-level wastefraction. The facility would be closed as de-scribed for the Performance-Based Closure Al-ternative. Following completion of thoseactivities, the Tank Farm or bin sets would beused to dispose of low-level waste Class A-typegrout produced under the Full SeparationsOption.

PERFORMANCE-BASEDCLOSURE WITH CLASS CGROUT DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE

This alternative would also accommodate thepotential use of the Tank Farm and bin sets fordisposal of the low-level waste fraction. Thefacility would be closed as described above forthe Performance-Based Closure Alternative.Following completion of those activities, theTank Farm or bin sets would be used to disposeof low-level waste Class C-type grout producedunder the Transuranic Separations Option.


Both DOE and the State of Idaho have desig-nated performance-based closure methods asthe Preferred Alternative for disposition ofHLW facilities at INTEC. These methodsencompass three of the six facility dispositionalternatives analyzed in this EIS: CleanClosure, Performance-Based Closure, andClosure to Landfill Standards. Performance-based closure would be implemented in accor-dance with applicable regulations and DOEOrders. However, any of the disposition alter-natives analyzed in this EIS, not including theNo Action Alternative, could be implementedunder performance-based closure criteria.Consistent with the objectives and requirementsof DOE Order 430.1A, Life CycleManagement, and DOE Manual 435.1-1,Radioactive Waste Management Manual, allnewly constructed facilities necessary to imple-ment the waste processing alternatives would

be designed and constructed consistent withmeasures that facilitate clean closure.Therefore, the Preferred Alternative for dispo-sition of new facilities is Clean Closure.

Waste management activities associated withany of the facility disposition alternativeswould be carried out over a long period of time.Disposition actions would be implementedincrementally as the facilities associated withthe generation, treatment, and storage of high-level and associated wastes approached thecompletion of their missions. Dispositionactions would be systematically planned, docu-mented, executed, and evaluated to ensure pub-lic, worker, and environmental protection inaccordance with applicable regulations.

4.0 Areas of Uncertainty

This section discusses uncertainties associatedwith alternatives and options that are outsidethe scope of this EIS and that remain unre-solved at the time of Final EIS issuance. DOEwill appropriately factor these uncertainties intodecisions made pursuant to this EIS.

4.1 Waste AcceptanceCriteria

The disposal facility operator or regulatordetermines what materials can be received fordisposal by establishing waste acceptance crite-ria. These criteria define parameters such aspackaging requirements, waste form require-ments, acceptable radiation levels, and limits onradionuclide content.

HLW REPOSITORY

DOE has identified preliminary waste accep-tance criteria for disposal of HLW at the pro-posed Yucca Mountain repository. DOE hasused these preliminary criteria in the design ofits vitrification facilities at the Savannah RiverSite and the West Valley Demonstration Project.However, until such time as the criteria are

S-37 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

finalized, some uncertainties remain that couldaffect process design and system operation ofthe treatment options for INEEL mixed HLW.

TRANSURANIC WASTE FRACTION

Some of the waste processing alternatives andtreatment options (e.g., Transuranic SeparationsOption) would produce transuranic waste forpotential disposal in the Waste Isolation PilotPlant. The transuranic waste that would be pro-duced by processing INTEC mixed HLW maycontain hazardous constituents currently not cov-ered in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant RCRAPart B permit. In that case, additional wastecodes would need to be included in that permitbefore the mixed transuranic waste fractionwould be acceptable for disposal. Alternatively,DOE may consider demonstrating through thedelisting process that the treated transuranicwaste would not pose a hazard to human healthor the environment, and therefore no longermerit regulation under RCRA.

DETERMINATION OFEQUIVALENT TREATMENT

Vitrification is the treatment process currentlyidentified by EPA as the best demonstratedavailable technology for mixed HLW thatexhibits the RCRA characteristics of corrosivityor toxicity. This process incorporates the wastein a glass matrix. However, some of the wasteprocessing options evaluated in this EIS producewaste forms such as ceramic (hot isostaticpressed), cement, and calcine that are not vitri-fication operations. Before these treated wasteforms could be disposed of at a HLW repository,DOE would have to obtain a determination ofequivalent treatment from the EPA. Such adetermination can be granted when it is demon-strated that the proposed treatment will create awaste form that protects human health and theenvironment, meets applicable treatment stan-dards, and is in compliance with Federal, State,and local requirements. Alternatively, DOEcould submit a variance request to EPA, asking

to be exempted from the RCRA vitrificationstandard.

DELISTING

INTEC's mixed HLW calcine and mixedtransuranic waste/SBW contain listed hazardouswastes that are regulated under RCRA. Thetreated waste forms produced under the variousalternatives in this EIS would continue to be reg-ulated as mixed wastes under RCRA, unlessthey are delisted or otherwise excluded from theregulatory requirements of RCRA.

There are uncertainties associated with obtaininga delisting. These include difficulties associatedwith sampling and analyzing the waste due to itsradioactive properties, quality of data for analy-ses of wastes with very low concentrations oflisted hazardous constituents, and availability ofdata from treatability studies when some treat-ment technologies lack technical maturity.Sufficient data on the listed waste and the per-formance of the final waste form will be requiredto successfully demonstrate that the waste wouldnot harm human health or the environment.Finally, difficulties associated with delisting mayincrease if states having sites proposed as loca-tions for management of delisted waste arereluctant to allow delisting due to the resultingloss of regulatory control over the waste.

Not knowing whether a delisting petition wouldbe approved for treated mixed HLW introducesanother uncertainty. Under DOE’s currentwaste acceptance criteria, RCRA-regulatedHLW would not be accepted at the proposedgeologic repository at Yucca Mountain. Forthis reason, DOE may consider alternativestrategies to delisting, under initiatives such asEPA's Project XL (a program that offers flexi-bility to develop alternative strategies thatreplace or modify regulatory requirements, onthe condition that they produce greater envi-ronmental benefits) or pursue a strategy thatwould exclude the treated mixed HLW fromregulation under RCRA.

DOE/EIS-0287 S-38

Summary

4.2 Waste Incidentalto Reprocessing

Some waste streams associated with HLW gen-eration, treatment, and storage may be managedas transuranic or low-level waste. DOE Order435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and itsassociated manual provide criteria and a pro-cess, called a waste incidental to reprocessingdetermination, that DOE will use to determineif waste streams associated with HLW can bemanaged as transuranic or low-level waste.

A waste incidental to reprocessing determina-tion is being developed to decide whether thefinal waste form resulting from treatment of theSBW should be managed and disposed of astransuranic waste. At DOE’s request, theNuclear Regulatory Commission performed atechnical review of the draft waste incidental toreprocessing determination before DOE makesits decision, which is anticipated in 2002. Untilthe outcome of the waste incidental to repro-cessing process is complete, uncertainties infinal waste classification will remain.

4.3 Technical Maturity ofAlternative TreatmentProcesses

Production scale experience in the operation ofmixed HLW treatment processes specific toINTEC waste is limited to calcination. Becauseof differences in waste characteristics amongDOE sites, knowledge gained at one site may notapply to others. Some proposed mixed HLWtreatment processes are only in a preliminarystage of technology development; the viability ofothers has not been demonstrated beyond thebench scale or pilot stage. Thus, there is uncer-tainty regarding technical viability and imple-mentation. Although selection of any of themixed HLW treatment technologies will requireadditional technology development and demon-stration-scale proof of process before imple-mentation, DOE considers vitrification to be amore mature technology to produce a finalwaste form than others evaluated in this EIS,

requiring considerably less investment in devel-opment.

4.4 Timeframes

Under all waste processing and facility disposi-tion alternatives there are some uncertaintiesrelated to the timeframes for implementation.These uncertainties include:

• the technical maturity of technologies andhow much development would be necessarybefore design and construction could begin

• the possibility that new regulatory require-ments may be promulgated, which couldintroduce delays by affecting the designand cost of selected technologies

• the length of time it will take to get agencyapprovals for actions such as permits tooperate, determinations of equivalency, anddelisting petitions

• the availability of a geologic repository forINTEC's HLW, which will determinewhether DOE will be able to ship this wasteout of Idaho or have to store it indefinitelyat the INEEL

• the timely appropriation of funds byCongress so that DOE can implementwaste processing and facility dispositiondecisions

Each of these uncertainties is addressed in thisEIS.

4.5 Costs

Although NEPA and the Council onEnvironmental Quality regulations do notrequire agencies to address costs in an EIS,Federal agencies must identify the considera-tions, including factors not related to environ-mental quality, that are likely to be relevant andimportant to a decision. To support the decisionprocess, DOE will take into consideration thecosts of implementing the alternatives.

S-39 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

5.0 Areas of ControversyThere are areas relevant to alternatives consid-ered in this EIS, where viewpoints may differamong members of the public, technical experts,the State of Idaho, or DOE. These controversies,described below, were not resolved in the courseof preparing this EIS and may not be resolvedbefore issuing a Record of Decision.

5.1 Mixed Low-level/Low-level WasteDisposal Locations

At the time of publication of the Draft EIS,DOE had not yet specified disposal sites formixed low-level waste and low-level waste in aRecord of Decision that was being developedfor the Waste Management ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0200). On February 25, 2000 (65 FR 10061),DOE issued its Record of Decision to establishregional mixed low-level waste and low-levelwaste disposal at Hanford and the Nevada TestSite. In addition, DOE decided to continue, tothe extent practicable, to dispose of low-levelwaste onsite and acknowledges the potentialuse of commercial mixed low-level and low-level waste disposal facilities.

Onsite disposal of mixed low-level waste or low-level waste generated from treatment of mixedtransuranic waste/SBW and/or calcine at theINEEL is an area of controversy, as discussedin the Foreword to this EIS prepared by theState of Idaho.

5.2 Repository Capacity -Metric Tons of HeavyMetal

Space in the proposed spent nuclear fuel/HLWrepository is allocated by MTHM, and DOE hasallocated 4,667 MTHM for its HLW. UnderDOE’s current method of calculating the amountof MTHM in a canister of HLW, however, half ofthe DOE HLW inventory would not be acceptedfor disposal in the proposed repository and

would have to remain in storage. DOE has notidentified the order in which sites that currentlymanage DOE-owned HLW would send canistersto the repository.

As described in Section 6.3.2.4 of the EIS, thereare other methods for calculating MTHM equiv-alency that would result in a calculated quantityof MTHM that would be within the current allo-cation. The State of Idaho has urged DOE not touse the current method for calculating MTHMbecause, in the State's view, the current methodoverestimates the MTHM in DOE HLW.Instead, the State advocates that DOE use one oftwo other approaches to calculating MTHM,either one of which, in the State's view, betterreflects the relative risk and actual concentra-tions of radionuclides in DOE HLW. Undereither of the two approaches advocated by theState, DOE’s HLW would be within the currentallocation for the proposed repository.

DOE discusses the various methods for calculat-ing MTHM equivalency in the FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement for a GeologicRepository for the Disposal of Spent NuclearFuel and High-level Radioactive Waste at YuccaMountain, Nye County, Nevada (DOE/EIS-0250).

5.3 Differences inFlood Studies

DOE and RCRA facility siting requirements usu-ally restrict construction of waste managementfacilities within a floodplain. Two studies werecompleted to evaluate potential flood hazards atINTEC: one by the U.S. Geologic Survey andthe other by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.These analyses showed differing results, both ofwhich were included in the Draft EIS for pub-lic review and comment. Since publication ofthe Draft EIS, DOE has submitted a floodplaindetermination to the State of Idaho for RCRApermitting purposes based on the flood studyby Koslow and Van Haaften. DOE will com-plete further studies in coordination with theU.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation to refine the projected 100-yearand 500-year flood elevations and to make afinal floodplain determination. DOE will con-sider the results of these studies in compliance

DOE/EIS-0287 S-40

Summary

intermittently and would also be within normalworkforce fluctuations.

Cultural Resources – The majority of INEELactivities resulting from the Proposed Actionwould occur in previously disturbed areas.Standard measures are in place to help preventimpacts to cultural resources that may be discov-ered during site development.

Aesthetic and Scenic Resources – DOE wouldundertake construction activities associated withany waste processing alternative or treatmentoption in a manner compatible with the generalINEEL setting and with the Bureau of LandManagement Visual Resource Managementclass designation for the area. Operationalimpacts for any of the alternatives and optionsare estimated to be small.

Geology and Soils – Geologic materials (soilsand gravel) required for any of the waste pro-cessing or facility disposition alternatives wouldbe obtained from existing onsite sources. DOEestimates that impacts to geologic resourceswould be small.

Water Resources (Usage) – Total INEEL waterconsumption from activities resulting from thebounding alternative (Hot Isostatic PressedWaste Option) could increase by as much as 93million gallons per year during operations.This usage represents an increase of 20 percentof water withdrawn by the INEEL from theSnake River Plain Aquifer relative to 1996usage. INEEL water use would be well belowthe consumptive use water rights of 11.4 billiongallons per year.

Ecological Resources – DOE estimates thatimpacts to ecological resources for the wasteprocessing and facility disposition alternativeswould be small and there would be no impact tothreatened or endangered species or critical habi-tats. Most activities would take place in heavilydeveloped industrial areas that have marginalvalue as wildlife habitat.

Environmental Justice – Impacts from proposedwaste processing alternatives and treatmentoptions, under all alternatives, would not resultin high and adverse impacts on the population asa whole. Further, DOE did not identify means

with its floodplain environmental reviewrequirements (10 CFR Part 1022), and in com-pliance with the State of Idaho RCRA regula-tions, as appropriate.

6.0 Conclusions of Analysis

6.1 Overview

Implementing the alternatives considered in thisEIS could result in impacts to public health andthe environment from processing HLW and dis-position of associated facilities at INTEC. Thepurpose of analyzing these potential impacts isto give decision-makers and the public informa-tion they can use to understand and compare theenvironmental consequences of alternativecourses of action.

For this EIS, DOE assessed the environmentalimpacts for 14 areas of interest for the waste pro-cessing alternatives and the facility dispositionalternatives. A comparison of impacts for thefive key areas of interest discussed in this sec-tion is provided in Table S-2 following Section6.5 of this Summary. In 9 of the 14 areas, theresults indicate little or no impacts as follows:

Land Use – Estimated land use would be consis-tent with the INEEL Comprehensive Facility andLand Use Plan. The maximum additionalamount of land that would be converted to indus-trial use at the INEEL under the alternativesanalyzed in this EIS would be 22 acres. AtHanford, approximately 50 additional acrescould be converted to industrial use in the 200East Area. At both sites, this additional distur-bance would be less than 1 percent of the areacurrently used for industrial purposes.

Socioeconomics – DOE anticipates that totalINEEL employment will continue to decline.Future changes in employment as a result ofactivities described in this EIS would be withinthe normal range of INEEL workforce changes,and would represent a continuation of currentsite employment that might otherwise be lower.Other activities at INTEC not related to alterna-tives discussed in this EIS would take place

DOE/EIS-0287 S-40

Summary

intermittently and would also be within normalworkforce fluctuations.

Cultural Resources – The majority of INEELactivities resulting from the Proposed Actionwould occur in previously disturbed areas.Standard measures are in place to help preventimpacts to cultural resources that may be discov-ered during site development.

Aesthetic and Scenic Resources – DOE wouldundertake construction activities associated withany waste processing alternative or treatmentoption in a manner compatible with the generalINEEL setting and with the Bureau of LandManagement Visual Resource Managementclass designation for the area. Operationalimpacts for any of the alternatives and optionsare estimated to be small.

Geology and Soils – Geologic materials (soilsand gravel) required for any of the waste pro-cessing or facility disposition alternatives wouldbe obtained from existing onsite sources. DOEestimates that impacts to geologic resourceswould be small.

Water Resources (Usage) – Total INEEL waterconsumption from activities resulting from thebounding alternative (Hot Isostatic PressedWaste Option) could increase by as much as 93million gallons per year during operations.This usage represents an increase of 20 percentof water withdrawn by the INEEL from theSnake River Plain Aquifer relative to 1996usage. INEEL water use would be well belowthe consumptive use water rights of 11.4 billiongallons per year.

Ecological Resources – DOE estimates thatimpacts to ecological resources for the wasteprocessing and facility disposition alternativeswould be small and there would be no impact tothreatened or endangered species or critical habi-tats. Most activities would take place in heavilydeveloped industrial areas that have marginalvalue as wildlife habitat.

Environmental Justice – Impacts from proposedwaste processing alternatives and treatmentoptions, under all alternatives, would not resultin high and adverse impacts on the population asa whole. Further, DOE did not identify means

with its floodplain environmental reviewrequirements (10 CFR Part 1022), and in com-pliance with the State of Idaho RCRA regula-tions, as appropriate.

6.0 Conclusions of Analysis

6.1 Overview

Implementing the alternatives considered in thisEIS could result in impacts to public health andthe environment from processing HLW and dis-position of associated facilities at INTEC. Thepurpose of analyzing these potential impacts isto give decision-makers and the public informa-tion they can use to understand and compare theenvironmental consequences of alternativecourses of action.

For this EIS, DOE assessed the environmentalimpacts for 14 areas of interest for the waste pro-cessing alternatives and the facility dispositionalternatives. A comparison of impacts for thefive key areas of interest discussed in this sec-tion is provided in Table S-2 following Section6.5 of this Summary. In 9 of the 14 areas, theresults indicate little or no impacts as follows:

Land Use – Estimated land use would be consis-tent with the INEEL Comprehensive Facility andLand Use Plan. The maximum additionalamount of land that would be converted to indus-trial use at the INEEL under the alternativesanalyzed in this EIS would be 22 acres. AtHanford, approximately 50 additional acrescould be converted to industrial use in the 200East Area. At both sites, this additional distur-bance would be less than 1 percent of the areacurrently used for industrial purposes.

Socioeconomics – DOE anticipates that totalINEEL employment will continue to decline.Future changes in employment as a result ofactivities described in this EIS would be withinthe normal range of INEEL workforce changes,and would represent a continuation of currentsite employment that might otherwise be lower.Other activities at INTEC not related to alterna-tives discussed in this EIS would take place

S-41 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

for minority or low-income populations to bedisproportionately affected. Accordingly, nodisproportionately high and adverse impactswould be expected for minority or low-incomepopulations.

Utilities and Energy - Annual use of fossil fuelcould increase by as much as 6.3 million gal-lons and electricity use could increase by asmuch as 52,000 megawatt-hours. Annual usageof electricity in megawatt-hours per year couldincrease by 59 percent relative to the 1996INEEL baseline. This increase and the baselinetogether are less than one-third of the INEELelectric system capacity.

6.2 Impacts of the WasteProcessing Alternatives

Most of the actions to implement the waste pro-cessing alternatives would occur before 2035, aswould many of their associated impacts. After2035, environmental impacts would resultmainly from storing waste. In 5 of the 14 areasanalyzed, the results indicate some impacts,although they are generally small.

These areas include air, traffic and transporta-tion, health and safety, waste and materials, andfacility accidents.

6.2.1 AIR RESOURCES

Impacts to air resources could result from con-struction activities and normal operations for thewaste processing alternatives.

Construction

The primary impact of construction activitieswould involve the generation of fugitive dust,which would include respirable particulate mat-ter. While dust generation would be mitigatedby the application of water and soil additives,relatively high levels of particulates could stilloccur in localized areas. The annual averageconcentrations are estimated to be as high as 1and 5 percent of the applicable standard forrespirable particulate matter at the INEELboundary nearest to the construction site and atpublic road locations, respectively. Levels of allother criteria pollutants are predicted to be smallfractions of applicable standards.

Construction activities at the Hanford Site wouldproduce nitrogen dioxide levels that are esti-mated to be 8 percent of the Federal and State ofWashington ambient air standard. All other pol-lutants are estimated to be less than 1 percent ofapplicable standards. Respirable particulatematter is not expected to exceed 16 percent ofFederal or state standards.

Normal Operations

Waste processing and related activities wouldresult in emissions through filtered exhaust sys-tems at INTEC. Table S-2 compares total radio-logical air impacts to the maximally exposedoffsite individual, noninvolved worker, and tothe general population. The annual collectivedose to the surrounding population (personsresiding within a 50-mile radius of INTEC) isestimated to be 0.11 person-rem per year or lessunder all alternatives. Offsite doses would bemainly attributable to the intake of iodine-129through the food-chain pathway.

Populations

Minority: individuals who are AmericanIndian or Alaskan Native; Asian orPacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanicorigin; or Hispanic. For this EIS, aminority population is one in which theminority population exceeds 50 per-cent, or the minority population per-centage of the affected area ismeaningfully greater than the minoritypopulation percentage in the generalpopulation.

Low income: individuals with an incomebelow the poverty level defined by theU.S. Bureau of the Census. A low-income population is one in which 25percent or more of the persons in thepopulation live in poverty.

tion exposure during normal, incident-free trans-portation or from accidents, as well as from non-radiological vehicle-related accidents.

During incident-free transportation of radioac-tive waste, the population living and travelingalong the transport route and the transportationworkers would be exposed to radiation from theshipments. The total latent cancer fatalities for

DOE/EIS-0287 S-42

Summary

Nonradiological air emissions would be highestfor the Full Separations, Planning Basis, HotIsostatic Pressed Waste, and Vitrification withCalcine Separations Options. These emissionswould result from fossil fuel consumption tomeet the energy requirements (steam) of thewaste processing facilities. All levels would bewell below applicable standards. Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration regulations require thatagencies evaluate new projects to see if theyincrease air pollution levels. These regulationsapply to radioactive and nonradioactive pollu-tants. The Planning Basis Option poses thehighest impact due to emissions of sulfur diox-ide, which would use up 40 percent of the releaseincrement allowed for this pollutant in a 24-hourperiod at Class I areas under the regulations.This includes baseline sources and plannedfuture projects. Concentrations would be wellwithin allowable limits for all waste processingalternatives.

Emissions of fine particulate matter and nitrogendioxide can also affect visual resources.Conservative screening-level analyses wereapplied to estimate potential impacts related tovisibility degradation at the Craters of the MoonWilderness Area, about 27 miles west-southwestof the INTEC. The results indicate that therewould be no perceptible changes in contrast forall alternatives, but potential changes related tocolor shift could result. These would be wellwithin the acceptable visibility criteria for aClass I area. For the Final EIS, a differentmethod was used to model visibility impacts atCraters of the Moon Wilderness Area andYellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.With these new methods, the Planning BasisOption (a bounding option for air qualityimpacts) could result in a small exceedance ofthe 5 percent acceptance criterion for the lightextinction change for 8 days in a 5-year period.Based on recommendations from the NationalPark Service, DOE used the CALPUFF modelto assess long-range impacts (for 50 kilometersand beyond of the release).

6.2.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

Transportation is a factor in alternatives thatinvolve construction and operation of facilitiesand the shipment of waste both on and offsite.Transportation impacts could result from radia-

What is a rem?

A unit of radiation dose.

Waste processing and facility disposition activi-ties analyzed in this EIS could result in radiationexposures to workers and the public during oper-ations. Additional radiation exposures couldresult from facility accidents. Any radiationexposures from waste processing and facilitydisposition activities would be in addition to expo-sures that normally occur from natural sourcessuch as cosmic radiation (involuntary exposure)and artificial sources such as chest x-rays (vol-untary exposure).

The effects of radiation exposure on humansdepend on the kind of radiation received, thetotal amount absorbed by the body, and the tis-sues involved. A rem is calculated by a formulathat takes these three factors into account.The average individual in the United Statesreceives a dose of about 0.36 rem or 360 mil-lirem per year from natural and medical sourcescombined.

What is a person-rem?A unit of collective radiation dose.

The collective dose to an exposed population (orpopulation dose) is calculated by summing theestimated doses received by each member of theexposed population. The total dose received bythe exposed population over a given period oftime is measured in person-rem. For example,if 1,000 people each received a dose of 1 mil-lirem (0.001 rem), the collective dose would be1,000 persons × 0.001 rem = 1.0 person-rem.Alternatively, the same collective dose (1.0 per-son-rem) would result from 500 people each ofwhom received a dose of 2 millirem.

S-43 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

the shipments would be the sum of the estimatednumber of radiation-related latent cancer fatali-ties for transportation workers and the generalpopulation. Table S-2 compares the estimatedlatent cancer fatalities to transportation workersand the public for truck transportation ofradioactive materials over the life of the alterna-tives. Rail shipment impacts for transportationof radioactive materials are about 10 times lowerthan truck transportation-related impacts.

Table S-2 compares the estimated total fatalitiesdue to vehicle accidents assumed to occur duringshipment of radioactive wastes. New informa-tion indicates that vitrification of INEEL mixedHLW at the Hanford Site would result in alarger volume of HLW glass than was analyzedin the Draft EIS. Table S-2 presents the revisedtransportation impacts for the MinimumINEEL Processing Alternative associated withthis larger vitrified waste volume.

6.2.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY

Waste processing activities can result in healthand safety impacts to the public and workers.This EIS evaluates the following types of healthimpacts:

• Radiological health impacts

• Nonradiological health impacts from car-cinogenic and toxic air pollutants

• Occupational health and safety impacts forworkers, based on historical injury and ill-ness rates.

Construction Impacts

All alternatives would result in some amount ofradiation exposure to construction workers.Most of the waste processing alternatives andtreatment options would result in similar levelsof total collective worker dose ranging from anestimated 37 to 200 person-rem. The highestcollective dose would occur under the PlanningBasis and Direct Cement Waste Options. DOEestimates that this would result in 0.078 latentcancer fatality for these options.

Nonradiological emissions associated with con-struction activities would result primarily fromfugitive dust caused by the disturbance of landand from the combustion of fossil fuels in con-struction equipment. DOE has evaluated thepotential impacts from these sources and hasconcluded that construction-related impacts toworkers from criteria pollutant emissions areexpected to fall within applicable standards, asdiscussed in the air quality section of this EIS.

The highest total number of total recordablecases (includes work-related death, illness, orinjury) during construction is estimated at 230for the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative (at Hanford), 200 for the PlanningBasis Option, and 190 for the Full SeparationsOption, because of the large number of totalworker hours associated with these options.

Normal Operations

During normal operations, waste processing andrelated activities at INTEC would result inreleases of radionuclides to the atmosphere, butthere would be no discharge of radioactive liquideffluents under any of the waste processing alter-natives or treatment options that would result inoffsite radiation doses. Therefore, DOE only

What is a latent cancerfatality (LCF)?

Normal operations and accidents that couldresult in a release in radioactivity pose ahazard to the population exposed to such arelease. LCFs measure the expected numberof additional cancer deaths in a populationas a result of a given exposure to cancercausing agents such as radiation. Deathfrom cancer as a result of exposure to radi-ation may occur at any time after the expo-sure takes place. Other health effects thatcould result from exposure to radiationinclude non-fatal cancers and geneticdefects in the future population. This EISfocuses on LCFs as the primary health riskfrom radiation exposure and estimatesLCFs as the basis for comparing radiation-induced impacts among alternatives.

DOE/EIS-0287 S-44

Summary

How is an LCF calculated?Radiation Dose: Radioactivity from allsources combined, including natural back-ground radiation and medical sources, pro-duces about a 0.36 rem dose to the averageindividual per year.

Probability: The probability of receiving theabove dose is essentially 100 percent.

Average lifetime: The average lifetime is con-sidered to be 72 years .

Lifetime dose: Over 72 years, an individualwould receive 72 years x 0.36 rem per year orapproximately 26 rem.

Population dose: If 1,000 individuals eachreceive 26 rem, then the so-called collectivedose or dose to the population is 1,000 per-sons x 26 rem or 26,000 person-rem.

Risk factor: The International Commission onRadiological Protection has determined thatfor every person-rem of collective dose,approximately 0.0005 individuals from thegeneral public could ultimately develop a radi-ologically induced fatal cancer.

Estimation of LCFs: For a population exposedto a release of radioactive material (such asfrom a facility accident), LCFs are estimatedby multiplying the resulting dose to the popu-lation (in person-rem) by a factor of 0.0005LCF per person-rem. For the example residentpopulation of 1,000 individuals receiving apopulation dose of 26,000 person-rem fromall anticipated sources, the number of result-ing LCFs would be estimated as 26,000 per-son-rem X 0.0005 LCF per person-rem, or 13LCFs. For a hypothetical facility accidentthat results in a population exposure of5,000 person-rem, the number of resultingLCFs would be estimated as 5,000 person-rem X 0.0005 LCF per person-rem, or 2.5LCFs. The total estimated health effects in apopulation as a result of a given exposure toradiation can be estimated by multiplying theestimated LCFs by 1.46 based on data alsoprovided by the International Commission onRadiological Protection.

Per Capita Population Risk: Dividing theanticipated LCFs from a radioactive releaseby the affected population provides a per-spective on the relative per capita increasein cancer risk to that population. For theexample resident population of 1,000 individ-uals, the hypothetical facility accident thatresults in 1 LCF, poses an additional percapita risk to the resident population of0.001, or one in a thousand.

Individual Risk: Although the radiation riskdata presented above, strictly apply only tolarge populations of individuals, mathemati-cally one can calculate the increase in risk ofcancer to an individual by multiplying thedose to that individual as a result of anexposure to radiation by 0.0005.

Sometimes, calculations of the number ofLCFs associated with radiation exposure donot yield whole numbers, and especially inenvironmental applications, may yield num-bers less than 1.0. For example, if each indi-vidual in a population of 100,000 received atotal dose of 0.001 rem, the collective dosewould be 100 person-rem and the corre-sponding estimated number of LCFs wouldbe 0.05 (100,000 persons x 0.001 rem x0.0005 LCF per person-rem). How shouldone interpret a number of LCFs less than 1,such as 0.05? The answer is to interpretthe result as a statistical estimate. Thatis, 0.05 is the average number of deathsthat would result if the same exposure situ-ation were applied to many different groupsof 100,000 people. For most groups, no onewould incur an LCF from the 0.001 rem doseeach member would have received. In a smallfraction of the groups, 1 LCF would result; inexceptionally few groups 2 or more LCFswould occur. The average number of deathsover all of the groups would be 0.05 LCF(just as the average of 0, 0, 0, and 1 is 1/4,or 0.25). The most likely outcome for anysingle group is 0 LCFs.

S-45 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

calculated potential health effects from airbornereleases of radioactivity. Based on the annualair impacts data, the health effects over the lifeof each alternative, in terms of latent cancerfatalities, were estimated. These calculatedresults are provided in Table S-2.

DOE also evaluated the potential carcinogenicand noncarcinogenic toxic effects of nonradio-logical emissions during waste processing oper-ations. For the individual toxic air pollutants,the maximum concentrations for each of the pol-lutants occur most frequently from the PlanningBasis Option. However, all hazard quotients areestimated to be much less than 1.0, indicating noexpected adverse health effects.

The highest carcinogenic air pollutant impactsare projected for those options that involve thegreatest amount of fossil fuel combustion, mostnotably the Planning Basis Option. For thisoption, nickel concentrations are estimated to beas high as 10 percent of the State of Idaho stan-dard at the INEEL boundary. All other carcino-gens are expected to be at very low levels andwould have correspondingly low health impacts.

The highest total number of total recordablecases (includes work-related death, illness, orinjury) during operations is estimated at 480for the Planning Basis Option and 400 for theFull Separations Option, because of the largenumber of total worker hours associated withthese options.

6.2.4 WASTE AND MATERIALS

This EIS examines impacts associated with thegeneration of both radioactive and nonradioac-tive wastes resulting from construction andwaste processing operations. Process wastestreams may include industrial waste, haz-ardous waste, mixed low-level waste, and low-level waste. Industrial wastes are neitherradioactive nor hazardous and are disposed ofonsite.

Construction activities produce relatively littleradioactive and hazardous waste. The greatestconstruction impacts for a waste processingalternative would depend on the process waste

type considered. For industrial waste and haz-ardous waste, the Planning Basis Option pro-duces the most waste at 6.0×104 and 880 cubicmeters, respectively. For low-level waste, theVitrification with Calcine Separations Optiongenerates the most at 1,700 cubic meters. Formixed low-level waste, nearly all alternativesand options produce the same amount at 1,100cubic meters. Table S-2 presents the total pro-cess waste volumes that would result for theoperations period for all waste processing alter-natives.

The No Action Alternative would leave approxi-mately 4,400 cubic meters of mixed HLW cal-cine in the bin sets and 1.0 million gallons ofmixed transuranic waste/SBW in the Tank Farm.The Continued Current Operations Alternativewould calcine the mixed transuranic waste/SBWand empty the Tank Farm tanks down to theheels. This alternative would leave approxi-mately 6,000 cubic meters of calcine in the binsets.

Product wastes are the manufactured productresulting from treating and preparing theINTEC wastes for disposal. Product wastesmay include grouted low-level waste,transuranic waste, canned calcine, or treatedHLW. Table S-2 presents and compares thetotal product waste volumes that would resultfrom each of the waste processing alternatives.DOE obtained updated information indicatingthat vitrification of INEEL mixed HLW at theHanford Site would result in a larger volume ofHLW glass than was analyzed in the Draft EIS.Under the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative, DOE had estimated that 730 cubicmeters of vitrified mixed HLW would be pro-duced and transported back to the INEEL.After the Draft EIS was issued, DOE Richlandidentified that their process for treating theINTEC HLW calcine would change. Thischange included dissolution of the calcine andraising the pH to 12 to be compatible with theirprocess. This change resulted in an increase ofthe vitrified product. Based on this informa-tion, DOE now estimates that 3,500 cubicmeters of vitrified mixed HLW would be pro-duced under that alternative. Table S-2 pre-sents revised product waste volumes for theMinimum INEEL Processing Alternative.

DOE/EIS-0287 S-46

Summary

6.2.5 FACILITY ACCIDENTS(OFF-NORMAL OPERATIONS)

A potential exists for accidents at facilities asso-ciated with the treatment, storage, and disposalof radioactive and hazardous materials.Accidents can be categorized into events thatoccur (a) more frequently than once in a thou-sand years (abnormal event), (b) less frequentlythan once in a thousand years but more fre-quently than once in a million years (designbasis event), or (c) less frequently than once in amillion years (beyond design basis events).

Two events involving the long-term degradationand eventual failure of the underground tanksand a calcine bin set could occur under the NoAction and Continued Current OperationsAlternatives. Under these alternatives, mixedtransuranic waste/SBW and/or mixed HLW cal-cine are stored indefinitely and it can be assumedthat over time the radioactive and hazardousmaterials would be released into the environ-ment. However, there are also bounding acci-dent scenarios (see definition in text box)associated with these alternatives, including theseismic rupture of an underground tank or bin setand the failure of a bin set due to flooding, whichare discussed below with other selected wasteprocessing alternative accidents.

In discussing anticipated risks posed by potentialaccidents, it should be noted that the longer anoperation continues, the longer the window ofvulnerability and the larger the probability thatthe accident will eventually occur. Therefore,No Action and Continued Current OperationsAlternatives that do not result in road-readywaste and involve the storage of this waste atINTEC for an indefinite period of time, exhibitthe longest window of vulnerability and there-fore the highest anticipated risk. In fact, theprobability of the bounding abnormal accidentfor the No Action and Continued CurrentOperations Alternatives is a factor of nine morelikely than the comparable abnormal accidentsfor other alternatives that place waste in a road-ready form over a 35-year period.

Bounding accidents for the No Action andContinued Current Operations Alternatives alsoproduce large releases due to long-term degrada-tion impacts on facility safety features.

AccidentAn unplanned, unexpected, and undesiredevent that can occur during or as a resultof implementing an EIS alternative andthat has the potential to impact humanhealth and the environment.

Accident ScenarioA set of causal events starting with anaccident "initiating event" that can leadto a release of radioactive or hazardousmaterials with the potential to causeinjury or death.

Reasonably Foreseeable Accident

An accident scenario that does notrequire extraordinary initiating events orunrealistic assumptions about the pro-gression of events or the resultingreleases.

Bounding AccidentThe reasonably foreseeable accident withthe largest impact on human health ineach frequency category for each alterna-tive.

Bounding Accident Risk EstimationRisks due to accidents are estimated veryconservatively in this EIS. In estimatingthe frequency and severity of boundingaccidents, no credit was taken for engi-neered safety systems and design fea-tures that would be incorporated in anactual facility, nor for other mitigatingmeasures such as emergency response orpersonnel evacuations.

Likewise, human health impacts fromreleases of radioactivity were conserva-tively estimated by locating hypotheticalreceptors close to sources and by usingvery conservative meteorological assump-tions. Although this approach overstatesthe risk of accidents, it provides a level ofcertainty that the estimated risksreported in this EIS are not likely to beexceeded and it provides a viable basis forcomparing one alternative to another.

S-47 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

For all waste processing alternatives, accidentshave been analyzed according to the frequencyrange of the event. Bounding accidents, in termsof radiological dose to workers or the public orin terms of release of hazardous materials, arediscussed below along with other accidents thatwere selected based on their potential impacts toworkers, the public, or the environment.Additional information on postulated accidentsis provided in Table S-2.

• An external event results in a releasefrom the Vitrification Facility (BeyondDesign Basis Event).

The overall bounding accident involves anexternal event resulting in a release fromthe Vitrification Facility that would be builtand operated as part of the Full Separationsand Planning Basis Options. For this event,the analysis predicted a dose of 150,000 per-son-rem to the offsite population within 50miles of INTEC. This could result in up to76 latent cancer fatalities due to air impactsfor the exposed population. Should thisaccident occur under the DirectVitrification Alternative (Vitrification withCalcine Separations), the results would beequivalent.

This accident would release molten glassfines associated with the vitrification pro-cess and, while the accident would result inan offsite impact, long-term environmentalimpacts would be limited by rapid solidifi-cation of the molten material. Most of themolten glass released during this type ofaccident would be deposited on the groundnear the vitrification facility. Leaching ofcontaminants into the soil would be mini-mal, allowing for expedited mitigation andcleanup. The molten waste is in a very con-centrated form, however, and, if released,would present a significant impact to bothworkers and to offsite populations if notremediated.

Another design basis accident, an externalevent associated with a calcine bin set,could result in a bin set failure. The anal-ysis predicts that this accident would resultin less severe consequences than the aboveevent.

• An earthquake breaches an under-ground waste storage tank full ofmixed transuranic waste/SBW, releas-ing contents to the soil and contami-nating the groundwater (Design BasisEvent).

The No Action Alternative would continueto store mixed transuranic waste/SBW inthe underground storage tanks at INTEC.For purposes of analysis, this EIS conserva-tively assumes that an earthquake occurs inthe year 2001, rupturing a full storage tank.(In actuality, the likelihood of this designbasis accident is less than once in 10,000years.) The analysis for a single tank failurepredicts a release of iodine-129 to thegroundwater that is estimated to reach 13percent of the EPA maximum contaminantlevel (i.e., as allowed for drinking waterresources) assuming no mitigation takesplace.

• A flood induced failure of a bin setcauses a release of stored calcine(Design Basis Event).

This accident is assumed to cause failure ofa bin set and release stored calcine to theenvironment. For this postulated event, theestimated dose to the population within 50miles of INTEC is 57,000 person-rem. Thiscould result in 29 latent cancer fatalities.

• A degraded bin set fails in a seismicevent after 500 years (AbnormalEvent).

This accident is assumed to cause failureof a bin set and release stored calcinedirectly to the environment. For this pos-tulated event, the estimated dose to thepopulation within 50 miles of INTEC is530,000 person-rem. This could result in270 latent cancer fatalities. The accident ismore likely than either of the design basisevents or the beyond design basis eventdescribed above. Further, the impacts arelarger than the above events due to theamount of material assumed to enter theenvironment during the accident.

DOE/EIS-0287 S-48

Summary

Either long-term degradation of the calcinebin sets, a seismic event, an external event,or a flood could disperse mixed HLW cal-cine into the environment by air or water.Although the primary, short-term impact tothe maximally exposed individual and thepublic would be from airborne contamina-tion, the released calcine could be depositedonto soils surrounding the bins or movewith the surface water runoff to low-lyingareas, and some fraction of the calcine finescould resuspend in the air directly or as aresult of water evaporation. Direct groundcontamination from mixed HLW calcinecould be expected within a few miles of theINEEL. Calcine could also slowly dissolveand release some contaminants to thegroundwater. However, most of the avail-able contaminants would be bound up in thefirst few feet of the soil column. Iodine-129and plutonium could migrate to the ground-water over a very long period of time. Anygroundwater impacts would be much lowerthan those analyzed for other accidents suchas the seismic induced failure of a storagetank full of mixed transuranic waste/SBW.

• A criticality occurs due to mishandlingof transuranic waste (Design BasisEvent).

Both the Transuranic Separations Optionand the Minimum INEEL ProcessingAlternative have the potential for a nuclearcriticality accident. In both cases there is alow probability that the mishandling oftransuranic waste in storage containerscould result in a criticality. This accidentcould result in a large dose to a nearby,unshielded worker that is estimated to be218 rem, representing an increased risk forthe worker of developing a latent fatal can-cer of 1 in 5. For this accident, the dose tothe maximally exposed individual at the siteboundary is estimated to be 3 millirem.

• A 15,000 gallon inventory of storedkerosene located at INTEC to supportoperations of the New Waste CalciningFacility is spilled (Abnormal Event).

This event is estimated to cause peak ben-zene groundwater concentrations of 24times the EPA maximum contaminant level,or 120 micrograms per liter. Such a releasewould also be the maximum reasonablyforeseeable hazardous material accident, butno fatalities would be expected. The ben-zene component of the kerosene could reachthe groundwater under normal precipitationconditions in about 200 years. A less prob-able occurrence would be an external eventaffecting both kerosene storage tanks creat-ing a 30,000-gallon spill. This beyonddesign basis event is estimated to cause apeak benzene groundwater contamination of180 micrograms per liter.

In both of these cases the 15,000-gallontank of kerosene was assumed to spill andform a pool about 3 inches deep. Afterpooling, the kerosene could seep into theavailable soil pore space to a depth of about16 inches and could cover an area about 100to 150 feet in diameter. It is estimated thatthe soil concentration could approach 100milligrams of kerosene per kilogram of soil.If the kerosene spill were not remediated, itcould move through the soil toward theaquifer. However, since INTEC would beoperational during a kerosene spill, emer-gency crews would take immediate action tostop the spill, halt the spread of kerosene,and dispose of contaminated soil.

• Failure of ammonia tank connections(Beyond Design Basis Event).

This event is the bounding release scenariofor hazardous chemicals with the greatestpotential consequences to workers. Theevent assumes that ammonia tank connec-tions fail resulting in a spill of the entirecontents of the 3,000-gallon ammonia tankat a rate of 15,000 pounds per minute ofliquid ammonia. A fraction of the ammo-nia would flash to vapor as it escapes thetank. The remainder would settle and forma boiling pool and would not enter thegroundwater. For this event, the peakatmospheric concentration is estimated tobe much greater than Emergency

S-49 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

Response Planning Guideline-2 (ERPG-2)at 3,600 meters. Exposure to airborneconcentrations greater than ERPG-2 val-ues for a period of 1 hour would result in alikelihood that a person would experienceor develop irreversible or other serioushealth effects or symptoms that couldimpact a person's ability to take protectiveaction. This accident would require evac-uation of workers at INTEC and nearbyfacilities.

6.3 Impacts of theFacility DispositionAlternatives

This EIS also evaluates the impacts of the facil-ity disposition alternatives. Disposition of newand existing facilities could have both short-termand long-term impacts. The following subsec-tions highlight the major impacts identified inair, traffic and transportation, health and safety,waste and materials, and accidents.

6.3.1 AIR RESOURCES

Air emissions could result from disposition ofeither new facilities constructed to implementthe waste processing alternatives or existingHLW treatment and management facilities atINTEC. These emissions would be temporary innature, and, in general, much lower than thosethat would result from operations. Impacts asso-ciated with disposition of existing facilitieswould be well below applicable INEEL and EPAstandards. No final closure activities would beassociated with the No Action Alternative.


Based on estimated levels of INEEL employ-ment for facility disposition activities, DOEwould expect that traffic flows for Highway 20would be virtually unaffected during dispositionactivities of new facilities for any of the wasteprocessing alternatives or existing facilitiesassociated with HLW management. The levelof service would remain essentially unchanged.


Health and safety impacts to workers and thepublic could potentially result from dispositionof either new facilities constructed to implementthe waste processing alternatives or existingHLW management facilities at INTEC.

Disposition of New FacilitiesAssociated with Waste ProcessingAlternatives

No disposition activities would be associatedwith the No Action Alternative; however, for allother waste processing alternatives, the newfacilities would be designed for clean closure.The highest total collective dose to involvedworkers for the entire disposition period for newfacilities would occur under the Hot IsostaticPressed Waste and Vitrification with CalcineSeparations Options, corresponding to 0.12latent cancer fatality (See Table S-2). Offsiteradiation impacts are estimated to be very smallfor all alternatives.

DOE also evaluated the potential for occupa-tional injuries. The highest impacts for the entiredisposition period for new facilities would beassociated with the Hot Isostatic Pressed Wasteand Vitrification with Calcine SeparationsOptions: 79 total recordable injury cases. Theimpacts for these options are similar to theimpacts predicted for the Full Separations,Planning Basis, Early Vitrification andVitrification without Calcine SeparationsOptions, which are estimated to result in 68 to 74total recordable injury cases.

Disposition of ExistingFacilities Associated withHLW Management

The collective involved worker dose would behighest for the Clean Closure Alternative due tothe extensive decontamination efforts requiredfor removing contaminated materials in order toreduce radioactivity to minimum detectable lev-els. DOE estimates that the maximum total col-lective worker dose would be 2,300 person-remwith a corresponding estimated health impact of0.91 latent cancer fatalities for the period of dis-

DOE/EIS-0287 S-50

Summary

position (approximately for the years 2035 to2095).

Annual radiation doses associated with airborneradionuclide emissions from the Tank Farm andbin sets under the facility disposition alternativeswere evaluated in this EIS. The highest annualradiation dose would be associated with theClosure to Landfill Standards Alternative; how-ever, this dose would still be much less than theapplicable standard for annual exposure. Themaximum collective population dose for all clo-sure alternatives would result in nearly zerolatent cancer fatalities.

DOE also estimated the occupational safetyimpacts and has estimated values for lost work-days and total recordable cases. DOE expectsthe highest number of lost workdays and totalrecordable cases to occur under the CleanClosure Alternative due to the larger number ofworkers and duration of disposition activitiesassociated with that alternative. For that alterna-tive, the total lost workdays and recordableinjuries are estimated to be 2,500 and 340,respectively. Worker occupational health andsafety impacts for all other facility dispositionalternatives would be much lower.

Long-term Impacts fromFacility Disposition

The largest source of contamination that couldreach the public through a groundwater pathwaywould result from the No Action Alternative,where mixed transuranic waste/SBW is left inthe underground storage tanks and calcine is leftin the bin sets. DOE's analysis assumes thatafter 500 years the Tank Farm and bin setswould begin releasing their contents to the soilbeneath them. The primary means by whichcontamination could reach the public would beby leaching through the soil into the aquifer nearthe facilities. DOE assumes that the maximumindividual dose under the No Action Alternativewould be incurred by a hypothetical futureINTEC maximally exposed resident who isassumed to obtain drinking water from a welldrilled into the contaminated aquifer. The levelof groundwater contamination could be as highas 2,600 picocuries per liter of technetium-99,resulting in a total lifetime dose from all path-ways and all radionuclides of 490 millirem,

with a probability of 2.5×10-4 latent cancerfatality.


Waste would be generated from disposition ofboth the new facilities built to support the wasteprocessing alternatives and the existing facili-ties used in the HLW program. For new facili-ties, decontamination operations would generateas much as 95,000 cubic meters of industrialwaste for the Direct Cement Waste Option and2,600 cubic meters of hazardous waste underthe Steam Reforming Option, and as much as80,000 cubic meters of low-level waste underthe Direct Vitrification Alternative, and 900cubic meters of mixed low-level waste under theFull Separations and Vitrification with CalcineSeparations Options. For disposition of existingHLW facilities, the Clean Closure Alternativewould generate the largest estimated volumesfor 3 of 4 waste types: industrial waste (180,000cubic meters); low-level waste (5,700 cubicmeters); and mixed low-level waste (11,000cubic meters). The Performance-Based ClosureAlternative would generate the largest volume ofhazardous waste (500 cubic meters).

6.3.5 FACILITY DISPOSITIONACCIDENTS

A potential exists for accidents as a result offacility disposition. Health and safety impactsfrom accidents during facility disposition canresult from trauma, fire, and exposure to releasesof radioactive and hazardous materials. For thevarious facilities disposition alternatives, thepotential for health impacts as a result of radia-tion or hazardous material accidents was foundto be quite limited, because inventories ofradioactive and hazardous materials during facil-ities disposition are expected to be several ordersof magnitude less than during facility operations.

The maximum reasonably foreseeable impactfrom facility disposition would consist of an esti-mated two fatalities as a result of industrial acci-dents such as trauma, fire, spills, or falls duringclean closure of the Tank Farm. These accidentswere evaluated on the basis of the type anddegree of facility cleanup required.

S-51 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

6.4 Cumulative Impacts

Adding the impact of an action to the impacts ofother past, present, and reasonably foreseeablefuture actions can result in cumulative impacts tothe environment. These individual actions,which may be undertaken by government agen-cies, private businesses, or individuals, can beminor, but the combined or "cumulative" effectcould be significant. Cumulative impacts aresummarized below.

6.4.1 AIR RESOURCES

The cumulative dose to the maximally exposedoffsite individual would be about 0.16 milliremper year under the Continued Current OperationsAlternative, Planning Basis Option, Hot IsostaticPressed Waste Option, and Direct Cement WasteOption. The cumulative dose includes the dosefrom waste processing activities and is virtuallythe same as the maximum baseline dose of 0.16millirem per year. The total dose would also beless than 2 percent of the 10 millirem per yearairborne dose limit specified in the NationalEmissions Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants. This total dose would be in additionto the estimated annual 360-millirem dose fromnatural background radiation.

Quantitative evaluation of air pollutant impactsdetermined that all applicable air quality stan-dards would be met at the INEEL site boundaryfor all reasonably foreseeable site operations andat all other offsite locations within a 50-mileradius.

6.4.2 WATER RESOURCES

Past activities have contaminated soils andgroundwater under INTEC. The CERCLA pro-cess is currently underway to investigate andremediate the risks posed by these contaminants.Although the waste processing alternatives donot significantly contaminate groundwater,some facility disposition alternatives leave con-tamination that could eventually migrate togroundwater. Therefore, any facility dispositionalternative presented in this EIS that leaves con-taminants in place must be evaluated in the con-text of the cumulative risk of contaminant

loading to the groundwater. The important con-sideration in such an evaluation is the time it willtake contaminants to reach the groundwater andwhether or not concentrations will exceed drink-ing water standards.

The No Action and Continued CurrentOperations Alternatives and any alternativethat disposes of Class A or Class C-type groutnear INTEC have the potential to add contam-ination to that already existing. Cumulativeimpacts that could occur under those alterna-tives are described below.

No Action Alternative - This alternative wouldleave mixed transuranic waste/SBW in the tanksindefinitely. If the tanks were to leak, contami-nants could migrate to the groundwater and addcumulatively to any concentrations present fromhistorical contributions. The degree of cumula-tive impact would depend on when the leakoccurs and how much waste is released. Forexample, if all the contents of a single tankwere to leak to the soil column in 2001, thecumulative peak concentration of iodine-129from the tank and from historical contributionsto the aquifer would be approximately 0.13 pic-ocuries per liter in the year 2075. Anotherradionuclide of concern, technetium-99, wouldprovide a cumulative peak concentration of 100picocuries per liter, or 11 percent of the drink-ing water standard. This peak would occur in2095. Total plutonium for the tank releasewould peak at 1.1 picocuries per liter in theyear 6000. There would be no cumulativeeffect since the plutonium from historic sourceswould have dispersed by that time. Althoughsuch a leak can be postulated during the periodof assumed institutional control, DOE has mech-anisms in place to detect and mitigate such anevent. Furthermore, the design life of the stor-age tanks is estimated to be well in excess of 500years.

Under the No Action Alternative, all five tankscould eventually degrade and release the entireinventory of mixed transuranic waste/SBW tothe ground. For analysis purposes, this event isassumed to begin to occur in 500 years. At thattime, the strontium-90 in the tanks would havedecayed sufficiently so that it would not pose asignificant radioactive risk. Iodine-129 wouldalso be released to the groundwater but theiodine-129 in the groundwater from past INTEC

DOE/EIS-0287 S-52

Summary

operations would have peaked, become diluted,and moved down-gradient in the aquifer.Therefore, the peak iodine-129 groundwaterconcentration would be 47 percent of the max-imum contaminant level. Technetium-99would also be released in this event, and thepeak groundwater concentration would beabout 42 percent of the current maximum con-taminant level. For plutonium, the total contri-bution from the five tanks that could eventuallyreach the groundwater would be very small andwould lag behind the contribution from pastINTEC operations by greater than 500 years.Total plutonium would peak about 4,000 yearsafter the five-tank failure and would be aboutone half the current regulatory maximum con-taminant level.

Continued Current Operations Alternative -This alternative would calcine all remainingmixed transuranic waste/SBW and store thecalcine in the bin sets indefinitely. As a result,the bin set source terms would be somewhatincreased from those evaluated for the NoAction Alternative. The volume of calcinestored in the bin sets would be increased byabout 20 percent from that evaluated for the NoAction Alternative. The amount of radioactivity(total curies) remaining in the bin sets would beincreased by about 5 percent.

If a bin set full of mixed HLW calcine degradesand fails during a seismic event after 500 years,the radionuclides released from this accidentwould be a fraction of the radionuclidesreleased from the assumed failure of five fullmixed transuranic waste/SBW tanks at 500years described above. For the bin set failure at500 years, the percent of the radionuclideinventory released the first year compared tothe inventory released from the 5-tank failureis: iodine-129 (1 percent); technetium-99 (11percent); neptunium-237 (7 percent), and totalplutonium (less than 1 percent). The additionalrisk for developing cancer for a potentialgroundwater user after bin set failure at 500years was not analyzed since groundwaterimpacts would be easily bounded by the 5-tankfailure at 500 years.

The nonradiological impacts of this accidentwould also be bounded by the 5-tank failureaccident. The most impacting contaminantsare beryllium (8 percent of the 5-tank failure

inventory) and molybdenum (4 percent of the 5-tank failure inventory). All other nonradionu-clides would be less than 1 percent of theinventory released from the 5-tank failure.Therefore, the impacts from nonradionuclidecontaminants released from the failure of a binset would be bounded by the 5-tank failure at500 years and the concentrations would bemuch less than drinking water standards.

Low-Level Class A and Class C-Type GroutAlternatives - Facility disposition alternativesthat include filling the Tank Farm and bin setswith low-level waste, Class A or Class C-typegrout would eventually release contaminants togroundwater. Under these alternatives, DOEassumed that the contaminants would not beavailable for transport to groundwater for 500years when the tanks, bin sets, and disposalunits are assumed to degrade. Further, evenafter degradation, the release of contaminantswould be relatively slow because grout chem-istry can be formulated to specifically controlrelease of contaminants and the rate at whichthese contaminants migrate to groundwater. Thecontaminant of concern at this time would beiodine-129, because strontium-90 would havedecayed sufficiently and plutonium would beremoved as part of the separations process. After500 years, the iodine-129 from historical prac-tices should have dispersed, so that any contri-bution from the grout would not result in asignificant cumulative impact.


Cumulative transportation impacts would resultfrom implementation of the alternatives for thisEIS in the context of continuing historicalradioactive shipments and reasonably foresee-able shipments. DOE conservatively estimatedthe total cumulative number of cancer fatalitiesresulting from domestic U.S. shipments of allkinds of radioactive materials from 1953 through2037 (DOE and non-DOE activities). Theseestimates indicate that these shipments collec-tively may cause 140 latent cancer fatalities tothe public. Of this total, 1.4 latent cancer fatali-ties could result from the radioactive waste ship-ments for the INEEL waste processingalternative with the highest impact (DirectCement Waste Option), and 25 latent cancerfatalities from other future INEEL programs.

S-53 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS


Airborne contamination is the principal transportpathway through which radioactive materialsfrom the INEEL affect workers and the public.The SNF and INEL EIS evaluated radiationreleases and subsequent offsite doses associatedwith INEEL operations. Doses have alwaysbeen small and within applicable radiation pro-tection standards. In 1996, for example, the col-lective radiological dose to the population within50 miles of the INEEL was 0.24 person-rem.This is representative of the average yearlyimpacts.

By comparison, the maximum annual collectivedose from the waste processing alternatives andtreatment options would add 0.11 person-rem tothe population living within 50 miles of INTEC.This dose would result from implementation ofthe Continued Current Operations Alternative,the Planning Basis Option, the Hot IsostaticPressed Waste Option, or the Direct CementWaste Option. Other projected releases fromnew facilities planned at the INEEL would addan additional 0.05 person-rem per year. Themost likely outcome is that no latent cancerfatalities would occur as a result of the cumula-tive radiation dose received by the populationfrom the waste processing alternatives and treat-ment options evaluated.

DOE believes that institutional controls at theINEEL would prevent public exposure to resid-ual radioactive materials left in place after facil-ities were closed until at least 2095. Materialsleft in place could potentially migrate to theaquifer, and public exposure could occur if peo-ple use the aquifer for drinking water and otherdomestic purposes.

The occupational radiation dose received by theentire INEEL workforce would result in about 1latent cancer fatality during 10 years of opera-tions. This compares to the natural lifetime inci-dence of fatal cancers in the same populationfrom all causes of about 2,000 over a 10-yearperiod. The greatest increases in collectiveworker dose, under the Direct Cement WasteOption, would be about 0.43 latent cancer fatal-ity over the life of the project. Public exposurecould also result from airborne contaminants due

to soil erosion or inadvertent intrusion into dis-posal areas.


Waste produced under the waste processing andfacility disposition alternatives analyzed in thisEIS would be in addition to existing wastealready stored or buried on the INEEL. Thisexisting waste includes (a) approximately145,000 cubic meters of low-level waste; (b)about 62,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste;and (c) industrial waste previously deposited inthe INEEL Landfill Complex (volumeunknown).

DOE estimates that the waste processing andfacility disposition alternatives would generateabout 1.0×104 cubic meters of low-level wasteand about 1.1×105 cubic meters of industrialwaste. The actual volumes generated may besmaller than estimated because waste minimiza-tion and recycling could reduce the quantity ofwaste.

6.5 Summary Comparison ofAlternatives

The five waste processing alternatives from theDraft EIS are briefly summarized in Figure S-14 along with the new Steam Reforming Option(under the Non-Separations Alternative) andthe new Direct Vitrification Alternative(selected by the State of Idaho as its PreferredAlternative for waste processing). A summaryof the facility disposition alternatives is pro-vided in Figure S-15. Figures S-14 and S-15identify those options that DOE prefers alongwith those not included under DOE’s preferredwaste processing alternative and the preferredfacility disposition alternative. A comparison ofimpacts for the five key areas of interest (airresources, transportation, waste and materials,health and safety, and accidents) is provided inTable S-2. The table presents analysis resultsfor waste processing alternatives, facility dispo-sition alternatives, and the increment ofINEEL cumulative impacts.

DOE/EIS-0287 S-54

Summary

NO ACTIONALTERNATIVE

Required under NEPA as a basis for comparison. · Leave mixed transuranic waste/SBW in tanks indefinitely. · Leave mixed HLW calcine in bin sets indefinitely.

SEPARATIONSALTERNATIVE

FULL SEPARATIONS OPTION

Different ways to chemically separate waste into fractions that can be disposed of differently depending on the type and level of radioactivity.

The most highly radioactive and long-lived radionuclides removed for disposal in a HLW repository.· Separate cesium, strontium, and transuranics from mixed HLW calcine and mixed transuranic waste/SBW & treat (vitrify) for disposal in a HLW repository.· Treat low-level waste (Class A-type) fraction for disposal offsite landfill.

CONTINUED CURRENT OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE

TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS OPTION

PLANNING BASIS OPTIONThis option mirrors the previously announced DOE decisions and agreements regarding mixed HLW and the mixed transuranic waste/SBW.· Upgrade and permit the calciner· Calcine the liquid mixed transuranic waste/SBW andadd to the bin sets.· Proceed as for Full Separations Option above except that the low-level waste fraction would be disposed of at offsite landfill. · Remove transuranics from tank heels and newly generated liquid waste and send to WIPP.

Does not result in a HLW fraction.· Remove transuranics from calcine and mixed transuranic waste/SBW,solidify and send to WIPP.· Grout low-level waste (Class C-type)

fraction containing cesium, strontium, disposal offsite landfill.

· Upgrade and permit calciner.· Calcine the liquid mixed transuranic waste/SBW, add to existing mixed HLW calcine in bin sets.· Remove transuranics from tank heels and newly generated liquid waste and send to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).· Grout remaining low-level waste (Class A-type) for disposal at INEEL.

· Store calcine in bin sets indefinitely. · Store calcine in bin sets indefinitely.

Waste ProcessingAlternatives at a Glance

These alternatives offer DOE different ways to treat mixed HLW currently stored in calcine bin sets and mixed transuranic waste/SBW currently stored in underground tanks so that these wastes can be safely stored and properly disposed of.These alternatives differ in the kinds of technology used to treat the waste, specifically, whether the calciner will be upgraded and permitted for treating the liquid mixed transuranic waste/SBW and whether waste will be separated into fractions for different disposal destinations.These alternatives also differ in the kind of disposal options available for mixed low-level waste fractions produced as a result of treatment alternatives.The timeframe of the waste processing alternatives spans approximately through the year 2035. The year 2035 is the target date in the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order for DOE to have all the calcined mixed HLW ready for shipment to a storage facility or repository outside of Idaho. Long-term impacts (beyond 2035) associated with waste processing alternatives that include onsite disposal of low-level waste (Class A-type and Class C-type) are carried over to the facility disposition alternatives, which evaluate impacts associated with the long term closure of HLW facilities at INTEC.Projects and facilities are identified individually and can be combined in a building block fashion to develop other waste processing alternatives.

S-55 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

FIGURE .Waste processing alternativesat a glance.

Preferred Alternative

MINIMUM INEEL PROCESSING ALTERNATIVE


HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTION

DIRECT CEMENT WASTE OPTION

EARLY VITRIFICATION OPTION

Mixed HLW calcine would be sent to the Hanford Site in Washington State for treatment and mixed transuranic waste/SBW would be treated at INEEL.

· At INEEL, process mixed transuranic waste/SBW and tank heels to remove cesium and grout remainder for shipment to WIPP.

Different ways to immobilize the waste through solidification without separating waste fractions by type and level of radioactivity.

Creates a non-leaching, glass-ceramic waste.· Upgrade and permit the calciner· Calcine the liquid mixed transuranic waste/SBW and add to bin sets.· Blend calcine with silica and titanium powder and press into glass ceramic for disposal in HLW repository.· Remove transuranics from tank heels and newly generated liquid waste and send to WIPP.

Creates a cement-like solid.· Upgrade and permit the calciner· Calcine liquid mixed transuranic waste/SBW and add to bin sets.· Blend calcine with slag, caustic soda, and water and cure at elevated temperature and pressure for disposal in a HLW repository.· Remove transuranics from tank heels and newly generated liquid waste and send to WIPP.

Creates a non-leaching, glass waste out of mixed transuranic waste/SBW and HLW calcine.· Blend mixed transuranic waste/SBW and tank heels with glass frit, vitrify, and send to WIPP.· Blend mixed HLW calcine with glass frit, and vitrify for disposal in a HLW repository.

· Place mixed HLW calcine and cesium ion exchange resin (from mixed transuranic waste/SBW treatment) in shipping containers and transport to the Hanford Site.· Separate calcine into high-level and low-level waste fractions and treat at Hanford.· Return treated HLW

and low-level waste fractions to INEEL.· Dispose of low-level

waste fraction at INEEL or offsite; store HLW fraction for disposal in a HLW repository.

· Place mixed HLW calcine and cesium ion exchange resin (from mixed transuranic waste/SBW treatment) in shipping containers and transport to the Hanford Site.· Separate calcine into high-level and low-level waste fractions and treat at Hanford.· Return treated HLW

and low-level waste fractions to INEEL.· Dispose of low-level

waste fraction at INEEL or offsite; store HLW fraction for disposal in a HLW repository.

DOE/EIS-028

7S-56

Summ

ary

Facility DispositionAlternatives at a Glance

These alternatives offer DOE different ways to address the final risk component of the proposed action and close INEEL facilities used to treat and manage mixed HLW when their missions are completed.

These alternatives differ in the degree to which the land is considered "cleaned-up" and in the type of use that could be made of the land as a result.

Two of the alternatives include onsite low-level waste disposal options (Class A- or Class C-type waste) that are part of the waste processing alternatives.

For purposes of analysis, DOE assumed that the timeframe spans the years 2035 to 2095. During this period, DOE would continue to maintain facilities and store treated waste ready for disposal. Beyond 2095, DOE would no longer maintain facilities or restrict access to the site. Where potential impacts to public health and the environment could occur well beyond 2095, the analysis is extended for 10,000 years.

Closure methods similar to the Performance-Based Closure Alternative; however, Class C-type grout from waste processing alternatives would be disposed of in the empty tanks or bin sets.

Closure methods similar to the Performance-Based Closure Alternative; however, Class A-type grout from waste processing alternatives would be disposed of in the empty tanks or bin sets.

PERFORMANCE-BASED CLOSURE WITH CLASS A

GROUT DISPOSAL

PERFORMANCE-BASED CLOSURE WITH CLASS C

GROUT DISPOSAL

Required under NEPA as a basis for comparison.· Similar to the No Action Alternative for Waste Processing.· Remove bulk chemicals and de-energize facilities.· Perform surveillance and maintenance until 2095.· Leave existing facilities in place with no further consideration.

NO ACTIONALTERNATIVE

FIGURE .Facility disposition alternatives at a glance.

Restore the land to a condition after closure that presents no risk to workers or the public from hazardous or radiological components.· Remove or treat all wastes and contaminated items so that radiation is at background level.· If necessary, remove buildings, vaults, and contaminated soil.· Post-closure monitoring may be required.

CLEAN CLOSURE ALTERNATIVE

Closure methods decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on risk.· Raze above-grade facilities and decontaminate below - grade facilities as determined on a case-by-case basis. · Decontaminate remaining facilities so as not to pose an unacceptable risk to workers or the public.· Determine which facilities may require monitoring.· Provide post-closure monitoring as necessary.

PERFORMANCE-BASED CLOSURE ALTERNATIVE

Facilities closed in accordance with state and Federal requirements for landfills.· Stabilize waste residuals in tanks, vaults, and piping with grout.· Build an engineered cap over facilities.· Install groundwater monitoring system.· Provide post-closure monitoring.

CLOSURE TO LANDFILL STANDARDS ALTERNATIVE

S-57DO

E/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW

& FD EISTABLE S-2. Summary of impacts from waste processing and facility disposition alternatives (1 of 12).

No ActionAlternative

ContinuedCurrent

Operations AlternativeSeparationsAlternative

Non-SeparationsAlternative

MinimumINEEL Processing

Alternative

Radiation dose from emissions would be 6.0x10-4 millirem per year to offsite MEI

. Collective population dose to the general public is

person-rem per year. No criteria pollutant would exceed significance threshold.Maximum impact carcinogenic toxic pollutant emissions would be approximately percent of the applicable standard.

HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 1.8x10-3 millirem per year to offsite MEI

. Collective population dose to the general public is person-rem per year. Two criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) would exceed significance thresholds. DIRECT CEMENT WASTE OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 1.7x10-3 millirem per year to offsite MEI

. Collective population dose to the general public is person-rem per year. One criteria pollutant (sulfur dioxide) would exceed significance threshold. EARLY VITRIFICATION OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 8.9x10-4 millirem per year to offsite MEI

. Collective population dose to the general public is person-rem per year. criteria pollutant would exceed significance threshold.

Maximum impact carcinogenic toxic pollutant emissions would be to percent of the applicable standard under the Non-Separations Alternative.

At INEEL - Radiation dose from emissions would be 9.5x10-4 millirem per year to offsite MEI

. Collective population dose to the general public is person-rem per year. No criteria pollutant would exceed significance threshold.Maximum impact carcinogenic toxic pollutant emissions would be percent of the applicable standard. At Hanford - Radiation dose from emissions would be 1.7x10-5 millirem per year to offsite MEI

Collective population dose to the general public is 1.3x10-3 person-rem per year. One criteria pollutant (carbon monoxide) would exceed significance threshold.

Radiation dose from emissions would be 1.7x10-3 millirem per year to offsite MEI

. Collective population dose to the general public is person-rem per year. One criteria pollutant (sulfur dioxide) would exceed significance threshold.Maximum impact carcinogenic toxic pollutant emissions would be approximately percent of the applicable standard.

FULL SEPARATIONS OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 1.2x10-4 millirem per year to offsite MEI

. Collective population dose to the general public is person-rem per year. Two criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) would exceed significance thresholds.

PLANNING BASIS OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 1.8x10-3 millirem per year to offsite MEI

. Collective population dose to the general public is person-rem per year. Two criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) would exceed significance thresholds.

TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS OPTION Radiation dose from emissions would be 6.0x10-5 millirem per year to offsite MEI

. Collective population dose to the general public is person-rem per year. criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide

) would exceed significance . Maximum impact carcinogenic toxic pollutant emissions would be to percent of the applicable standard under the Separations Alternative.

Impacts to Air - Waste Processing

DOE/EIS-028

7S-58

Summ

ary

TABLE S-2. Summary of impacts from waste processing and facility disposition alternatives (2 of 12).


ContinuedCurrent




Alternative

VITRIFICATION WITHOUT CALCINE SEPARATIONS OPTIONIncident-free LCF from truck transport: public: 0.99workers: 0.15

Accident LCF risk for the public from transport:truck: 1.5×10-6rail: 9.9×10-8

VITRIFICATION WITH CALCINE SEPARATIONS OPTIONIncident-free LCF from truck transport: public: 0.12workers: 0.027


Direct VitrificationAlternative

No offsite transportation would occur.

Incident-free LCF from truck transport: public: 0.013workers: 1.8×10-3


FULL SEPARATIONS OPTIONIncident-free LCF from truck transport: public: 0.077workers: 0.022


PLANNING BASIS OPTIONIncident-free LCF from truck transport: public: 0.091workers: 0.026


TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS OPTIONIncident-free LCF from truck transport public: 0.23workers: 0.035

Accident LCF risk for the public from transport:truck: 0.10rail: 0.038

HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTIONIncident-free LCF from truck transport: public: 0.47workers: 0.068


DIRECT CEMENT WASTE OPTIONIncident-free LCF from truck transport: public: 1.4workers: 0.21

Accident LCF risk for the public from transport:truck: 0.023rail: 1.3×10-3

EARLY VITRIFICATION OPTIONIncident-free LCF from truck transport: public: 0.98workers: 0.14


STEAM REFORMING OPTIONIncident-free LCF from truck transport: public: 0.78workers: 0.11


Incident-free LCF from truck transport: public: 1.1workers: 0.16


Impacts to Transportation - Waste Processing

- New

Information -

S-59DO

E/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW



ContinuedCurrent




Alternative

Impacts to Waste and Materials - Waste ProcessingApproximately 15,000 cubic meters of industrial waste,

1,500 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 190 cubic meters of low-level waste generated through year 2035

.

Approximately 26,000 cubic meters of industrial waste,

3,400 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 9,500 cubic meters of low-level waste generated through year 2035 (includes construction and operation phases).




PLANNING BASIS OPTION















At INEEL - Approximately 61,000 cubic meters of industrial waste,

6,800 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 810 cubic meters of low-level waste generated through the year 2035 (includes construction and operation phases).

At Hanford - Approximately 26,000 cubic meters of industrial waste,

0 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 1,500 cubic meters of low-level waste generated through year 2030 (includes construction and operation phases).

DOE/EIS-028

7S-6

0

Summ

ary



ContinuedCurrent




Alternative

Impacts to Waste and Materials - Waste Processing (continued)VITRIFICATION WITHOUT CALCINE SEPARATIONS OPTION

Approximately 8,900 cubic meters of HLW (including 440 cubic meters of vitrified SBW).

VITRIFICATION WITH CALCINE SEPARATIONS OPTION

Approximately 24,000 cubic meters of low-level waste and 910 cubic meters of HLW (including 440 cubic meters of vitrified SBW).


No product wastes would be produced under this alternative.

Approximately 110 cubic meters of transuranic waste.


Approximately 27,000 cubic meters of low-level waste and 470 cubic meters of HLW.

PLANNING BASIS OPTION

Approximately 30,000 cubic meters of low-level waste, 110 cubic meters of transuranic waste, and 470 cubic meters of HLW.


Approximately 23,000 cubic meters of low-level waste and 220 cubic meters of transuranic waste.


Approximately 110 cubic meters of transuranic waste and 3,400 cubic meters of HLW.





STEAM REFORMING OPTION

Approximately 2,600 cubic meters of transuranic waste and 4,400 cubic meters of HLW.

At INEEL - Approximately 7,500 cubic meters of transuranic waste.

At Hanford - Approximately 14,000 cubic meters of low-level waste and 3,500 cubic meters of HLW.

- New

Information -

S-61

DOE/EIS-028

7

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS

At INEEL - Total lost workdays: 620. Total recordable cases: 81.

At Hanford - Total lost workdays not reported. Total recordable cases: 230.



ContinuedCurrent




Alternative

Impacts to Health and Safety - Waste Processing - Construction ImpactsVITRIFICATION WITHOUT CALCINE SEPARATIONS OPTION Total lost workdays: 710.Total recordable cases: 93.

VITRIFICATION WITHCALCINE SEPARATIONS OPTION

Total lost workdays: 1,300.Total recordable cases: 170.

VITRIFICATION WITHOUT CALCINE SEPARATIONS OPTION

Total lost workdays: 1,900.Total recordable cases: 250.


Total lost workdays: 2,500. Total recordable cases: 330.


The estimated LCF in involved workers related to waste processing under this option would be 0.20.


The estimated LCF in involved workers related to waste processing under this option would be 0.26.


Total lost workdays: 30.Total recordable cases: 3.9.

Total lost workdays: 110.Total recordable cases: 14.


Total lost workdays: 1,500.Total recordable cases: 190.PLANNING BASIS OPTION Total lost workdays: 1,500.Total recordable cases: 200.

TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 1,100.Total recordable cases: 150.

HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 520.Total recordable cases: 67. DIRECT CEMENT WASTE OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 620. Total recordable cases: 81. EARLY VITRIFICATION OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 530. Total recordable cases: 69.STEAM REFORMING OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 770. Total recordable cases: 100.

Total lost workdays: 850.Total recordable cases: 110.

The estimated LCF in involved workers would be 0.14.

Total lost workdays: 1,100. Total recordable cases: 150.

At INEEL - Total lost workdays: 2,000. Total recordable cases: 270.

At Hanford - Total lost workdays not reported. Total recordable cases: 27.

FULL SEPARATIONS OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 3,000.Total recordable cases: 400.PLANNING BASIS OPTION Total lost workdays: 3,700.Total recordable cases: 480.

TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 2,300.Total recordable cases: 300.

HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 2,500.Total recordable cases: 320. DIRECT CEMENT WASTE OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 2,900.Total recordable cases: 380. EARLY VITRIFICATION OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 2,500.Total recordable cases: 330.STEAM REFORMING OPTIONTotal lost workdays: 1,400. Total recordable cases: 180.

The estimated LCF in involved workers would be 0.16.

At INEEL - The estimated LCF in involved workers would be 0.27.

At Hanford - The estimated LCF in involved workers would be 0.14.

FULL SEPARATIONS OPTIONThe estimated LCF in involved workers related to waste processing under this option would be 0.31.PLANNING BASIS OPTION The estimated LCF in involved workers related to waste processing under this option would be 0.39.

TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS OPTIONThe estimated LCF in involved workers related to waste processing under this option would be 0.27.

HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTIONThe estimated LCF in involved workers related to waste processing under this option would be 0.31. DIRECT CEMENT WASTE OPTIONThe estimated LCF in involved workers related to waste processing under this option would be 0.43. EARLY VITRIFICATION OPTIONThe estimated LCF in involved workers related to waste processing under this option would be 0.29.STEAM REFORMING OPTIONThe estimated LCF in involved workers related to waste processing under this option would be 0.25.

Impacts to Health and Safety - Waste Processing - Operations Impacts

- New

Information -

DOE/EIS-028

7S-6

2

Summ

ary



ContinuedCurrent




Alternative

Impacts to Health and Safety - Waste Processing - Operations Impacts(continued)


FULL SEPARATIONS OPTIONThe estimated probability of an LCF for the offsite MEI would be 1.2×10-9.

The estimated probability of an LCF for the noninvolved worker would be 3.7x10-10.

The estimated LCF in the population within 50 miles of INTEC would be 7.0x10-5.

PLANNING BASIS OPTIONThe estimated probability of an LCF for the offsite MEI would be 3.2×10-9.

The estimated probability of an LCF for the noninvolved worker would be 3.4×10-10.


TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS OPTION The estimated probability of an LCF for the offsite MEI would be 6.5×10-10.



HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTION The estimated probability of an LCF for the offsite MEI would be 1.0×10-8.




The estimated probability of an LCF for the offsite MEI would be 1.0×10-8.







STEAM REFORMING OPTION

The estimated probability of an LCF for the offsite MEI would be 1.1x10-8.



At INEEL - The estimated probability of an LCF for the offsite MEI would be 1.0×10-8.



At Hanford - The estimated probability of an LCF for the offsite MEI would be 2.5×10-11.


The estimated LCF in the population within 50 miles of 200-East Area would be 1.1x10-6.















- New

Information -

S-63

DOE/EIS-028

7

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS



ContinuedCurrent




Alternative

Potential Impacts from Abnormal Events* - Waste Processing


BOUNDING ABNORMAL EVENTEquipment failure results in release during transfer operation. MEI dose: 40 millirem; 20 in a million likelihood of LCF. Noninvolved worker dose: 2,700 millirem; 1.4 in a thousand likelihood of LCF. Offsite population dose: 470 person-rem; less than one LCF.

BOUNDING ABNORMAL EVENT

Same as Separations Alternative.

BOUNDING ABNORMAL EVENTDegraded bin set fails in seismic event after 500 years. MEI dose: 83,000 millirem; 42 in a thousand likelihood of LCF. Noninvolved worker dose: 5.7 million millirem; nearly certain death from acute radiation. Offsite population dose: 530,000 person-rem; 270 LCFs.

BOUNDING ABNORMAL EVENTSame as No Action Alternative.

Same as No Action Alternative.

BOUNDING ABNORMAL EVENTSame as Separations Alternative.


BOUNDING ABNORMAL EVENTSame as Separations Alternative.

*Greater than once in a thousand years. **Greater than once in a million years.***For doses potentially exceeding exposure rates of 10 rad per hour, the increased likelihood of an LCF is doubled to account for the human body's diminished capability to repair radiation damage.

Potential Impacts from Bounding Design Basis Events** - Waste ProcessingFlood Induced failure of bin set. MEI dose: 880 millirem; 440 in a million likelihood of LCF. Noninvolved worker dose: 59,000 millirem; 59 per thousand likelihood of LCF.*** Offsite population dose: 57,000 person-rem;29 LCFs.




- New

Information -

DOE/EIS-028

7S-6

4

Summ

ary



ContinuedCurrent




Alternative

Potential Impacts from Beyond Design Basis Events* - Waste ProcessingBOUNDING BEYOND DESIGN BASIS EVENT




External event results in a release from vitrification facility. MEI dose: 17,000 millirem; 8.5 in a thousand likelihood of LCF. Noninvolved worker dose: 1.2 million millirem; nearly certain death from acute radiation. Offsite population dose: 150,000 person-rem; 76 LCFs.


BOUNDING BEYOND DESIGN BASIS EVENTFULL SEPARATIONS AND PLANNING BASIS OPTIONSExternal event results in a release from vitrification facility. MEI dose: 17,000 millirem; 8.5 in a thousand likelihood of LCF. Noninvolved worker dose: 1.2 million millirem; nearly certain death from acute radiation. Offsite population dose: 150,000 person-rem; 76 LCFs.

TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS OPTIONSame as No Action Alternative.

BOUNDING BEYOND DESIGN BASIS EVENTSame as No Action Alternative.

BOUNDING BEYOND DESIGN BASIS EVENTExternal event causes failure of bin set structure. MEI dose: 14,000 millirem; 7 in a thousand likelihood of LCF. Noninvolved worker dose: 930,000 millirem; 94 percent likelihood of LCF. Offsite population dose: 120,000 person-rem; 61 LCFs.



*Less than once in a million years

- New

Information -

S-65

DOE/EIS-028

7

Idaho HLW



ContinuedCurrent




Alternative

Impacts to Air (New Facilities) - Facility DispositionRADIATION EFFECTSFULL SEPARATIONS OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 3.3x10-10millirem per year to offsite MEI and person-rem per year to the offsite population. PLANNING BASIS OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 3.9x10-10 millirem per year to offsite MEI and person-rem per year to the offsite population. TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 4.7x10-10 millirem per year to offsite MEI and person-rem per year to the offsite population.

HAZARDOUS/CARCINOGENICMaximum impacts of carcinogenic toxic pollutant emissions are estimated to be 1.8 to 2. percent of the applicable standard.

RADIATION EFFECTSHOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 1.8x10-10 millirem per year to offsite MEI and person-rem per year to the offsite population. DIRECT CEMENT WASTE OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 1.3x10-10 millirem per year to offsite MEI and person-rem per year to the offsite population. EARLY VITIRIFICATION OPTIONRadiation dose from emissions would be 1.4x10-10 millirem per year to offsite MEI and person-rem per year to the offsite population.

HAZARDOUS/CARCINOGENICMaximum impacts of carcinogenic toxic pollutant emissions are estimated to be

to 2.1 percent of the applicable standard.

No impacts from No Action Alternative are anticipated.

RADIATION EFFECTSRadiation doses from emissions would be 1.1x10-10 millirem per year to offsite MEI and person-rem per year to the offsite population.

HAZARDOUS/CARCINOGENICMaximum impacts of carcinogenic toxic pollutant emissions are estimated to be 0.6 percent of the applicable standard.

RADIATION EFFECTSAt INEEL - radiation dose from emissions would be 5.6x10-10 millirem per year to offsite MEI and person-rem per year to the offsite population.

HAZARDOUS/CARCINOGENICMaximum impacts of carcinogenic toxic pollutant emissions are estimated to be 2. percent of the applicable standard.

DOE/EIS-028

7S-6

6

Summ

ary



ContinuedCurrent




Alternative

Impacts to Health and Safety (New Facilities) - Facility Disposition

DOSE EFFECTSEstimated radiation dose to involved workers will result in:FULL SEPARATIONS OPTION

LCF and person-rem.

PLANNING BASIS OPTION LCF and person-rem.


LCF and person-rem.

DOSE EFFECTSEstimated radiation dose to involved workers will result in:HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTION

LCF and person-rem.


LCF and person-rem.

EARLY VITRIFICATION OPTION LCF and person-rem.

No impacts from No Action Alternative are anticipated.

DOSE EFFECTSEstimated radiation dose to involved workers will result in

LCF and person-rem.

DOSE EFFECTSAt INEEL - Estimated radiation dose to involved workers will result in LCF and person-rem.

INDUSTRIAL EFFECTSTotal lost workdays and recordable cases:FULL SEPARATIONS OPTION

and , respectively.

PLANNING BASIS OPTION and , respectively.


and , respectively.

INDUSTRIAL EFFECTSTotal lost workdays and recordable cases:HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTION

and , respectively. DIRECT CEMENT WASTE OPTION

and , respectively.

EARLY VITRIFICATION OPTION and 67, respectively.

INDUSTRIAL EFFECTSTotal lost workdays: .Total recordable cases: .

INDUSTRIAL EFFECTSAt INEEL - Total lost workdays: .Total recordable cases: .

S-67

DOE/EIS-028

7

Idaho HLW

& FD EIS



ContinuedCurrent




Alternative

Impacts to Waste and Materials (New Facilities) - Facility DispositionFULL SEPARATIONS OPTIONApproximately 70,000 cubic meters of industrial waste, 900 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 68,000 cubic meters of low-level waste would be generated.

PLANNING BASIS OPTION Approximately 72,000 cubic meters of industrial waste, 480 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 73,000 cubic meters of low-level waste would be generated.

TRANSURANIC SEPARATIONS OPTION Approximately 44,000 cubic meters of industrial waste, 710 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 44,000 cubic meters of low-level waste would be generated.

HOT ISOSTATIC PRESSED WASTE OPTIONApproximately 68,000 cubic meters of industrial waste, 340 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 50,000 cubic meters of low-level waste would be generated.

DIRECT CEMENT WASTE OPTIONApproximately 95,000 cubic meters of industrial waste, 350 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 49,000 cubic meters of low-level waste would be generated.

EARLY VITRIFICATION OPTION Approximately 80,000 cubic meters of industrial waste, 480 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 41,000 cubic meters of low-level waste would be generated.

No impacts from No Action Alternative would be anticipated.

Approximately 4,800 cubic meters of industrial waste, 11 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 5,600 cubic meters of low-level waste would be generated.

At INEEL - Approximately 28,000 cubic meters ofindustrial waste, 140 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and 15,000 cubic meters of low-level waste would be generated.

DOE/EIS-028

7S-6

8

Summ

ary


CleanClosure

Performance-BasedClosure

Closure to LandfillStandards

Accidents - Facility DispositionApproximately injuries/illnesses and 2.4 fatalities are calculated.

There are no anticipated accidents. Approximately 210 injuries/illnesses and0.48 fatalities are calculated.

Approximately 280 injuries/illnesses and0.64 fatalities are calculated.

Air Water Health & Safety Waste & Materials

Cumulative Impacts - Waste Processing and Facility DispositionUSEActivities associated with this EISwill require an increased water withdrawalfrom the aquifer of 12 percent.

CONTAMINATIONA full-time occupant at INTEC would receive a lifetime dose of millirem from using the contaminated groundwater after failure of 5 storage tanks. Because of the 500-year delay in reaching the aquifer, the iodine-129 and total plutonium contamination would not add cumulatively to the existing groundwater contamination.

The maximum cumulative dose to theoffsite MEI is 0.16 millirem per year and includes waste processing activities andis less than 2 percent of the 10 milliremper year dose limit.

The maximum annual collective dose fromwaste processing would add 0.10person-rem to the population living within50 miles of INTEC.

The occupational radiation dose receivedby the entire INEEL workforce would result in one LCF.


S-69 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

7.0 Other EnvironmentalReview Requirements

7.1 Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicatedthe types of actions considered in this EIS wouldbe unlikely to adversely impact any threatenedor endangered species or critical habitat underthe Endangered Species Act.

7.2 Clean Air Act

States have the primary responsibility to ensurethat air quality within their jurisdictional bordersis maintained at a level that meets the nationalambient air quality standards. This is achievedby implementing source-specific State require-ments.

As a minimum, DOE would need a Permit toConstruct and a review pursuant to the NationalEmissions Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants before beginning construction of anyfacility. If any facility must be permitted underthe Prevention of Significant Deterioration pro-gram, Federal Land Managers of pristine (ClassI) areas, including the Wilderness Area ofCraters of the Moon National Monument, areprovided an early opportunity to review a projectfor visibility concerns.

7.3 Floodplain/WetlandsManagement

DOE has established procedures to ensure thatthe potential effects of its actions in a floodplainare evaluated, and that floodplain managementgoals and wetlands protection considerations areincorporated into its decision-making process inorder to minimize the impacts of floods to theextent practicable. Because parts of INTECmight be in a flood-prone area, this concern isanalyzed in this EIS. If DOE selects an alterna-tive that would be implemented in a floodplain,DOE will follow the requirements for compli-ance with floodplain activities in accordancewith Federal regulations.

DOE is also required to avoid any adverseimpacts to wetlands whenever there is a practi-cable alternative. None of the alternatives eval-uated in this EIS would affect wetlands.

As a part of the National Pollutant DischargeElimination System program, the existingINTEC Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planwould have to be revised to reflect new con-struction activities.

8.0 Reading Rooms andInformation Locations

The EIS is available for review at the followingReading Rooms and information locations.

Colorado

Rocky Flats Field OfficeU.S. Department of EnergyPublic Reading Room Front Range Community College Library 3645 West 112th Avenue Westminster, Colorado 80030

Idaho

Boise INEEL Outreach Office800 Park Blvd. Suite 790Boise, Idaho 83712

Boise Public Library 715 S. Capital Blvd. Boise, Idaho 83702

Boise State UniversityAlbertson Library1910 University DriveBoise, Idaho 83725

Shoshone-Bannock Library Bannock and Pima Drive Fort Hall, Idaho 83203

Idaho Falls Public Library 457 Broadway Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402

S-69 DOE/EIS-0287

Idaho HLW & FD EIS

7.0 Other EnvironmentalReview Requirements

7.1 Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicatedthe types of actions considered in this EIS wouldbe unlikely to adversely impact any threatenedor endangered species or critical habitat underthe Endangered Species Act.

7.2 Clean Air Act

States have the primary responsibility to ensurethat air quality within their jurisdictional bordersis maintained at a level that meets the nationalambient air quality standards. This is achievedby implementing source-specific State require-ments.

As a minimum, DOE would need a Permit toConstruct and a review pursuant to the NationalEmissions Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants before beginning construction of anyfacility. If any facility must be permitted underthe Prevention of Significant Deterioration pro-gram, Federal Land Managers of pristine (ClassI) areas, including the Wilderness Area ofCraters of the Moon National Monument, areprovided an early opportunity to review a projectfor visibility concerns.

7.3 Floodplain/WetlandsManagement

DOE has established procedures to ensure thatthe potential effects of its actions in a floodplainare evaluated, and that floodplain managementgoals and wetlands protection considerations areincorporated into its decision-making process inorder to minimize the impacts of floods to theextent practicable. Because parts of INTECmight be in a flood-prone area, this concern isanalyzed in this EIS. If DOE selects an alterna-tive that would be implemented in a floodplain,DOE will follow the requirements for compli-ance with floodplain activities in accordancewith Federal regulations.

DOE is also required to avoid any adverseimpacts to wetlands whenever there is a practi-cable alternative. None of the alternatives eval-uated in this EIS would affect wetlands.

As a part of the National Pollutant DischargeElimination System program, the existingINTEC Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planwould have to be revised to reflect new con-struction activities.

8.0 Reading Rooms andInformation Locations

The EIS is available for review at the followingReading Rooms and information locations.

Colorado

Rocky Flats Field OfficeU.S. Department of EnergyPublic Reading Room Front Range Community College Library 3645 West 112th Avenue Westminster, Colorado 80030

Idaho

Boise INEEL Outreach Office800 Park Blvd. Suite 790Boise, Idaho 83712

Boise Public Library 715 S. Capital Blvd. Boise, Idaho 83702

Boise State UniversityAlbertson Library1910 University DriveBoise, Idaho 83725

Shoshone-Bannock Library Bannock and Pima Drive Fort Hall, Idaho 83203

Idaho Falls Public Library 457 Broadway Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402

DOE/EIS-0287 S-70

Summary

Idaho Operations Office U.S. Department of Energy Public Reading Room 1776 Science Center Drive Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-2300

Lewis-Clark State College Library 500 8th Avenue Lewiston, Idaho 83501-2698

University of Idaho Library Rayburn Street Moscow, Idaho 83844

Idaho State University Eli M. Oboler Library 850 S 9th Ave Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8089

Twin Falls Public Library 434 2nd St. E Twin Falls, Idaho 83301

Montana

University of Montana Mansfield Library 32 Campus Drive Missoula, Montana 59812-9936

Nevada

Nevada Operations Office U.S. Department of Energy Public Reading Room 2621 Losee Road, B-3 Building North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030

New Mexico

Albuquerque Operations OfficeU.S. Department of Energy Zimmerman Library University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-1466

Oregon

Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Department of Energy 905 Northeast 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232

Utah

Marriott Library University of Utah 295 S. 1500 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0860

Washington

Office of River Protection/Richland Operations OfficeU.S. Department of Energy Public Reading Room Washington State University/Tri-Cities Campus 2770 University Drive Richland, Washington 99352

Wyoming

Teton County Public Library 125 Virginian Lane Jackson, Wyoming 83001

Wyoming State Library Government Documents Collection 2301 Capitol Avenue Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0060

District of Columbia

Headquarters U.S. Department of Energy FOIA Reading Room Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, D.C. 20585

Date post:	13-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times