Interim Management of Nuclear Materials

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Introduction and Background

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), a predecessor agency of the Department of Energy (DOE), established the Savannah River Site (SRS) in the early 1950s. The SRS occupies an area of approximately 800 square kilometers (300 square miles) adjacent to the Savannah River, primarily in Aiken and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina. The Site is approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and 32 kilometers (20 miles) south of Aiken, South Carolina (Figure 1-1). Figure 1-2 shows the locations of the principal SRS facilities, which began operation between 1951 and 1954.

The SRS mission for the past 40 years has been the production of special radioactive isotopes to support national programs. Primarily, this mission was the production of strategic isotopes (plutonium-239 and tritium) used in the development and production of nuclear weapons for national defense. The Site produced other special isotopes (e.g., californium-252, plutonium-238, americium-241) to support research in nuclear medicine, space exploration, and commercial applications. To produce the isotopes, DOE fabricated selected materials into metal targets and irradiated them in the SRS reactors. The targets and reactor fuel were dissolved in acid and the special isotopes were chemically separated and converted to a solid form, either an oxide powder or a metal. The oxide or metal was fabricated into a usable form at the SRS or at other DOE sites. The final form of the material depended on the application (nuclear weapon component, encapsulated medical source, power source, etc.). Figure 1-3 shows the historic SRS production cycle.

Due to the large-scale chemical separation capabilities at the SRS, materials containing significant quantities of plutonium-239, uranium-235, and other special isotopes were shipped to the SRS for processing and recovery. The materials were in a wide variety of physical shapes and forms, including (1) small encapsulated plutonium sources returned from use by national laboratories and domestic universities; (2) cans or drums of scrap metals and oxides from weapon manufacturing operations at other DOE sites; (3) irradiated metal fuel rods, tubes, plates, or assemblies from experimental DOE reactors, university research reactors, and foreign research reactors; and (4) cans, bottles, or drums containing residues or samples used in laboratory experiments at other DOE sites. All the materials were stored until they could be dissolved and processed in the chemical separations facilities. The small sources, scrap metals, oxides, residues, and samples were typically stored in cans, bottles, or drums in safeguarded concrete vaults. The irradiated fuel and targets were stored underwater in metal racks or buckets. The offsite materials were typically processed in conjunction

Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-3.

with the materials produced at the SRS. Figure 1-4 shows the historic processing and recovery cycle for scrap materials received from off the SRS. Figure 1-5 shows the historic reprocessing cycle for spent fuel received.

In March 1992, DOE suspended chemical reprocessing and recovery activities at the SRS to address a potential safety concern regarding the survival of the F- and H-Canyon ventilation systems in the event of an earthquake. That concern was addressed. However, before the resumption of reprocessing, the Secretary of Energy directed that the SRS phase out defense-related chemical separations activities in these facilities (DOE 1992). World events in the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in the end of the Cold War and a reduction in the demand for new material for nuclear weapons. DOE stopped operating the SRS reactors to produce strategic isotopes. DOE has not processed nuclear materials at the SRS chemical separations facilities to recover special isotopes since March 1992, with the exception of scrap materials containing plutonium-238. DOE continued the processing of plutonium-238 to support future National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) exploratory space missions.

The cessation in processing operations resulted in a large inventory of nuclear materials caught in various stages of the historic production (fabrication, irradiation, reprocessing, and recovery) cycle. These materials include irradiated and unirradiated reactor fuel, targets, and components; solutions containing dissolved nuclear materials and recovered isotopes in stainless-steel tanks; and product and scrap forms of metals or oxides in containers (cans, drums, etc.) typically used for temporary storage or shipment offsite.

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action

With the end of the Cold War, the primary mission of the nuclear production facilities at the SRS has changed to the storage and management of nuclear materials until DOE can make and implement decisions on the ultimate disposition of the materials. DOE is evaluating various strategies for the long-term management of nuclear material. Section 1.6 describes these evaluations. DOE anticipates that it might need as long as 10 years to make and fully implement management decisions on all these materials. Until DOE can implement these decisions, the large inventory of nuclear materials at the SRS requires continued management.

Some of the methods of storage for these materials pose risks to the environment or the safety and health of SRS workers or the public because, at the time DOE suspended the production cycle, many nuclear materials were in a form or were stored in a manner that was acceptable for only a temporary period (e.g., 1 to 2 years). Thus, the continued storage of some of the materials poses risks. In some cases, the material's physical or chemical form poses the risks; in other cases, the material simply needs to be repackaged or moved to another location to ensure its safe storage. DOE needs to either eliminate (if possible) or reduce the risks posed by continued storage of these materials.

Figure 1-4.

Figure 1-5.

In addition, although the need for strategic isotopes has been greatly diminished by the end of the Cold War, some nuclear materials stored at the SRS contain special isotopes that support remaining DOE programs. These materials require additional processing or conversion to forms that are suitable for continued safe storage at the SRS and eventual use at other DOE sites.

The purpose of the actions described in this EIS is for DOE to manage the existing SRS nuclear materials in a safe and environmentally sound manner while supporting national requirements for an inventory of special isotopes. DOE must consider actions to repackage, relocate, or convert some materials at SRS to a form appropriate for safe interim storage or future use. While DOE expects some reductions in environmental impacts from normal operations if it takes such actions, its primary objectives are to (1) eliminate or reduce risks from accidents that could occur during continued storage of the nuclear materials, and (2) convert nuclear materials to forms that it can store safely.

1.3 Categories of Nuclear Materials

For the purposes of this EIS, DOE has organized the inventory of nuclear materials at the SRS into three categories:

Stable - Materials that have physical and chemical forms that, combined with their storage configurations, do not currently pose an environmental, safety, or health concern and are not likely to pose a concern over the next 10 years.
Candidates for Stabilization - Materials that pose an existing environmental, safety, or health concern or that might pose a concern during the next 10 years. The concern posed might be due to their physical condition, chemical composition, or the manner in which they are stored (e.g., packaging or storage environment).
Programmatic - Materials that contain special isotopes that are needed to support DOE programs. In their current forms, these materials are not usable or suitable for continued interim storage. Some type of processing or conversion is required to alter the physical form or chemical composition of the material; otherwise, programmatic materials might be categorized as Candidates for Stabilization.

This EIS analyzes the impacts that could be associated with the management of nuclear materials related to past production activities and missions of the SRS. However, the scope of the EIS does not include two types of nuclear material currently in the SRS inventory -- tritium and plutonium-238. DOE did not include the recycling of existing inventories of tritium because this is an ongoing SRS program that the Department has addressed in an environmental assessment (DOE 1986). In addition, DOE will address future tritium activities in the Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic EIS (59 FR 54175). Similarly, the processing of plutonium-238 for NASA space missions (e.g., Cassini) is an ongoing SRS program that DOE addressed in an environmental assessment (DOE 1991). Further, DOE is preparing a separate environmental assessment for future plutonium-238 processing operations that might be required (DOE 1994a). This EIS on the Interim Management of Nuclear Materials does, however, include a small amount of plutonium-238 contained in scrap from previous operations.

The scope of this EIS does not include residual levels of nuclear materials contained in low-level, high-level, transuranic, and mixed types of radioactive waste. The SRS Waste Management EIS evaluates the impacts from operations required to manage these types of radioactive waste. There are residual levels of nuclear materials contained in production, processing, handling, or storage facilities scheduled for decontamination and decommissioning (D&D). These residual materials are not included within the scope of this EIS. DOE will prepare separate NEPA documentation to evaluate impacts from D&D activities for such facilities, as appropriate.

1.4 Categorization Methods

1.4.1 Stable materials and Candidates for Stabilization

DOE categorized Stable materials and Candidates for Stabilization as a result of several reviews. Within the past 18 months, DOE completed two nationwide reviews of how it stored nuclear materials at SRS and other sites:

Spent Fuel Working Group Report on Inventory and Storage of the Department's Spent Nuclear Fuel and Other Reactor Irradiated Nuclear Materials and Their Environmental, Safety and Health Vulnerabilities (November 1993) (DOE 1994b).
Plutonium Working Group Report on Environment, Safety and Health Vulnerabilities Associated with the Department's Plutonium Storage (September 1994) (DOE 1994c).

The DOE Office of Environment, Safety and Health performed these reviews using teams of independent technical experts. Each report identified vulnerabilities associated with the continued storage of one or more nuclear materials at the SRS. The following sections summarize the scope of each review, the vulnerabilities identified with SRS materials, and the methods DOE used to categorize materials as Candidates for Stabilization or Stable.

1.4.1.1 Spent Fuel Working Group Report

The scope of this assessment (DOE 1994b) was nationwide, involving 11 sites where DOE stores reactor irradiated nuclear materials (RINM) in basins, pools, canals, canyons, inactive reactors, warehouses, hot cells, vaults, wells, casks, and burial grounds. RINM consists of spent fuel (in any condition) and irradiated nuclear targets from production and research reactors. It does not include fuel in active reactors, waste products, and irradiated structural materials. The assessment defined vulnerabilities in nuclear facilities as conditions or weaknesses that might lead to radiation exposure to the public, unnecessary or increased exposure to workers, or release of radioactive materials to the environment. The vulnerabilities that involved SRS materials dealt with fuel and target materials in wet storage basins:

Corrosion of fuel and target materials in the water basins and its effects constitute the major ES&H (Environment, Safety, and Health) vulnerability at the SRS pertaining to stored RINM. Corrosion is occurring in K- and L-Reactor basins and it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the (cesium)-137 activity within the administrative limit. Continued corrosion will eventually impact the physical integrity of stored materials. Such an eventuality would impact criticality, personnel radiation exposure, and fuel retrievability and disposal. The mechanisms and consequences of the corrosion are being addressed by WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company) and the levels of contamination are low, however, fissile material such as uranium, plutonium are being released to the basin water which constitutes an ES&H vulnerability. Left unmitigated, the long term consequences of this situation could be severe.

Based on the assessment conducted by the Working Group Assessment Team, the condition of the L-Reactor basin constitutes the greatest vulnerability as a consequence of the severity of the corrosion that is taking place, the quantity of stored material, and the level of the activity in the water. Next in degree of vulnerability is K-Reactor basin followed by P-Reactor basin, F-Canyon, H-Canyon, and RBOF (Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel) in that order.

The following paragraphs discuss the SRS facilities affected by the assessment:

L-Reactor Disassembly Basin - Delays and the subsequent suspension of processing at the SRS have resulted in fuel and target residence times in the reactor basin significantly greater than those originally anticipated. Reactor basins were originally intended only for interim storage, approximately 12 to 18 months. The basin contains approximately 13,000 irradiated Mark-31 targets, 500 Mark-22 assemblies, and 600 other targets. The Mark-31 targets contain plutonium-239 in the uranium-238 matrix, the Mark-22 fuel contains uranium-235 highly enriched uranium in a uranium/aluminum alloy, and the other targets contain primarily cobalt-60. This material (and most other material in the reactor basins) has been stored for 5 years or longer.
The targets and fuel are aluminum-clad. The Mark-31 targets (sometimes referred to as "slugs" due to their short cylindrical shape) are stored in stainless-steel buckets in the basin. The Mark-22 fuel and the other targets are stored either vertically on stainless-steel hangers or horizontally in slotted aluminum racks. The fuel suspended on hangers is corroding severely at the aluminum-to-stainless-steel interface region where a galvanic couple has formed. Relatively little corrosion (i.e., pitting or general) is occurring on cladding removed from the end region. However, corrosion is occurring in localized regions where the aluminum-oxide protective coating has been damaged; DOE assumes that cladding penetrations have occurred based on studies on representative nonirradiated alloys.

This corrosion behavior observed on the Mark-31 targets stored in stainless-steel buckets is in sharp contrast to the behavior of the Mark-22 fuel. Extensive pitting corrosion has penetrated the cladding, and corrosion of the uranium target material is releasing uranium, plutonium, and fission products to the basin water. DOE recently placed the buckets in stainless-steel boxes with lids to help confine the corrosion products. Continued corrosion will accelerate the transport of fissile materials into the water; subsequent material deposition and concentration in sludge and structural and water treatment components will increase concerns about possible criticality. Efforts are in process to remove this sludge by vacuuming, but the rate of corrosion is likely to continue, and perhaps accelerate. The continued release of fission products to the basin and the subsequent cleanup will result in exposures to personnel.

K-Reactor Disassembly Basin - This basin contains approximately 900 Mark-16 fuel assemblies, 200 Mark-31 targets, and 200 other targets. The fuel and targets are stored in the same manner as those in the L-Reactor basin. The physical condition of the materials is deteriorating in the same way. The vulnerabilities applicable to the storage situation in the L-Reactor basin are applicable to the K-Reactor basin. The primary difference between the two basins is that the K-Reactor basin contains fewer Mark-31 targets, which are the materials that have exhibited the most extreme evidence of corrosion and physical deterioration.
P-Reactor Disassembly Basin - This basin contains approximately 500 Mark-22 fuel assemblies, 60 targets (slugs) used for the production of californium-252, and 9 Mark-42 assemblies used to produce plutonium-242. The fuel and targets are stored in the same manner as those in the L- and K-Reactor basins. The Mark-42 assemblies are stored in aluminum cans hung in a vertical position on stainless-steel hangers. "Although there is no evidence of corrosion on the surface of the fuel assemblies, the general corrosion of the components, including galvanic corrosion at the aluminum-stainless steel interfaces of the Mark-42 containers, aluminum tools, and the horizontal storage racks is judged to be the most severe in the P-Reactor basin" (DOE 1994b). The vulnerabilities applicable to the storage situation in the L- and K-Reactor basins are also applicable to the P-Reactor basin. The primary difference is P-Reactor materials have been in storage a much shorter time than those in the L- and K-Reactor basins. P-Reactor basin contains the smallest amount of fuel and does not contain Mark-31 targets.
F-Canyon Storage Basin - This basin contains approximately 2,500 Mark-31 targets (or slugs) stored in buckets. "If observed corrosion continues unmitigated, increased releases of fissile and radioactive materials are probable." The targets are "remaining in a non-favorable environment for far longer than that envisioned or anticipated." The "corrosion of the slugs and resultant nuclear material release would not significantly impact ES&H while the fuel (targets) remains in the F-Canyon; however, retrievability and handling would be encumbered" (DOE 1994b).
H-Canyon Storage Basin - This basin contains 13 fuel assemblies (Mark-16 and Mark-22) grouped in five bundles. No corrosion has been detected.
Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels - This basin contains approximately 1,500 irradiated fuel elements (assemblies, rods, tubes, cans, etc.). Aluminum-clad fuels in storage and the aluminum racks that have been in the basin for more than 30 years show no visible signs of corrosion.

Based on the extent of the vulnerabilities identified, DOE categorized the materials in the L-, K-, and P-Reactor Disassembly Basins as Candidates for Stabilization. DOE also categorized the fuel and target materials in the F- and H-Canyon storage basins as Candidates for Stabilization, primarily because they store the same type of targets and fuel as the reactor basins and the storage environment is similar (i.e., wet storage with limited chemistry control and leak detection). There has been no evidence of corrosion on the fuel stored in the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels, and corrosion concerns are not likely during the next 10 years. For these reasons, DOE categorized the materials in the receiving basin as Stable.

1.4.1.2 Plutonium Working Group Report

The scope of the Draft Plutonium Working Group Report on Environmental, Safety and Health Vulnerabilities Associated with the Department's Plutonium Storage (DOE 1994c) was nationwide, involving 166 facilities at 35 sites. The Department of Energy Plutonium ES&H Vulnerability Assessment, Savannah River Site Assessment Team Report (WSRC 1994) documented the SRS portion of the study. The working group report evaluated the storage of nearly all the plutonium that is not in intact nuclear weapons. It reviewed plutonium forms and packaging with the exception of residual plutonium from underground nuclear tests; plutonium in low-level, high-level, and transuranic wastes; and plutonium in very low residual levels in facilities undergoing decontamination and decommissioning. (DOE evaluated plutonium in spent fuel and irradiated targets in the spent fuel study described in Section 1.4.1.1.) This assessment included transuranic elements such as neptunium, americium, curium, and californium. It identified approximately 300 environmental, safety, and health vulnerabilities at 13 sites. The following paragraphs discuss the vulnerabilities that involved SRS materials.

Solution Vulnerabilities. F-Canyon has 14,000 liters (3,700 gallons) of americium and curium in solution in a stainless-steel tank. H-Canyon has 34,000 liters (6,000 gallons) of plutonium solution and 6,100 liters (1,600 gallons) of neptunium solution in four tanks. These solutions are unstable and corrosive and could breach their containers, resulting in releases of radioactive materials. Such releases could cause exposure of workers and the public and environmental contamination. Unanticipated high local plutonium concentrations in these tanks could also lead to criticality accidents. These tanks require continuous monitoring for corrosion, sampling for adjustment of solution chemistry, and periodic reagent additions to maintain liquid levels and prevent the formation of solids. The continued storage of these highly dispersible solutions creates significant vulnerabilities to workers and the environment. The assessment team determined that the potential for inadvertent criticality could be significant and a nuclear criticality could also result in releases from the building to the environment.

The tank of americium and curium solution is the largest single source of radioactivity in F-Canyon (approximately 220,000 curies). The solution has been in storage since 1983, and tank corrosion is a concern. The tank has internal cooling coils through which water circulates to remove heat generated by radioactive decay in the solution. The cooling coils were recently disconnected from the cooling water system to prevent the possibility of a leak that might cause a release of radioactive solution to the environment and exposure of the public. The solution itself is self-heating and remains at a temperature slightly less than 60·C (140·F), which causes a high rate of evaporation. Frequent adjustments for solution chemistry and volume are necessary. Tank contents are susceptible to spills and leaks and a major facility accident could disperse the contents over a wide area.

Due to the vulnerabilities identified, DOE categorized these solutions as Candidates for Stabilization.

Metal, Oxide, and Scrap and Residue Vulnerabilities. FB-Line and Building 235-F contain more than 400 packages of plutonium metal and metal alloys and about 2,400 packages of plutonium oxides and compounds. Materials and packaging properties that could lead to worker exposure are reactive or corrosive compounds; plastics that degrade due to radiolytic and thermal decomposition (80 percent of the packages contain plastic); metals that are subject to oxidation and subsequent expansion due to oxide formation; and unknown and uncharacterized materials and packaging (i.e., the chemical composition is not completely known). The more than 2,800 packages contain combinations or mixtures of the following materials:

Plutonium-uranium oxides (including normal and enriched uranium), oxides mixed with transuranics including neptunium and americium, and scrap and residues such as incinerator ash and plutonium alloys are present in more than 500 packages that have not been fully characterized and have unknown packaging. This could lead to unsuspected reactions between materials and an eventual breach of packaging.
Fuel-grade plutonium (a higher specific activity material containing as much as 18 percent plutonium-240 in addition to plutonium-239) is present in about 600 packages. This material generates heat, thereby accelerating the degradation of plastics and increasing the chances of packaging failure.
Scrap and residues received from other DOE sites in more than 150 different forms, including incinerator ash, graphite, and chloride-bearing residues, are partly characterized; potentially reactive compounds such as plutonium nitride are present in more than 600 packages. These include most of the packages of oxides and scrap and residues and packages of fuel-grade plutonium.
Scrap and residues from plutonium metal production present in 700 packages contain calcium metal and corrosive fluoride compounds that can react with moisture and air and undergo radiolysis.

Due to the vulnerabilities noted, DOE categorized the materials listed above as Candidates for Stabilization.

1.4.1.3 Materials Not Included in the Spent Fuel and Plutonium Working Group Reviews

The scope of the Spent Fuel and Plutonium Working Group Reviews did not encompass all nuclear materials stored at the SRS. For each material not previously evaluated by an independent review, DOE performed an assessment to determine if the material poses an environmental, safety, and health concern or could pose a concern over the next 10 years. The assessment was performed by technical personnel responsible for the management of the nuclear materials in their current storage locations. Independent technical experts reviewed the results of the assessment, which consisted of a series of questions to evaluate qualitatively the inherent physical stability of the material, the current and projected physical condition of its storage container, and the potential for release of the material to the environment.

Of the other evaluated materials not included in the Spent Fuel and Plutonium Working Group Reviews, only one poses an existing or potential concern. The SRS has approximately 228,000 liters (60,000 gallons) of highly enriched uranium (HEU) solutions stored in stainless-steel tanks inside and outside the H-Canyon. Because of the similarity of these solutions to those discussed above (i.e., they are radioactive and pose a criticality concern), DOE categorized these solutions as Candidates for Stabilization.

Although approximately 300,000 liters (78,000 gallons) of depleted uranium solutions are stored in stainless-steel tanks inside and outside F-Canyon and in the TNX Area, DOE categorized these materials as Stable. DOE did not consider these solutions to pose an environmental, safety, or health concern because they contain only trace quantities of fissile isotopes (uranium-235, plutonium-239, etc.) and represent a very low radiological hazard. DOE categorized as Stable all other nuclear materials within the scope of this EIS that are stored at the SRS; this included a wide variety of nuclear materials containing special isotopes used to support sitewide operations, such as laboratory samples used in experimental work and encapsulated sources used for the testing and calibration of equipment.

1.4.2 Programmatic materials

DOE categorized certain nuclear materials as Programmatic after consultations with national laboratories and other appropriate Federal agencies (e.g., NASA). These consultations identified plutonium-242, neptunium-237, americium, and curium (various isotopes) as necessary to support DOE programs and responsibilities.

At present, DOE uses plutonium-242 for research. In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, specific details on the use of plutonium-242 are classified and restricted from unauthorized disclosure for the protection of national security. Appendix B (which is classified and therefore not included in this document) describes the need for and use of plutonium-242 for the DOE decisionmaker. The SRS has plutonium-242 solution stored in a stainless-steel tank in H-Canyon that requires processing and conversion to a form suitable for safe storage and subsequent use.

Neptunium is a target material irradiated in a nuclear reactor to produce plutonium-238. Plutonium-238 is a thermal power source for remote terrestrial and space applications where solar collectors or chemical batteries are not feasible. The SRS has the remaining domestic inventory of recovered neptunium-237, the bulk of which is in solutions stored in stainless-steel tanks in H-Canyon. These solutions contain neptunium-237 that was recovered from the processing of irradiated highly enriched uranium fuels. In addition, the Site has a limited number of targets containing neptunium-237 that were designed for irradiation in the SRS reactors; with the shutdown of the reactors, these targets are no longer usable. To support the future production of plutonium-238, DOE must convert these materials to a form that it can store safely and use later to fabricate new targets.

The approximately 14,000 liters (3,700 liters) of solution stored in a single stainless-steel tank in F-Canyon represents a unique stockpile of americium and curium that DOE needs to support domestic and international research programs. DOE uses americium and curium isotopes in the production of californium-252, which is used as a neutron source for radiography and for nuclear medicine in the treatment of certain types of cancer. These isotopes are also used for research in basic chemistry, nuclear physics, and solid-state chemistry. The current inventory is stored in a single tank in F-Canyon and in unusable metal targets in the reactor disassembly basins. These forms require processing and conversion to produce a physical form that DOE can store safely for later use.

Table 1-1 summarizes the inventory of nuclear materials at the SRS in the Stable, Programmatic, and Candidate for Stabilizations categories of material. Appendix A contains a more detailed listing.

Table 1-1. SRS nuclear materials.

Description	Quantity	Location(s)
Stable
Spent fuel	1,500 elements	Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels
Unirradiated fuel, targets, reactor components, and scrap from fabrication operations	315,000 items	Buildings 305A, 313-M, 315-M, 320-M, 321-M, 322-M, and 341-M
Unirradiated fuel, targets, and reactor components	6,900 items	K- and L-Reactors
Unirradiated and irradiated reactor components and control rods	420 items	C-, K-, L-, and P-Reactors
Depleted uranium oxide	36,000 drums	R-Reactor, Buildings 221-1F, 221-12F, 221-21F, 221-22F, 707-R, 714-7N, 728-F, 730-F, and 772-7B
Depleted uranium solutions	300,000 liters (78,000 gallons)	F-Canyon, F-Area Outside Facilities, and TNX
Sources, standards, and samples	20,000 items	Sitewide
Laboratory materials used in research and development	260 items	Savannah River Technology Center
Programmatic
Plutonium-242 solutions	13,000 liters (3,500 gallons)	H-Canyon
Americium and curium solutions	14,000 liters (3,800 gallons)	F-Canyon
Neptunium solutions and targets	6,100 liters (1,600 gallons) 9 targets	H-Canyon Building 321-M
Candidates for Stabilization
Plutonium-239 solutions	34,000 liters (9,000 gallons)	H-Canyon
HEU solutions	228,000 liters (60,000 gallons)	H-Canyon and H-Area Outside Facilities
Plutonium vault materials	2,800 packages	FB-Line, HB-Line, Building 772-F, Building 235-F, and SRTC
Irradiated Mark-31 targets	16,000 slugs	K-Reactor, L-Reactor, and F-Canyon
Irradiated Mark-16 and Mark-22 fuels	1,900 assemblies	K-, L-, and P-Reactors and H-Canyon
Other irradiated targets	900 targets	K-, L-, and P-Reactors

Figure 1-6 shows the relative mass of nuclear material in each category. As the figure reflects, the vast majority (more than 98 percent) of the stored mass of nuclear materials falls within the Stable category. The high percentage of stable material is heavily influenced by the fact that much of the material in the stable category is depleted uranium stored in approximately 36,000 drums and approximately 315,000 miscellaneous items left from the fabrication process for SRS reactor components (fuel, targets, etc.), which contain varying amounts of uranium.

Figure 1-6. Amount of nuclear material in each category.

1.5 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Review

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) is an independent organization established by Congress to provide oversight of DOE. On May 26, 1994, the DNFSB transmitted Recommendation 94-1 to the Secretary of Energy (DNFSB 1994). In its recommendation, the Board stated:

The halt in production of nuclear weapons and materials to be used in nuclear weapons froze the manufacturing pipeline in a state that, for safety reasons, should not be allowed to persist unremediated. The Board has concluded from observations and discussions with others that imminent hazards could arise within two to three years unless certain problems are corrected.

We are especially concerned about specific liquids and solids containing fissile materials and other radioactive substances in spent fuel storage pools, reactor basins, reprocessing canyons, processing lines, and various buildings once used for processing and weapons manufacture.

It is not clear at this juncture how fissile materials produced for defense purposes will eventually be dealt with long term. What is clear is that the extant fissile materials and related materials require treatment on an accelerated basis to convert them to forms more suitable for safe interim storage.

The DNFSB noted it was "especially concerned" about plutonium and transplutonium (americium, curium, etc.) solutions stored in tanks in F-Canyon and the deteriorating reactor fuel stored in the canyons and reactor basins. The DNFSB recommended "that an integrated program plan be formulated on high priority basis, to convert within two to three years the materials addressed in the specific recommendations below, to forms or conditions suitable for safe interim storage." The Board made the following specific recommendations relevant to nuclear materials stored at the SRS:

That preparations be expedited to process the dissolved plutonium and trans-plutonium isotopes in tanks in the F-Canyon at the Savannah River Site into forms safer for interim storage. The Board considers this problem to be especially urgent.

That preparations be expedited to repackage the plutonium metal that is in contact with, or in proximity to, plastic or to eliminate the associated existing hazard in any other way that is feasible and reliable. Storage of plutonium materials generated through this remediation process should be such that containers need not be opened again for additional treatment for a reasonably long time.

That preparations be expedited to process the deteriorating irradiated reactor fuel stored in basins at the Savannah River Site into a form suitable for safe interim storage until an option for ultimate disposition is selected.

In response to the Board's recommendation, DOE is developing an Integrated Program Plan to address each concern in parallel with this EIS. The Integrated Program Plan will contain detailed schedules and information on actions that DOE can take to alleviate the concerns raised by the DNFSB. This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts from actions that DOE is considering in response to SRS-related concerns raised by the Board.

1.6 Related National Environmental Policy Act Documents

F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions Environmental Impact Statement

On March 17, 1994, DOE published (59 FR 12588) its intention to prepare the Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS to assess the interim management of nuclear materials stored at the SRS. The original scope of this EIS included the plutonium solutions stored in the F-Canyon facility. In May 1994 the Manager of the Savannah River Operations Office recommended that the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs seek alternative arrangements for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to allow stabilization of the plutonium solutions in F-Canyon and the Mark-31 targets stored in the L-Reactor Disassembly Basin. The recommendation was based on the determination that the material presents risks to workers, the public, and the environment in the form of radiation exposure from normal operations and potential accidents, which DOE could reduce by converting the material to a solid stable form. In June 1994 the DOE Office of Environment, Safety and Health performed an independent evaluation of the SRS request (DOE 1994d). That report characterized the following potential facility accidents to be of serious concern: (1) the potential for inadvertent criticality due to precipitation of plutonium from the F-Canyon solutions, and (2) potential radiological releases to the environment due to leakage of plutonium solutions through vessel cooling coils. The report did not conclude that the Mark-31 targets would be a serious concern over the next 12 to 20 months. In light of this evaluation, DOE determined that the appropriate action would be to prepare a separate expedited EIS to evaluate management alternatives for the F-Canyon plutonium solutions. On August 23, 1994, DOE published in the Federal Register the notice of an amendment to announce the preparation of a separate EIS on these solutions. The Final EIS on F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions (DOE 1994e) became available on December 30, 1994. The Record of Decision was signed on February 1, 1995. The F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions EIS is relevant in the assessment of cumulative impacts that could occur at the SRS during the period examined by this Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS (see Chapter 5).

Programmatic EIS for storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials

As announced in the Federal Register on June 21, 1994 (59 FR 31985), DOE is preparing this Programmatic EIS to evaluate the long-term storage of weapons-usable fissile materials, primarily plutonium-239 and highly enriched uranium, and the disposition of such materials that the President has declared surplus to national defense needs. As described above, the SRS has a large inventory of plutonium-239, highly enriched uranium, and other weapons-usable fissile materials that DOE will include in the scope of the Programmatic EIS. The Programmatic EIS is, therefore, related because it evaluates alternatives for some of the materials discussed in this EIS. However, the implementation of decisions resulting from the Programmatic EIS could require 10 years or more to complete. Therefore, interim decisions on stabilization and storage alternatives for weapons-usable fissile materials are necessary until DOE can reach and implement those long-term decisions.

Environmental Assessment for the proposed interim storage of Enriched Uranium above the maximum historical storage level at the Y-12 plant

The SRS has a large inventory of nuclear materials containing highly enriched uranium that could be consolidated for interim storage at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These materials include a large portion of the approximately 315,000 items that remain from the fabrication of new (unirradiated) fuel for SRS reactors, approximately 228,000 liters (60,200 gallons) of highly enriched uranium solutions stored in stainless-steel tanks in H-Area, and irradiated fuel from both SRS and offsite reactors. Current SRS operations are recasting and consolidating the unirradiated fuel and leftover materials that contain highly enriched uranium into forms suitable for transport and storage at the Y-12 Plant. The conversion of the highly enriched uranium solutions into a highly enriched uranium oxide is one of the management alternatives evaluated in this EIS, as is the dissolution and reprocessing of irradiated SRS reactor fuel to recover highly enriched uranium. The Draft Environmental Assessment on Uranium Storage at the Y-12 Facility (DOE 1994f) includes the transport and storage of SRS highly enriched uranium materials. Therefore, the Y-12 Environmental Assessment is related to this EIS. The Final Environmental Assessment is in preparation.

Savannah River Site Waste Management EIS

On April 6, 1994, DOE issued a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (59 FR 16194) to prepare an SRS Waste Management EIS, which will provide a basis for selecting a sitewide strategic approach to managing present and future wastes generated at the Site. These wastes would be generated by several activities including ongoing operations and potential actions, new missions, environmental restoration, and decontamination and decommissioning programs. The Draft SRS Waste Management EIS (DOE 1995), which became available on January 27, 1995, includes the treatment of wastewater discharges in the Effluent Treatment Facility, F- and H-Area tank operations and waste removal, and construction and operation of a replacement high-level waste evaporator in the H-Area tank farm. In addition, it evaluates the Consolidated Incineration Facility technology for the treatment of mixed waste. All the alternatives evaluated in this Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS will result in the generation of waste (high-level, transuranic, mixed, etc.). Thus, the SRS Waste Management EIS is related to this EIS because it evaluates management alternatives for various types of waste that actions proposed in this EIS could generate. The SRS Waste Management EIS is also relevant in the assessment of cumulative impacts that could occur at the SRS during the period examined by this EIS (see Chapter 5). The Record of Decision for the SRS Waste Management EIS is scheduled for mid-1995.

Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) Supplemental EIS

On April 6, 1994, DOE issued a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (59 FR 16499) to prepare a Supplemental EIS on the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) to examine the impacts of completing construction and operating the DWPF at the SRS. This supplement to an EIS that DOE issued in 1982 will assist the Department in deciding whether and how to proceed with the DWPF in light of changes to processes and facilities that have occurred since the issuance of the 1982 EIS. The Final EIS (DOE 1994g) was issued in November 25, 1994. The Record of Decision is scheduled for spring 1995.

One of the alternatives considered for the stabilization of materials in this Interim Management of Nuclear Materials EIS is vitrification using the Defense Waste Processing Facility. The selection of this alternative would depend on a DOE decision to complete construction and operate the DWPF. All the alternatives evaluated in this EIS would result in the generation of radioactive waste that DOE would have to handle or treat at facilities described in the SRS Waste Management EIS and the DWPF Supplemental EIS. Appendix D describes the estimated amounts of generated waste. The DWPF Supplemental EIS is also relevant in the assessment of cumulative impacts that could occur at the SRS during the period examined by this EIS. These impacts have been included in the cumulative impact evaluation discussed in Chapter 5.

Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Environmental Impact Statement (SNF and INEL EIS)

DOE is preparing this EIS (DOE 1994h) in compliance with the Court Order dated December 22, 1993, in the case of Public Service Company of Colorado v. Andrus, No. 91-0054-5-HLR (D. Idaho). The Draft EIS was published in June 1994. The Final EIS and the Record of Decision will be completed by April 30, 1995, and June 1, 1995, respectively. Volume 1 of this EIS analyzes at a programmatic level the potential environmental impacts over the next 40 years of alternatives related to the transportation, receipt, processing, and storage of DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel. Volume I will be the basis for deciding, on a programmatic level, the sites at which DOE will manage the various types of DOE-owned spent fuel. The Programmatic Spent Fuel EIS is related to this Interim Management EIS because they both include alternatives for spent fuel currently stored in the SRS reactor disassembly basins and the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels. Volume I of the programmatic spent fuel EIS is also relevant in the assessment of cumulative impacts that could occur at the SRS during the period evaluated by this EIS. These impacts have been included in the cumulative impact evaluation discussed in Chapter 5.

Proposed Policy for the Acceptance of Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel EIS

On October 21, 1993, DOE announced its intent to prepare this EIS (58 FR 54336), which analyzes the acceptance of spent nuclear fuel containing uranium originally enriched in the United States from foreign research reactors (FRR). This action would be in support of U.S. nonproliferation policy. The Draft EIS is scheduled for release in the spring of 1995. A Record of Decision is scheduled for the late summer of 1995. The EIS on foreign research reactor spent fuel is related to this Interim Management EIS because both include alternatives involving the current inventory of highly enriched uranium fuels stored at the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels and the reactor disassembly basins at the SRS.

Environmental Assessment for the Operation of the HB-Line Facility and Frame Waste Recovery Process for Production of Pu-238 Oxide at the Savannah River Site

DOE released a draft of this environmental assessment (DOE 1994b) in September 1994. The draft document addresses future operation of the HB-Line facility and the Frame Waste Recovery process at the SRS. These facilities process plutonium-238 for energy sources in support of space, scientific, and terrestrial missions. The final environmental assessment is scheduled for completion in early 1995. The environmental assessment is related to this EIS because it includes the portion of the current SRS inventory of plutonium-238 that DOE considers usable to meet its programmatic needs. This EIS deals with management alternatives for unusable scrap materials that contain plutonium-238. The environmental assessment is also related because it evaluates proposed actions that could occur at the SRS during the same period evaluated in this EIS. For this reason, it is relevant in the assessment of potential cumulative impacts (see Chapter 5).

1.7 Relationship of Decisions

Many of the materials that are Candidates for Stabilization in this EIS are included in the scopes of Programmatic EISs that DOE is preparing (see Section 1.6). These materials include spent fuel and weapons-usable fissile materials such as plutonium-239 or highly enriched uranium. The actions (other than No Action) being considered in this EIS involve either changing the physical form of the nuclear materials or the manner in which they are stored. DOE believes that any actions taken as a result of this EIS would be interim actions (within the context of the National Environmental Policy Act) that are warranted for safety reasons independently of programs for long-term management or disposition.

For example, the programmatic EIS on spent nuclear fuel management evaluates alternatives for spent nuclear fuel stored at various DOE sites nationwide. The programmatic spent fuel EIS supports decisions regarding where spent nuclear fuel will be stored until final disposition decisions are made. The Mark-31 and Mark-16/22 aluminum-clad targets and fuel stored at SRS are included in the inventory addressed by the programmatic EIS (less than 10 percent of the amount of fuel considered in the programmatic spent nuclear fuel EIS). The Mark-31 targets and Mark-16/22 fuel are also evaluated for stabilization in this EIS. DOE believes stabilization decisions for safety reasons of the fuel and targets at SRS can be made independently and would not influence where DOE would manage spent nuclear fuel from a programmatic perspective.

REFERENCES

DNFSB (Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board), 1994, "Recommendation 94-1 to the Secretary of Energy Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 228a(5), Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended," letter to Honorable Hazel R. O'Leary from John T. Conway, Chairman, Washington, D.C., May 26.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1986, Unclassified Summary: Environmental Assessment, Tritium Loading Facility, Building 233-H, DOE/EA-0297, Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1991, Environmental Assessment for Radioisotopic Heat Source Fuel Reprocessing and Fabrication, DOE/EA-0534, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Special Applications, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1992, "ACTION: A Decision on Phaseout of Reprocessing at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) is Required," memorandum to the Secretary of Energy from Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, Washington, D.C., April 28.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994a, Draft Environmental Assessment for the Operation of the HB-Line Facility and Frame Waste Recovery Process for Production of Pu-238 Oxide at the Savannah River Site, DOE/EA-0948, Office of Defense Programs, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994b, Spent Fuel Working Group Report on Inventory and Storage of the Department's Spent Nuclear Fuel and Other Reactor Irradiated Nuclear Materials and Their Environmental, Safety, and Health Vulnerabilities, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994c, Draft Plutonium Working Group Report on Environmental, Safety and Health Vulnerabilities Associated with the Department's Plutonium Storage, DOE/EH-0415, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994d, Assessment of Interim Storage of Plutonium Solutions in F-Canyon and Mark-31 Targets in L-Basin at the Savannah River Site, DOE-EH-0397P/SRS-FCAN-94-01, Office of Environment, Safety and Health, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994e, F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0219, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994f, Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Interim Storage of Enriched Uranium Above the Maximum Historical Storage Level at the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, DOE/EA-0929, Office of Defense Programs, Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994g, Final Defense Waste Processing Facility Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0082-S, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994h, Draft Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0203, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1995, Savannah River Site Waste Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0217D, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina.

WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994, Department of Energy Plutonium ES&H Vulnerability Assessment, Savannah River Site Assessment Team Report (U), WSRC-TR-94-0299, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

REFERENCES