Idaho National Laboratory Cultural Resource Management Plan

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In March 1974, the AEC generated is own program, the “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.” The NRTS (renamed Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in August 1974) commenced drum retrieval operations, but only of those which were unbreached. Wooden and cardboard boxes were not retrieved because of their advanced state of deterioration. A total of 20,262 drums were repackaged and stored during the program. 341 From 1975 to 1977, major changes in national oversight and regulation of the nuclear industry occurred. The AEC was abolished in 1974 upon objections that the agency was both regulator and regulated. The AEC's research and weapons production missions were given to the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA); its regulatory authority, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 342 In 1976, a new federal law was enacted to regulate hazardous waste disposal — The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). At INL, further studies were conducted on uncontained TRU waste. Workers used an air support weather shield to retrieve the waste from Pit 2. Drums and boxes were badly deteriorated, but waste had not migrated into the surrounding soil. 343 During the 1970s the first buildings were constructed at the Waste Burial Site, which was renamed the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC). The Radiation Analysis Laboratory (later called the RadCon field office, WMC-601), a metal building on a concrete slab, was placed at the site. A prefabricated metal building served as the Decontamination Facility (now called the RWMC High Bay, WMC-602). Of similar construction were the Pumphouse (WMF-603), and the Supervisor's Office (WMF-604, now called the Change House and Lunch Room Facility). These buildings later were termed the Administrative Area of RWMC. Permanent buildings were not built because the waste burial site was intended to be relatively temporary. Temporary buildings also were easier to dispose of if they became contaminated. Meanwhile, at a national level, ERDA requested funding in 1975 to evaluate and possibly develop a site in southeastern New Mexico for the permanent storage of TRU waste. 344 In 1977 DOE replaced ERDA as the cabinet-level federal agency in charge of the nuclear industry. Locally, changes were made in the way waste was stored at INL. Instead of trenches and pits, soil vaults were now used in what was now termed the Subsurface Disposal Area. Two cells in the Transuranic Storage Area (adjacent to the SDA) were then tested in 1978. This storage proved to be acceptable, especially after an air support weather shield was permanently placed over it. 345 In 1978, carbon-steel vaults were placed in the Intermediate Level Transuranic Storage Facility (ILTSF). In later years, these proved to be corrosive. Further construction occurred at the RWMC in 1979. As part of continuing efforts to monitor waste, observation well houses (WMF 606-608) were built around the site. A heavy equipment storage shed (WMF-609) was constructed, again out of steel and metal, to house cranes and other large machines. 346 The Era of CERCLA and Superfund: 1980-1989. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), which established a “Superfund” to clean up the chemical waste sites that would be placed on a National Priority List for such cleanup. 341. Anderson, History of the RWMC, p. 55. 342. Terence R. Fehner and Jack M. Holl, Department of Energy, 1977-1994, A Summary History (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy History Division, DOE/HR-0098, 1994), p. 6, 17-20. 343. Anderson, History of the RWMC, p. 59. 344. R.D. Logan and D. Jacobson, Internal Technical Report, “INEL Building Study, Perimeter Area Buildings” (Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, Inc., December 1990). Some construction dates in this report conflict slightly with 1993 and 1996 INEL Technical Site Information reports. 345. Anderson, History of the RWMC, p. 54-59. 346. Logan and Jacobson, (1990). 282
Some of the cleanup involved moving waste from one site to another. That same year, the Argonne National Laboratory (East) started sending its low-level waste to INL's RWMC site. The Superfund effort lagged in 1981 under the Reagan Administration. Virtually no Congressional authorizations effected any change at INL during the early 1980s. Only a guardhouse (WMF-611) was constructed at RWMC. 347 In 1982 Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This law provided for the development of geologic repositories for high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel disposal. The act also established research, development, and demonstration programs regarding disposal of these particular wastes. On the heels of this act came the April 1983 Leaf v. Hodel decision, which subjected DOE to the 1976 RCRA requirements for handling hazardous waste disposal. Also during this time, DOE had chosen Carlsbad, New Mexico, for a Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) as its permanent TRU waste repository. After protracted controversy, WIPP opened, and INL began shipping qualified waste for permanent storage in 1999. The need to qualify waste suited for WIPP storage led to plans for two waste disposal projects at INL. In 1984 the SWEPP opened. It provided operations capabilities for nondestructive examination and certification of TRU waste stored at the INL. The RWMC SWEPP facility was the first of its kind in the United States. Once the waste was certified at SWEPP, it was ready to be shipped to the New Mexico WIPP site. Waste that did not meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria would be shipped to the proposed Process Experimental Pilot Plant (PREPP) for processing. PREPP, to be located at TAN, was planned as an experimental program to devise methods of processing wastes into acceptable forms. The proposed program would involve the shredding and incinerating of waste, then immobilizing it in concrete. 348 SWEPP started operating in 1985. The SWEPP program generated another “first” for the INL—it was the first United States facility to perform nondestructive examination and certification of defense-generated TRU waste. However, the PREPP facility was never started, partly because of questions about the program's capabilities. DOE eventually decided to prepare transuranic wastes for shipment to a then-undecided national waste burial site elsewhere than at INL. The emphasis at INL shifted to preparation and packaging of the material for shipment. In 1988 and 1989, the TRUPACT II (transuranic waste package containers) loading station, work control trailers, and communications building were constructed at RWMC. SPERT/Power Burst Facility New Mission for the Power Burst Facility. In the 1980s SPERT/PBF took on a new research mission directed to waste management. In 1968 SPERT-III had been put in standby condition. In 1980 it was decontaminated, and its system components recovered. The process pit, reactor pit, dry storage houses, reactor head dock, main reactor floor, and the storage canal all were decontaminated. In 1982 it was renamed the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF) and converted to include an incinerator, melting furnace, compactor, and sizing shop where metallic waste was cut up and resized. The WERF mission was to reduce the volume of low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste before it was shipped to a disposal site. 349 In 1985 the SPERT-I reactor, which had been located in a below-grade pit, was dismantled and the area returned to its original state. In 1986 the SPERT-II Facility was renamed the Waste Engineering Development Facility (WEDF). It served as a place for investigating radioactive and mixed waste treatment technologies and processes. SPERT-IV also entered the waste management arena in 1986. It 347. “A Comprehensive Inventory, 1952-184” (October 1993), p. 1-4; “INEL Building Study” (1990). 348. Video Script, “Processing Experimental Pilot Plant (PREPP)” (Idaho Falls, Idaho: EG&G Idaho, 1984). 349. Comprehensive Facility and Land use Plan. (Idaho Falls: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, March 1996), p.157. 283
Page 3:
DOE/ID-10997 Revision 4 Idaho Natio
Page 7 and 8:
CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................
Page 9 and 10:
Appendix J—INL Cultural Resource
Page 11 and 12:
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOL
Page 13 and 14:
Co. company COM communication CP-1
Page 15 and 16:
FFA/CO FONSI FPR FRAN FS&R Federal
Page 17 and 18:
kV L LAK LAN LCCDA LCRE LDRD LESAT
Page 19 and 20:
NuPac Nuclear Pacific (manufacture
Page 21 and 22:
SM Stationary Medium Power reactor
Page 23 and 24:
W west WAG waste area group WCF Was
Page 25 and 26:
GLOSSARY The terms defined in this
Page 27 and 28:
compliance. Adherence to specific p
Page 29 and 30:
historic context. An organizing str
Page 31 and 32:
multi-component. A descriptive term
Page 33 and 34:
econnaissance survey. A field surve
Page 35 and 36:
Idaho National Laboratory Cultural
Page 37 and 38:
elevant federal regulations, DOE-ID
Page 39 and 40:
programs nationwide. As such, all I
Page 41:
organization, agency, museum, or ot
Page 44 and 45:
Figure 3. Regional setting of Idaho
Page 46 and 47:
extruded from low-shield volcanoes,
Page 48 and 49:
The relatively permanent water sour
Page 50 and 51:
Gradually, as a result of this pale
Page 52 and 53:
fauna, including now-extinct forms
Page 54 and 55:
Figure 11. Elko corner-notched dart
Page 56 and 57:
The absence of a restrictive sociop
Page 58 and 59:
Figure 13. Big Lost River during se
Page 60 and 61:
In the 1890s another way station or
Page 62 and 63:
History: 1942 to Present In 1942, t
Page 64 and 65:
south of MTR at ATRC. At the time o
Page 66 and 67:
The Loss of Fluid Test (LOFT) progr
Page 68 and 69:
Figure 24. Aerial view of MFC. Othe
Page 70 and 71:
Responsibility for Resource Managem
Page 72 and 73:
and sacred American Indian sites sc
Page 74 and 75:
to the broad patterns of our histor
Page 76 and 77:
available information of value. The
Page 78 and 79:
times, including during an annual m
Page 80 and 81:
INL CRM Office staff have also deve
Page 82 and 83:
Figure 27. National Historic Preser
Page 84 and 85:
encountered during any activity. Ac
Page 86 and 87:
2. No Adverse Effect. Cultural reso
Page 88 and 89:
egular commentary on INL CRM Office
Page 90 and 91:
Bonnichsen, B. and R. M. Breckenrid
Page 92 and 93:
Executive Order 13287, 2003, “Pre
Page 94 and 95:
Kurten, B. and E. Anderson, 1972,
Page 96 and 97:
Pierce, K. L. and W. E. Scott, 1982
Page 98 and 99:
Stacy, S., 2005a, Historic American
Page 101:
Appendix A Legal Basis for Cultural
Page 104 and 105:
“Federal Records Act of 1950,”
Page 106 and 107:
* “National Environmental Policy
Page 108 and 109:
“Preserve America,” 2003 (EO 13
Page 110 and 111:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DIRECTIVES Cul
Page 112 and 113:
Figure 28. INL Environmental Policy
Page 114 and 115:
Figure 30. Bechtel BWXT Environment
Page 116 and 117:
*LWP-8000, “Environmental Instruc
Page 119 and 120:
Appendix B American Indian Interest
Page 121 and 122:
3. Consultation. DOE and the Tribes
Page 123:
Between the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Page 127 and 128:
BACKGROUND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERG
Page 129 and 130:
III. THE DEPARTMENT WILL ESTABLISH
Page 131:
Attachment 2 Agreement-in-Principle
Page 135 and 136:
101
Page 137 and 138:
103
Page 139 and 140:
105
Page 141 and 142:
107
Page 143 and 144:
109
Page 145 and 146:
111
Page 147 and 148:
113
Page 149 and 150:
Attachment 3 Communications Protoco
Page 151 and 152:
Communications Protocol August 10,
Page 153 and 154:
undertaking. The intent of this not
Page 155 and 156:
D. Revision of Procedures These pro
Page 157 and 158:
Attachment 4 Memorandum of Agreemen
Page 159 and 160:
125
Page 161 and 162:
127
Page 163 and 164:
Appendix C Standards and Procedures
Page 165 and 166:
Appendix C Standards and Procedures
Page 167 and 168:
As the INL Cultural Resource Manage
Page 169 and 170:
inclusion in the INL cultural resou
Page 171 and 172:
SHPO, and other involved parties. I
Page 173 and 174:
esource base and enhance long-term
Page 175 and 176:
of any given test excavation will d
Page 177 and 178:
discussed under test excavations. A
Page 179 and 180:
e eligible to the National Register
Page 181 and 182:
Idaho National Laboratory Cultural
Page 183 and 184:
Figure 33. INL CRM Office permit ap
Page 185 and 186:
Figure 35. Intermountain Antiquitie
Page 187 and 188:
Figure 35. (continued.) 153
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Appendix D Strategies and Procedure
Page 195 and 196:
Appendix D Strategies and Procedure
Page 197 and 198:
uildings have been demolished (e.g.
Page 199 and 200:
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR MANAGIN
Page 201 and 202:
In addition to internal procedures,
Page 203 and 204:
Council consultation, additional ti
Page 205 and 206:
Determination of eligibility 35-mm
Page 207 and 208:
Appendix E Research Designs 173
Page 209 and 210:
Appendix E Research Designs INTRODU
Page 211 and 212:
Therefore, the addressable research
Page 213 and 214:
INL Research Design Each of the pro
Page 215 and 216:
within the last 600 to 1000 years i
Page 217 and 218:
originate and where most processing
Page 219 and 220:
Site taxonomy is based on the amoun
Page 221 and 222:
of the limited number of sites exca
Page 223 and 224:
Research Topic: Historic Indian Occ
Page 225 and 226:
However, artifacts that often have
Page 227 and 228:
Research Question—Does the dramat
Page 229 and 230:
stages of stone tool manufacture ar
Page 231 and 232:
Appendix F Historic Contexts 197
Page 233 and 234:
Appendix F Historic Contexts INTROD
Page 235 and 236:
The Pocatello Naval Ordnance Plant.
Page 237 and 238:
constructed) a rocket ordnance test
Page 239 and 240:
In the Residential Area, the civili
Page 241 and 242:
occurrence of such episodes, how to
Page 243 and 244:
1952. These structures were — and
Page 245 and 246:
scarce resource. Only uranium could
Page 247 and 248:
highway could observe the steam and
Page 249 and 250:
approved in 1962. To the dismay of
Page 251 and 252:
supplied the NRTS as well. Argonne-
Page 253 and 254:
after further testing. When a speci
Page 255 and 256:
months or years of radiation exposu
Page 257 and 258:
The MTR auxiliary buildings were or
Page 259 and 260:
The MTR played a role in most of th
Page 261 and 262:
Because the reactor would operate a
Page 263 and 264:
working area, the Advanced Test Rea
Page 265 and 266: partners in the safe operation and
Page 267 and 268: DD&D of the OMRE. The facility then
Page 269 and 270: and Drydock Company would develop t
Page 271 and 272: Initially, the Navy sent about thre
Page 273 and 274: The Army, therefore, set out to exp
Page 275 and 276: gas-driven turbo-generator. It reac
Page 277 and 278: $6-7 million; for diesel, $350,000.
Page 279 and 280: The ANP support facilities were con
Page 281 and 282: Related to the SNAP program, the AE
Page 283 and 284: The SPERT experiments took place at
Page 285 and 286: vessel and control rod drive could
Page 287 and 288: The PBF reactor achieved its first
Page 289 and 290: Sub-Theme: Commercial Reactor Safet
Page 291 and 292: uranium was not a hazard, but the I
Page 293 and 294: North of the Waste Treatment Comple
Page 295 and 296: pneumatic transport techniques. Phi
Page 297 and 298: enriched fuels, aluminum-clad fuels
Page 299 and 300: uildings, and craft shops. Then the
Page 301 and 302: of building the reactor. Although t
Page 303 and 304: DOE is actively seeking new custome
Page 305 and 306: The three prototypes are presently
Page 307 and 308: ICPP complex. Changes in waste mana
Page 309 and 310: came to a halt, unfinished and sudd
Page 311 and 312: As the Cold War escalated, the numb
Page 313 and 314: e 3 × 10 11 curies, with an estima
Page 315: also became concerned about Rocky F
Page 319 and 320: cleanup, and remediation of nuclear
Page 321 and 322: Appendix G Programmatic Agreement 2
Page 323 and 324: 289
Page 325 and 326: 291
Page 327 and 328: 293
Page 329 and 330: Appendix H Inventory of Known INL A
Page 331 and 332: Appendix H Inventory of Known INL A
Page 333 and 334: Table 5. (continued). INL Prehistor
Page 365 and 366: Table 6. INL prehistoric isolated f
Page 367 and 368:
Table 6. (continued). INL Prehistor
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Table 7. INL historic and multi-com
Page 401 and 402:
Table 7. (continued). INL Historic
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Appendix I INL Architectural Proper
Page 409 and 410:
Appendix I INL Architectural Proper
Page 411 and 412:
Table 8. Surveyed INL properties. B
Page 413 and 414:
Table 8. (continued). Building or S
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Appendix J INL Cultural Resource Pr
Page 443 and 444:
Appendix J INL Cultural Resource Pr
Page 445 and 446:
Table 9. (continued). INL Cultural
Page 447 and 448:
Table 9. (continued). Project Numbe
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Table 10. (continued). INL CRM Offi
Page 471 and 472:
Table 10. (continued). INL CRM Offi
Page 473 and 474:
Table 11. INL Cultural Resource Man
Page 475 and 476:
Table 11. (continued). Project Numb
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Page 481 and 482:
Page 483 and 484:
Page 485 and 486:
Page 487 and 488:
Appendix K Goals and Tasks 453
Page 489 and 490:
Appendix K Goals and Tasks INTRODUC
Page 491 and 492:
Task 2. Maintain memberships in pro
Page 493 and 494:
Appendix L Idaho National Laborator
Page 495 and 496:
Appendix L Idaho National Laborator
Page 497:
Figure 38. Example of INL Cultural
show all

Idaho National Laboratory Cultural Resource Management Plan

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?