ARCO -- When Department of Energy officials roll into town later this month, they will present three options for the production of nuclear materials involving the Idaho National Laboratory.

One option they will not present, however, is to cease manufacturing plutonium-238 used in space exploration and national security missions.

And, that's just fine with Idaho's congressional delegation. The delegation believes that consolidating plutonium-238 production at INL -- the department's preferred option -- makes sense. INL offers both the needed security and the most capable test reactor that the energy department has available, the delegation says.

However, the delegation's confidence in the DOE's consolidation plan doesn't ease the worries of nuclear watchdog organizations like the Snake River Alliance. The group and other concerned residents have voiced frustration over the energy department's unwillingness to disclose details of the national security applications in which plutonium-238 will be used.

"We are being asked to bear a risk without ever being able to weigh whether it is economically, environmentally, or ethically worth it," says Beatrice Brailsford, program director for the Snake River Alliance.

The United States' own supply of plutonium-238 is dwindling, and its agreement for purchasing the material from Russia for non-national defense applications runs out in 2010. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the DOE maintain that plutonium-238 is not useful for nuclear weapons proliferation.

Currently, INL's Advanced Test Reactor is used to make the plutonium-238 power systems along with two other DOE sites. The department ships materials between INL, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. One option is to continue this method of production.

The department's preferred alternative would consolidate production to the INL site alone. A third option eventually would do the same but would allow for production in the meantime at the Oak Ridge facility.

"We would have to put some security in place to do it at Oak Ridge," said Timothy Frazier, program director for the Department of Energy.

However, the Oak Ridge facility cannot produce enough plutonium-238 annually to be a viable alternate consolidation spot, Frazier said. And, expansion is not an option, he said.

Therefore, if INL takes on the burden of plutonium-238 production, what happens to the nuclear waste created in the process?

"We're hoping not to store it at INL," Frazier said.

Transuranic waste generated during plutonium-238 production would be shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, Frazier said. The Department of Energy estimates that the consolidation will produce roughly 20 cubic meters of transuranic waste annually.

The 215 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste that the DOE expects to generate could be shipped to a facility such as Envirocare, Frazier said.

"We're hoping to treat the mixed waste within the facility," he said.

DOE officials hope to have the final Environmental Impact Statement ready by November 2005. If the department decides to go ahead with consolidation at INL, construction could begin in 2008 or 2009, Frazier said.

Times-News reporter Michelle Dunlop can be reached at 735-3237 or by e-mail at mdunlop@magicvalley.com.

The Department of Energy's Proposed Plutonium-238 Consolidation Plan The DOE lists three options in its Environmental Impact Statement for consolidating plutonium-238 operations: * No Action Alternative: The DOE would continue producing plutonium-238 in its existing manner. Currently, the department completes this in a five-step process that involves the transport of materials between the Idaho National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. To continue this process, the Oak Ridge facility would need updating. The Department of Energy projects the cost of this alternative between $80 million and $90 million. * Consolidation Alternative (DOE's preferred plan): The production of plutonium-238 would be consolidated at INL, eliminating the transport of materials between other DOE sites. Processes that are currently completed at the Oak Ridge or Los Alamos facilities would take place in Idaho. The DOE expects this option to cost $250 million to $300 million and estimates that the consolidation could be completed in 2011. * Consolidation with Bridge Alternative: Under this option, all plutonium-238 production ultimately would be consolidated at INL. However, if national security needs exceed the Department of Energy's existing inventory, the Oak Ridge facility would begin producing a small amount -- up to 2 kilograms annually -- of plutonium-238. This production could occur from 2007 to 2011, "bridging" the gap until consolidation occurs. This option is projected to cost between $15 million and $25 million more than the DOE's preferred plan for a total of $265 million to $325 million. # How can you comment? * Aug. 29, 2005 marks the end of the public comment period. * Read the draft consolidation environmental impact statement on the Internet at http://consolidationeis.doe.gov. * Contact Timothy Frazier, document manager, at (800) 919-3706 for more information or requests for copies of the plan. * Mail written comments to Timothy Frazier, document manager, U.S. Department of Energy, NE-50/GTN Building Office, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, 1000 Independence Ave. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-1290. * Fax comments to (800) 919-3765. * E-mail comments to Frazier at ConsolidationEIS@nuclear.energy.gov. * Attend a public meeting. The DOE will hold meetings in seven locations including Boise, Twin Falls, Fort Hall and Idaho Falls during the last two weeks in July. The Twin Falls meeting will be held at 7 p.m., July 27, in room 276 of the Taylor Building at the College of Southern Idaho. The Times-News will print a complete schedule of meetings when the Department of Energy finalizes the dates, times and locations.