[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2239-2242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1196]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride
AGENCY: Department of Energy
ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to prepare
a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.).
The PEIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of alternative
strategies for the long-term management and use of 560,000 metric tons
of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) currently stored in
cylinders at DOE's three gaseous diffusion plant sites located near
Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
This impact statement will support management decisions on depleted
UF6 by evaluating the environmental impacts of a range of
reasonable alternative strategies as well as providing a means for the
public to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard on this matter.
This NOI informs the public of the proposal, explains the schedule,
announces the dates, times, and places for scoping meetings, and
solicits public comment.
DATES: To ensure that the full range of issues and alternatives related
to this proposal is addressed, DOE invites comments on the scope of
this proposed PEIS. Written comments should be postmarked by March 25,
1996, to ensure consideration. Comments received after this date will
be considered to the extent practicable.
Three public scoping meetings will be held to provide information
and opportunities for discussion of the subject PEIS and to receive
oral and written comments. The meetings will be held near the storage
sites located near Paducah, Kentucky; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and
Portsmouth, Ohio. The scoping meetings will be held twice a day,
beginning at 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., at each site to allow for as much
interaction with the stakeholders as possible. The meetings will be
held according to the following schedule:
Paducah, Kentucky; February 13, 1996 (Information Age Park Resource
Center, 2000 McCracken Blvd., Paducah, Kentucky 42001)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee; February 15, 1996 (Pollard Auditorium at Oak
Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 210 Badger Avenue, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee 37831)
Portsmouth, Ohio; February 20, 1996 (Vern Riffe Pike County Vocational
School, State Route 124, Piketon, Ohio 45661)
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the PEIS and requests for
copies of referenced material should be directed to: Mr. Charles E.
Bradley, Jr., Office of Facilities, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science
and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road,
Germantown, Maryland, 20874-1290, (301) 903-4781.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the DOE
NEPA process, please contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office
of NEPA Policy and Assistance, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-4600 or 1-
800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The unique properties and value of depleted
UF6, such as its high purity and density, as well as the large
volume (560,000 metric tons) in storage, make it appropriate to
evaluate, analyze, and decide the fate of this material separately from
other DOE materials in storage or awaiting disposition. DOE has
determined that such an action is a major Federal action with
potentially significant environmental impacts and requires the
preparation of an EIS in accordance with NEPA. The purpose of this PEIS
will be to assess the potential impacts of a range of reasonable
alternative strategies for the long-term management of depleted
UF6. A strategy is a set of actions for handling depleted
UF6, from its current storage condition at three DOE sites--
Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee--to
ultimate disposition. These broad strategies focus on material use,
storage, and disposal. The programmatic impact statement will address
the potential impacts of the actions that would comprise each strategy.
DOE will prepare additional tiered, project-specific NEPA documents as
appropriate.
The proposed PEIS is the second component of an integrated three-
part program to select a long-term management strategy for depleted
UF6 at Portsmouth, Paducah, and Oak Ridge. The first component of
the program is an engineering analysis of proposed technologies for
managing or using the material. This analysis will be based, in part,
on responses to a request for recommendations for potential uses,
associated conversion technologies, and management technologies for
depleted UF6.
In November 1994, DOE published two notices in the Federal Register
to initiate the consideration of alternative strategies for the long-
term management and use of depleted UF6. The first notice was the
``Management of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6): Request for
Recommendations'' (59 FR 56324), and the second notice was the
``Advance Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement: Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management of
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride at Several Geographic Locations'' (59 FR
56325). As indicated in the request for recommendations, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory used technical experts to evaluate the 57
responses to the request for recommendations. The results of these
evaluations are presented in ``The Technology Assessment Report for the
Long-Term Management of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride'' (UCRL-AR-
120372), dated June 30, 1995. Copies of this report are available from
the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, phone
(703) 487-4650, or from Mr. Bradley at the address above. Copies are
also in the DOE reading rooms at the following locations:
DOE Headquarters, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1E-190,
Washington, D.C. 20585, phone (202) 586-3142;
Oak Ridge Operations Office, Public Reading Room, 55 Jefferson
Circle, Room 112, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, phone (615) 241-4780;
Paducah/DOE, Environmental Information Center, 175 Freedom Blvd.,
Kevil, Kentucky 42053, phone (502) 462-2550;
Portsmouth/DOE, Environmental Information Center, 505 West Emmitt
Avenue, Suite 3, Waverly, Ohio 45690, phone (614) 947-5093.
As a result of the process implemented to date, DOE has considered
a wide range of potential alternatives. While many of the options
offered in response to DOE's request for recommendations were already
known,
[[Page 2240]]
others contained information on unique technologies and potential uses
that had not been evaluated previously. DOE officials have considered
the opinions of the independent technical reviewers on each of the
recommended options. After the consideration of public comments on the
scope of the PEIS, DOE will determine which options will be evaluated
in detail in the impact statement. Based on its initial review, DOE has
grouped the recommendations into four categories of options: (1)
Conversion, (2) use, (3) storage, and (4) disposal. DOE intends to
consider representative options in each category in evaluating the
environmental impacts of the alternatives.
The third component of DOE's program is a parallel study of the
life-cycle costs of each of the management strategy alternatives to be
evaluated in the EIS. The results of this study, in conjunction with
those of the impact assessment, will form the basis for making a
strategy selection from among the alternatives. This decision will be
documented in the Record of Decision for this PEIS.
Background
Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element containing
different isotopes, notably Uranium-238 (U-238) and Uranium-235 (U-
235). In its natural state, uranium occurs as an oxide ore
(U3O8). This oxide ore is concentrated and then fluorinated
to yield UF6.
The ability to use uranium for controlled fission in nuclear chain
reactions in most nuclear reactors depends on increasing the proportion
of the U-235 isotope in the material (0.7 percent in natural uranium)
relative to the proportion of the U-238 isotope through an isotopic
separation process called enrichment. In this process, a stream of
UF6 containing both U-235 and U-238 is divided into separate
streams--one is increased, or enriched, in its percentage of U-235
(typically 3.5 percent), and the other reduced, or depleted, in its
percentage of U-235 (typically 0.25 percent). The enriched UF6 is
used for making reactor fuel and historically for making weapons-grade
uranium. The large-scale enrichment process developed by the United
States in the 1940's is called ``gaseous diffusion.'' After World War
II, the process continued at the Portsmouth, Paducah, and Oak Ridge
facilities under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission and its
successor agencies, including DOE. On July 1, 1993, responsibility for
uranium enrichment operations at the Portsmouth and Paducah facilities
was transferred from DOE to the United States Enrichment Corporation.
Diffusion plant operations at the Oak Ridge facility ceased in 1985.
The facility used for diffusion operations at Oak Ridge is no longer
needed, and DOE plans to decontaminate and decommission the buildings
and equipment used in the diffusion process.
A major consequence of the gaseous diffusion process is the
accumulation of a significant amount of depleted UF6. This
material is so named because it is depleted in the percentage of the U-
235 isotope as compared to the original feed material. Most of this
material, accumulated since the 1940s, is stored at the Paducah and
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant sites and at the Oak Ridge
Reservation. The total amount of depleted UF6, created prior to
July 1, 1993, and still the responsibility of DOE, is approximately
560,000 metric tons. Depleted UF6 is stored as a solid in a
partial vacuum in large steel cylinders each containing approximately
12 metric tons. These are stacked two layers high at the sites in large
storage areas referred to as ``yards.'' The specifications for these
cylinders are typically: a capacity of 12 metric tons, a diameter of 48
inches, a length of 12 feet, and wall thicknesses of \5/16\ of an inch.
There are approximately 46,500 such cylinders in storage at the three
sites. About 28,400 cylinders are stored at Paducah, 13,400 at
Portsmouth, and 4,700 at Oak Ridge.
Purpose of the PEIS
The purpose of the PEIS is to evaluate the impacts of reasonable
alternative strategies for depleted UF6 long-term management and
use, and to support the selection of a strategy for implementation. The
alternatives will be analyzed for their potential impacts on the human
environment, including risks to worker and public health and safety.
The need to re-examine the current strategy for long-term
management of depleted UF6 arises from several factors including
DOE's current missions and functions; increasing budget pressures; the
continuing need for good stewardship of resources including materials
in inventory; and continuing Departmental attention to considerations
of environment, safety, and health. The increased pressure on the
Federal budget particularly requires that DOE take a closer look at
materials management in order to ensure maximum cost effectiveness.
This includes an examination of feasible uses of this material
consistent with DOE's mission as well as an examination of management
methods that are consistent with environmental requirements and
budgetary constraints.
Description of Preliminary Alternatives
Reasonable alternatives (i.e., those that are practical or feasible
both technically and economically) to be considered in detail in the
PEIS will represent a range of alternatives for meeting DOE's purpose
and need. Each alternative is in the form of a strategy. A strategy is
a set of actions and schedules for depleted UF6, including
storage, use and/or disposal. Such actions also may include conversion
and transportation activities. All alternatives begin with the material
in storage. Strategies involve the configuration of the proposed
facilities associated with these actions, including various
centralization or decentralization options. The time period for the
analysis would cover approximately 40 years from the Record of
Decision.
The following is a preliminary list of six alternatives and the
actions within each that will be analyzed. The proposed alternatives
include continuation of the current management plan (the no action
alternative), two storage alternatives, two use alternatives, and a
disposal alternative. The conversion processes and other options that
will be analyzed will be representative of those recommended in
response to the published request for recommendations. This list of
alternatives is subject to modifications (additions or deletions) as
suggested by the public.
Continue Current Management Plan (No Action)
Under the ``no action'' alternative, cylinder management activities
(handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) would continue,
consistent with the current management plan. These management
activities include actions needed to meet safety and environmental
requirements.
Storage
Two storage alternatives are proposed for consideration in the
impact statement. These are continued storage beyond 2020 as UF6
and as an oxide. Storage for up to 40 years will be analyzed.
Storage as UF6
This alternative considers storing depleted UF6 in one of
three types of storage facilities. The steps in the alternative include
repackaging as necessary to meet the requirements of the storage
facility designs and transport to the storage facility(s). The storage
[[Page 2241]]
alternatives include (1) storage in yards, (2) storage in enclosed
buildings, and (3) deep underground retrievable storage (such as a
mine). In cases where the storage facility is located off site, the
impact statement will examine the transportation impacts associated
with moving the material from its current location.
Storage as an Oxide
The steps in this storage alternative include: transport of the
depleted UF6 to a conversion facility, conversion to an oxide form
(either U308 or UO2), and transport of the oxide to a
storage facility. The potential storage facilities are: (1) Buildings,
(2) below-ground cement vaults, and (3) deep underground retrievable
storage (such as a mine). In addition to the oxide, the conversion
technology could produce an additional product(s) (such as hydrogen
fluoride). The alternative analysis will include an assessment of the
impacts associated with the transport of that product to either a
disposal site or to a user.
Use of Depleted Uranium
Strategies that focus on the use of depleted uranium normally
include conversion of the UF6 to another chemical form, usually
oxide or metal. The basic steps in a use alternative are: (1) Transport
of the depleted UF6 from storage to a conversion facility, (2)
conversion of the depleted UF6 to another chemical form, (3)
transport of this new material to a fabrication plant, (4) fabrication
of the end product, and (5) transport of this product to the user.
Conversion processes leading to uranium oxide and depleted uranium
metal generate additional products including calcium fluoride and
hydrogen fluoride, which may either be sold or disposed of as waste.
The impacts associated with transporting these additional products will
be included in the assessment of the use alternatives.
In the use alternatives, the conversion products (oxides, metals,
etc.) would be manufactured into other forms. Of the uses proposed in
response to the request for recommendations, the production of
radiation shielding, from either oxide or metal, will be analyzed as a
representative dense-material use alternative. Other dense-material
applications include using depleted uranium metal in industrial
counterweights, energy storage flywheels, or as munitions. Impacts
associated with other dense-material would be generally bounded by the
consideration of the more general radiation shielding application.
Should the dense-material use alternative be selected in DOE's Record
of Decision, DOE will prepare additional tiered NEPA analysis as
appropriate concerning this alternative and specific dense-material
uses.
Although suggested as a use alternative, enriching and converting
this material into fuel feed for existing commercial reactors or
advanced reactors (including breeder reactors) is not a reasonable
alternative and will not be analyzed in detail in the PEIS. While
technologically feasible, enrichment would be a lengthy and expensive
process which would continue to generate additional depleted UF6.
This alternative is unreasonable for a number of reasons including:
Duration, cost-effectiveness, current and anticipated commercial market
prices, current and anticipated market demand, the lack of current and
anticipated demand by DOE's Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, and the
generation of additional depleted UF6 for further disposition.
However, the PEIS will analyze long-term storage, and the impacts from
the use of stored material as a fuel source, if subsequently proposed,
would be analyzed in subsequent NEPA documentation.
Radiation Shielding from Metal
Once converted, the metal would be packaged and transported to a
fabrication plant where uranium metal shielding components could be
manufactured. The impacts associated with off-site transport of the
metal and the manufacturing process will be part of the assessment. The
impacts of the uses of the final products will be assessed in a general
way consistent with public access to the manufactured product.
Radiation Shielding from Oxide
The steps in this alternative are identical to those described
previously except that the conversion technology produces oxide rather
than metal. The oxide (in the form of depleted UO2) would be
transported to a fabrication plant where a concrete material containing
uranium could be manufactured. The transport of the oxide material off
site and the manufacture of the concrete and the container will be
included in the impact assessment. The impact of the use of the
concrete material for shielding will be included in the assessment.
Disposal of Depleted UF6
This alternative analyzes the impact of the disposal of depleted
UF6 in the oxide form in three different disposal facility
configurations. Because it is chemically stable and insoluble, the
oxide form would likely be the most appropriate form for permanent
disposal. In this scenario, the material would be disposed of as a low-
level radioactive waste.
The steps in the disposal alternative are: (1) Transport of the
depleted UF6 from storage to a conversion facility, (2) conversion
to oxide, (3) transport of the oxide to a disposal facility, and (4)
disposal. The conversion of the depleted UF6 to an oxide form
(either U3O8 or UO2) would be accomplished using the
technology assessed as part of alternatives described previously. After
conversion, the material would be appropriately packaged and
transported to a disposal facility. The facility designs analyzed in
the alternative include drums placed in: (1) Engineered trenches, (2)
below-ground concrete vaults, and (3) mines. Both bulk disposal of the
depleted UF6 and grouted disposal forms will be considered. Bulk
disposal consists of placing the oxide directly in the drums. Grouted
disposal requires fixing the oxide in a cement-type medium. General
facility configurations will be assessed for both humid and arid
hypothetical locations to provide the full range of potential impacts.
Transportation impacts associated with moving the low-level waste
material will be assessed for locations in both the Eastern and Western
United States.
As with the other alternatives that include a conversion step,
byproducts are produced. The transport of these additional materials
will be included in the assessment.
Identification of Environmental Issues
This EIS is the first level of a tiered environmental assessment
process. Tiering refers to the process of first addressing general
(programmatic) matters in a broad PEIS followed by more narrowly
focused (project level) environmental documentation that incorporates
by reference the more general discussions. At this first level, the
PEIS addresses the potential impacts of broad strategy alternatives,
including analyses of the general impacts of (1) the current management
program for depleted UF6 at DOE's storage sites, (2) technologies
for converting the depleted UF6 to other chemical forms, (3)
storage for subsequent use or disposal, (4) transportation of
materials, and (5) disposal. The environmental impacts of the transport
of materials along specific routes, impacts from the siting of any
specific facilities, or the use of specific technologies will be
assessed in future NEPA documents, as appropriate. These subsequent
documents are the ``project
[[Page 2242]]
level'' documents and are the second level of the tier.
The second level document(s) would address specific siting issues,
construction and operation decisions, and the impacts of transport
between identified origins and destinations. As this PEIS supports the
selection of a general strategy, the range of impact areas to be
considered will focus on those appropriate to this level of decision.
The impact analysis will consider, for each alternative, the physical,
chemical, and radiological health and safety risks to workers and to
the public of material storage, conversion, transportation, use, and
disposal. Potential impacts to air quality and noise levels, water
quality, waste disposal capacity, biotic resources, and socioeconomic
factors associated with these activities will be assessed.
Environmental justice issues will be considered as appropriate for this
level of decision. Cumulative impacts of strategy-related actions and
other actions at the three DOE sites will be assessed.
Related and Other DOE NEPA Documentation
Consistent with tiering, should the depleted UF6 strategy
selection result in site-specific actions, additional NEPA documents
would be prepared to consider the specific impacts on the site and
vicinity from any proposed action. Such analyses would address
additional site-specific issues such as historic resources, threatened
and endangered species, critical environmental resources, floodplain,
and land use. The results of specific analyses conducted as part of
other Departmental EISs will be incorporated as appropriate.
Invitation to Comment
DOE will conduct a full and open process to define the scope of the
PEIS. DOE will hold public scoping meetings at the sites that may be
affected by the proposed action in order to discuss issues and to
receive oral and written comments on the scope of the impact statement.
These meetings will provide the public with an opportunity to present
comments, ask questions, and discuss concerns with DOE officials. The
public will be encouraged to comment on the content of the proposed
action, the proposed alternatives, and the range of impacts to be
considered including cumulative effects. Oral and written comments will
be considered equally in the preparation of the document.
The scoping meetings will allow opportunity for the public to
provide comments on the alternative strategies being considered by DOE.
These scoping meetings build upon six public information forums held
during the request for recommendations comment period and the
completion of the technology assessment phase. At those forums, the
public provided recommendations for technologies to be considered and
comments on the factors used to evaluate the recommendations.
The scoping meetings will consist of an explanation of the depleted
UF6 management program, as well as interactive workshops to
examine the alternatives being considered for evaluation in the EIS.
Background information and fact sheets will be made available to the
public prior to the scoping meetings, upon request. (Requests should be
sent to Mr. Charles E. Bradley, Jr., Office of Facilities, Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy,
19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874-1290; (301) 903-4781.)
These materials, along with posters, demonstrations, and technical
experts, will be present at each of the scoping meetings to provide as
much information as possible to the participants.
Information on the meeting dates and locations, as well as related
materials, can be obtained through the address above. Information is
also available through the information and resource centers located
near the sites. Contact Mr. Charles E. Bradley at the address above for
more information.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of January 1996.
Peter N. Brush,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 96-1196 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
