[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43358-43364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20471]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted 
Uranium Hexafluoride

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (``DOE'' or ``the Department'') 
issued the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 
Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted 
Uranium Hexafluoride (Final PEIS) on April 23, 1999. DOE has considered 
the environmental impacts, benefits, costs, and institutional and 
programmatic needs associated with the management and use of its 
approximately 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride 
(DUF6). DOE has decided to promptly convert the depleted 
UF6 inventory to depleted uranium oxide, depleted uranium 
metal, or a combination of both. The depleted uranium oxide will be 
used as much as possible and the remaining depleted uranium oxide will 
be stored for potential future uses or disposal, as necessary. At this 
time, the Department does not believe that long-term storage as 
depleted uranium metal and disposal as depleted uranium metal are 
reasonable alternatives; however, the Department remains open to 
exploring these options further. Pursuant to this Record of Decision 
(ROD), any proposal to proceed with the siting, construction, and 
operation of a facility or facilities will involve additional review 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DOE anticipates 
that approximately 4,700 cylinders containing depleted UF6 
that are located at the East Tennessee Technology Park (formerly known 
as the K-25 Site), in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, would be shipped to a 
conversion facility. Uses for the converted product potentially include 
Government applications and applications that may be developed by the 
private sector.

ADDRESSES: The Final PEIS and ROD are available on the Office of 
Environment, Safety and Health NEPA home page at http://www.eh.doe.gov/
nepa or on the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) 
home page at http://www.ne.doe.gov. You may request copies of the Final 
PEIS and this ROD by calling the toll-free number 1-800-517-3191, by 
faxing requests to (301) 903-4905, by making requests via the depleted 
UF6 home page at http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/
finalpeis.cfm, via electronic mail to [email protected]., or by 
mailing them to: Scott E. Harlow, NE, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 
German-

[[Page 43359]]

 town Road, Germantown, Maryland 20874.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the alternative 
strategies for the long-term management and use of depleted 
UF6, contact Scott Harlow at the address listed above. For 
general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Carol 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20585, (202) 586-4600 or 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Depleted UF6 results from the process of making uranium 
suitable for use as fuel for nuclear power plants or for military 
applications. The use of uranium in these applications requires 
increasing the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope found in natural 
uranium through an isotopic separation process called uranium 
enrichment. Gaseous diffusion is the enrichment process currently used 
in the United States. The depleted UF6 that is produced as a 
result of enrichment typically contains 0.2 percent to 0.4 percent 
uranium-235 and is stored as a solid in large metal cylinders at the 
gaseous diffusion facilities.
    Large-scale uranium enrichment in the United States began as part 
of atomic bomb development during World War II. Uranium enrichment 
activities were subsequently continued under the U.S. Atomic Energy 
Commission and its successor agencies including DOE. The K-25 Plant 
(now called the East Tennessee Technology Park) at Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee, was the first of the three gaseous diffusion plants 
constructed to produce enriched uranium. The U.S. program to enrich 
uranium was conducted first to support U.S. national security 
activities and later (by the late 1960s) to provide enriched uranium-
235 for fuel for commercial nuclear power plants in the United States 
and abroad. The K-25 plant ceased operation in 1985, but uranium 
enrichment continues at both the Paducah Site in Kentucky and the 
Portsmouth Site in Ohio. These two plants are now operated by USEC Inc. 
(formerly known as the United States Enrichment Corporation), created 
by law in 1993 to privatize the uranium enrichment program. Depleted 
UF6 is stored as a solid at all three sites in steel 
cylinders. Each cylinder holds approximately 9 to 12 metric tons of 
material. The cylinders usually are stacked two layers high in outdoor 
areas called ``yards.''
    DOE maintains an active cylinder management program to improve 
storage conditions in the cylinder yards, to monitor cylinder integrity 
by conducting routine inspections for breaches (leaks), and to perform 
cylinder maintenance and repairs as needed. The results of these 
management activities ensure that cylinders are stored with minimum 
risks to workers, members of the general public, and the environment at 
the sites. Because storage began in the early 1950s and the cylinders 
are stored outdoors, many of the cylinders now show evidence of 
external corrosion. Eight cylinders out of the 46,422 that were filled 
by DOE or its predecessor agencies have developed leaks. Because the 
depleted UF6 is a solid at outdoor ambient temperatures and 
pressures, it is not readily released from a cylinder following a 
breach.
    DOE has an integrated program plan that has been in place since 
December 1994 to ensure the safe management of these cylinders. Under 
this program plan, if alternative uses for the depleted uranium were 
not found to be feasible by approximately the year 2010, DOE would take 
steps to convert the depleted UF6 to triuranium octaoxide 
(U3O8) beginning in the year 2020. 
U3O8 would be more chemically stable than the 
depleted UF6 and would be safely stored pending a 
determination that all or a portion of the depleted uranium was no 
longer needed. At that point, the U3O8 would be 
disposed of as low-level waste (LLW). This program plan was based on 
reserving depleted UF6 for future defense needs and for 
other potential productive and economically viable purposes including 
possible reenrichment in an atomic vapor laser isotope separation 
plant, conversion to depleted uranium metal for fabricating antitank 
weapons, and use as fuel in advanced liquid metal nuclear reactors. 
Since the time when that program plan was put into place, several 
developments have occurred prompting the need for its revision. These 
developments include the passage and implementation of the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992 that assigned responsibility for uranium enrichment 
to the United States Enrichment Corporation. Also, the demand for 
antitank weapons has diminished, and the advanced liquid metal nuclear 
reactor program has been canceled. In addition, stakeholders near the 
current cylinder storage sites have expressed concern about the 
environmental, safety, health, and regulatory issues associated with 
the continued storage of the depleted UF6 inventory. The 
selection of a new management strategy constituted a major Federal 
action and required preparation of a PEIS.
    The Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride 
(herein referred to as the ``Plan'') submitted to Congress in July 1999 
was prepared in accordance with Public Law 105-204, which required the 
Department to prepare and submit a plan to construct conversion 
facilities at both the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. 
The Plan was also consistent with the preferred alternative of the 
Final PEIS, to begin conversion of the depleted UF6 
inventory to depleted uranium oxide, depleted uranium metal, or a 
combination of both. The Department currently expects that conversion 
to depleted uranium metal would be performed only if uses become 
available. At this time, the Department does not believe that long-term 
storage as depleted uranium metal and disposal as depleted uranium 
metal are reasonable alternatives; however, the Department remains open 
to exploring these options further. DOE plans to use the resources and 
expertise of the private sector to convert the depleted UF6 
inventory. The Department has proceeded to implement its procurement 
strategy to award one or more contracts for the design, construction, 
operation, and decontamination and decommissioning of conversion 
facilities and support functions. The draft request for proposals for 
this procurement, scheduled to be issued in the summer of 1999, will be 
based on responses received from the Department's request for 
expressions of interest issued March 4, 1999, input from Congress and 
stakeholders, the draft Plan, and the Final PEIS.
    Work on the PEIS began in 1994 with a request for recommendations 
for management strategies for depleted UF6 published in the 
Federal Register designed to solicit ideas from industry and the 
general public for the management and use of depleted UF6. 
The responses were evaluated and those that appeared reasonable 
provided the basis for the alternatives that were subsequently assessed 
in the PEIS. The technologies that were suggested were described in The 
Technology Assessment Report for the Long-Term Management of Depleted 
Uranium Hexafluoride (UCRL-AR-120372) and The Engineering Analysis 
Report for the Long-Term Management of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride 
(UCRL-AR-124080). The costs associated with the alternatives analyzed 
in the PEIS are provided in the Cost Analysis Report for the Long-Term 
Management of Depleted

[[Page 43360]]

Uranium Hexafluoride (UCRL-AR-127650). Public scoping meetings for the 
PEIS were held in Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee. The Draft PEIS was issued in December 1997. Public hearings 
on the Draft PEIS were held in Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee; and Washington, D.C. Based on the comments received, 
a revised version of the document was produced that included a revision 
of the preferred alternative. The Final PEIS was mailed to interested 
parties and was made available to the public using the World Wide Web 
on April 16, 1999.

II. Purpose and Need for the Agency Action

    The purpose of the PEIS was to reexamine DOE's long-term management 
strategy for depleted UF6 and alternatives to that strategy. 
DOE needs to take this action to respond to economic, environmental, 
and legal developments. The PEIS examined the environmental 
consequences of alternative strategies for long-term storage, use, and 
disposal of the entire inventory as well as the no-action alternative.

III. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

    DOE evaluated the following alternative strategies for the long-
term management and use of depleted UF6.
    No Action. Under this alternative, depleted UF6 cylinder 
storage was assumed to continue at the three current storage sites 
indefinitely. Potential environmental impacts were estimated through 
the year 2039. The activities assumed to occur at the sites under the 
no-action alternative include a comprehensive cylinder monitoring and 
maintenance program with routine cylinder inspections, ultrasonic 
thickness testing of cylinders, radiological surveys, cylinder painting 
to prevent corrosion, cylinder yard surveillance and maintenance, 
construction of four new or improved cylinder yards at Paducah and one 
at K-25, and relocation of some cylinders at Paducah and K-25 to the 
new or improved yards. Cylinders were assumed to be painted every ten 
years, which is consistent with current plans.
    Long-Term Storage as Depleted UF6. This alternative 
includes long-term storage at a single location and could involve 
storage of cylinders in newly constructed yards, buildings, or an 
underground mine. The location of such a long-term storage facility 
could be at a site other than a current storage site. Continued storage 
of depleted UF6 cylinders at the three current storage 
sites, with existing cylinder management of the entire inventory, would 
occur through 2008, and the inventory would decrease through 2034 as 
cylinders are being consolidated at a long-term storage facility. 
Cylinders would be prepared for shipment at the three current storage 
sites with transportation of cylinders to a long-term storage facility 
by truck or rail. The long-term storage facility would include yards, 
buildings, or an underground mine. Transportation and disposal of any 
waste created from the activities listed above would occur under this 
alternative.
    Long-Term Storage as Uranium Oxide. Under this alternative, the 
depleted UF6 would be converted from depleted UF6 
to depleted uranium oxide prior to placement in long-term storage. 
Storage in a retrievable form in a facility designed for indefinite, 
low-maintenance operation would preserve access to the depleted 
uranium. Storage in the form of an oxide would be advantageous in view 
of long-term stability and the material preferred for use or disposal 
at a later date. Conversion of the depleted UF6 to depleted 
uranium oxide was assumed to take place in a newly constructed stand-
alone plant dedicated to the conversion process. Two forms of uranium 
oxide, U3O8 and uranium dioxide (UO2), 
were considered. Both oxide forms have low solubility in water and are 
relatively stable over a wide range of environmental conditions. Two 
representative conversion technologies were assessed for conversion to 
U3O8 and three for conversion to UO2. 
In addition to producing depleted uranium oxide, conversion would 
result in the production of considerable quantities of hydrogen 
fluoride (HF) as a byproduct. HF could be converted to anhydrous 
hydrogen fluoride (AHF), a commercially valuable chemical. AHF is toxic 
to humans if exposed at high enough concentrations. HF is typically 
stored and transported as a liquid, and inventories produced from the 
conversion process potentially could be sold for use. Alternatively, HF 
could be neutralized by the addition of lime to form a solid fluoride 
salt, CaF2, which is much less toxic than HF. 
CaF2 potentially could be sold for commercial use or could 
be disposed of either in a landfill or LLW disposal facility depending 
on the uranium concentration and the applicable regulations at the time 
of disposal. Following conversion, the depleted uranium oxide was 
assumed to be stored in drums in buildings, below ground vaults, or an 
underground mine. The storage facilities would be designed to protect 
the stored material from natural forces/degradation by environmental 
forces. Once placed in storage, the drums would require only routine 
monitoring and maintenance activities.
    Use as Uranium Oxide. Under this alternative, depleted 
UF6 would first be converted to depleted uranium oxide 
(UO2 or U3O8). For assessment 
purposes, conversion to depleted UO2 was assumed. There is a 
variety of current and potential uses for depleted uranium oxide 
including use as radiation shielding, use in dense materials 
applications other than shielding, use in light water reactor fuel 
cycles, and use in advanced reactor fuel cycles. Radiation shielding 
was selected as the representative use option for detailed analysis in 
the PEIS. A conversion facility would be required to convert 
UF6 to depleted uranium oxide. The conversion facility would 
also produce either AHF or CaF2 as a byproduct. These 
materials would be used or disposed as discussed above.
    Use as Uranium Metal. In this alternative, depleted UF6 
would first be converted to depleted uranium metal. Similar to use as 
depleted uranium oxide, the depleted uranium metal was assumed to be 
used as the primary shielding material in casks designed to contain 
spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste. The depleted uranium metal 
would be enclosed between the stainless steel shells making up the body 
of the casks. A conversion facility would be required to convert 
depleted UF6 to depleted uranium metal. The conversion 
facility would also produce either AHF or CaF2 as a 
byproduct. These materials would be used or disposed as discussed 
above. In addition, some metal conversion technologies would also 
produce large quantities of magnesium fluoride as a byproduct. The 
magnesium fluoride would be disposed of either in a sanitary landfill 
or LLW disposal facility depending upon the uranium concentration and 
applicable disposal regulations at the time. The manufacture of 
depleted uranium metal casks was assumed to take place at a stand-alone 
industrial plant dedicated to the cask manufacturing process. The plant 
would be capable of receiving depleted uranium metal from a conversion 
facility, manufacturing casks, and storing the casks until shipment by 
rail to a user such as a nuclear power plant or DOE facility.
    Disposal. Under the disposal alternative, depleted UF6 
would be chemically converted to a more stable depleted uranium oxide 
form and disposed of below ground as LLW.

[[Page 43361]]

Compared with long-term storage, disposal is considered to be permanent 
with no intent to retrieve the material for future use. Prior to 
disposal, conversion of depleted UF6 was assumed to take 
place at a newly constructed stand-alone plant dedicated to the 
conversion process. This activity would be identical to that described 
under the long-term storage as oxide alternative. Potential impacts 
were evaluated for both UO2 and U3O8. 
The conversion facility would convert depleted UF6 to 
depleted uranium oxide and would produce either AHF or CaF2 
as a byproduct. These materials would be used or disposed as discussed 
above. Several disposal options were considered including disposal in 
shallow earthen structures, below ground vaults, and an underground 
mine. In addition, two physical waste forms were considered, ungrouted 
waste and grouted waste.
    Grouted waste refers to the solid material obtained by mixing the 
depleted uranium oxide with cement and repackaging it in drums. 
Grouting is intended to increase structural strength and stability of 
the waste and to reduce the solubility of the waste in water. However, 
because cement would be added to the depleted uranium oxide, grouting 
would increase the total volume requiring disposal. Grouting of waste 
was assumed to occur at the disposal facility.
    DOE's Preferred Alternative. DOE's preferred alternative for the 
long-term management and use of depleted UF6 is to begin 
conversion of the depleted UF6 inventory, as soon as 
possible, to depleted uranium oxide, depleted uranium metal, or a 
combination of both. The conversion products, such as fluorine, would 
be used as much as possible, and the remaining products would be stored 
for future uses or disposal. The Department currently expects that 
conversion to depleted uranium metal would be performed only if uses 
become available. At this time, the Department does not believe that 
long-term storage as depleted uranium metal and disposal as depleted 
uranium metal are reasonable alternatives; however, the Department 
remains open to exploring these options further. DOE's preferred 
alternative in the Draft PEIS was to begin to convert the depleted 
UF6 inventory to uranium oxide or depleted uranium metal 
only as uses for the material became available. Several reviewers 
expressed a desire for DOE to start conversion as soon as possible. 
After consideration of the comments, DOE revised the preferred 
alternative in the Final PEIS to call for the prompt conversion of the 
material to depleted uranium oxide, depleted uranium metal, or a 
combination of both and long-term storage of that portion of the 
depleted uranium oxide that cannot be put to immediate use. Any 
proposal to proceed with the location, construction, and operation of a 
facility or facilities will involve additional review under NEPA and 
will be subject to availability of funding. DOE expects that in the 
future, uses would be found for some portion of the converted material. 
The value of depleted uranium and HF or CaF2 for use is 
based on their unique qualities, the size of the inventory, and the 
history of uses already implemented. DOE plans to continue its support 
for the development of Government applications for depleted uranium 
products and to continue the safe management of its depleted uranium 
inventory as long as such inventory remains in storage prior to total 
conversion.

IV. Alternatives Dismissed From Detailed Consideration

    Storage and Disposal as Depleted Uranium Metal. Conversion of 
depleted UF6 to depleted uranium metal for long-term storage 
and conversion to depleted uranium metal for disposal were not analyzed 
in depth as reasonable alternatives in the Final PEIS. These 
alternatives were rejected because of higher conversion cost for some 
processes used to convert UF6 to metal, the lower chemical 
stability of uranium metal as opposed to uranium oxide thus requiring 
different considerations for handling and storage, and uncertainty over 
the suitability of depleted uranium metal as a final disposal form. At 
this time, the Department does not believe that long-term storage as 
depleted uranium metal and disposal as depleted uranium metal are 
reasonable alternatives; however, the Department remains open to 
exploring these options further.
    Storage and Disposal as Depleted Uranium Tetrafluoride 
(UF4). Long-term storage as depleted UF4 and 
disposal as depleted UF4 were also not analyzed in depth as 
reasonable alternatives in the Final PEIS. Although more stable than 
UF6, UF4 has no identified direct use, offers no 
obvious advantage in required storage space, and is less stable than 
oxide forms. Further, as a disposal form, UF4 is soluble in 
water.

V. Summary of Environmental Impacts

    The PEIS analyses indicated that the areas of potential adverse 
environmental impacts include human health and safety impacts, impacts 
to ground water, air quality, and waste management under certain 
conditions. In addition, the Final PEIS identified net positive 
socioeconomic impacts in terms of employment and income for all 
alternatives. The most important potential impacts in these areas are 
summarized in the following paragraphs (detailed discussions are 
provided in the Final PEIS). For all alternatives, potential impacts in 
other areas, including ecological resources, resource requirements, 
land use, cultural resources, and environmental justice, it was 
determined to be low to negligible or entirely dependent on the actual 
sites where the alternatives would be implemented that are, as yet, 
unidentified.
    Human Health and Safety. Potential impacts to the health and safety 
of workers and members of the public are possible during construction 
activities, during normal facility operations, in the long-term if 
ground water contamination occurs, from facility accidents, and from 
transportation. During normal facility operations, under all 
alternatives, impacts to human health and safety would be limited to 
involved workers (persons directly involved in the handling of 
radioactive or hazardous materials). Involved workers could be exposed 
to low-level radiation emitted by depleted uranium during the normal 
course of their work activities. The overall radiation exposure of 
workers was estimated to result in one cancer fatality under the no-
action alternative, from one to two cancer fatalities under the long-
term storage as UF6 and the two use alternatives, and up to 
three cancer fatalities under the disposal and preferred alternatives. 
For all alternatives, except the disposal as oxide alternative, these 
exposures were estimated to be within applicable public health 
standards and regulations.
    For the disposal as oxide alternative, if the disposal facility 
were located in a ``wet'' environment (typical of the Eastern United 
States), the estimated dose from the use of groundwater at 1,000 years 
after the assumed failure of the facility would be about 100 mrem/year, 
which would exceed the regulatory dose limit of 25 mrem/year specified 
in 10 CFR Part 61 and DOE Order 5820.2A for the disposal of LLW. In a 
``dry'' environment typical of the Western United States, the analysis 
indicated that disposal would not exceed regulatory limits for over 
1,000 years in the future even if the facility leaked.
    Under all alternatives, workers (including involved and 
noninvolved) could be injured or killed from on-the-job accidents 
unrelated to radiation or

[[Page 43362]]

chemical exposure. Using statistics from similar activities, under the 
no-action alternative, it was estimated that zero fatalities and about 
180 injuries might occur over the period from 1999 through 2039. Under 
all other alternatives, it was estimated that from one to five 
fatalities and from 310 to 4,100 injuries might occur over the same 
period.
    Accidents are possible that could release radiation or chemicals to 
the environment potentially causing adverse health effects among 
workers and members of the public under all alternatives. Accidents 
involving cylinders are possible under all alternatives and could have 
severe consequences (depending on the amount of DUF6 
released) that would be primarily limited to on-site workers even under 
the worst conditions. During a severe cylinder accident, it was 
estimated that up to three fatalities from HF exposure would occur 
among noninvolved workers, with the additional possibility of 
fatalities among those directly involved in the accident. However, 
because the probability of such accidents occurring is low, they would 
not be expected to occur during the operational periods considered in 
the Final PEIS.
    Low probability accidents involving chemicals at a conversion 
facility were estimated to have potential consequences that are much 
greater than accidents involving cylinders. Such accidents would be 
possible under the long-term storage as oxide, use as oxide, use as 
metal, disposal, and preferred alternatives because they would require 
conversion of UF6 to another chemical form with rupture of 
tanks containing AHF or ammonia estimated to have the largest potential 
consequences. Such accidents are expected to occur with a frequency of 
less than once in one million per year of operation. If such a severe 
event were to occur, it was estimated that up to 30 fatalities among 
the public and four fatalities among noninvolved workers would be 
possible. Although the consequences of cylinder and chemical accidents 
could be severe, these types of accidents are expected to be extremely 
rare. The maximum calculated risk for these accidents would be zero 
fatalities and irreversible adverse health effects expected for 
noninvolved workers and the public combined and one adverse effect 
(mild and temporary effects such as temporary decrease in kidney 
function or respiratory irritation) expected for the general public.
    Transportation activities could also potentially result in adverse 
health and safety impacts. Although specific sites for some of the 
management activities (conversion, for example) have not been 
identified, the Final PEIS analyzed the potential impacts associated 
with shipping UF6 cylinders to alternative locations using 
representative shipment lengths and routes. The primary impacts from 
transportation are related to accidents. The total number of traffic 
fatalities was estimated on the basis of national traffic statistics 
for shipments by both truck and rail modes for all alternatives. If 
shipments were predominantly by truck, it was estimated that zero 
fatalities would be expected for the no-action alternative, 
approximately two fatalities for the long-term storage as depleted 
UF6 alternative, and up to four fatalities for each of the 
other alternatives. Shipment by rail would result in similar, but 
slightly smaller, impacts. Severe transportation accidents could also 
cause a release of radioactive material or chemicals from a shipment 
that could have adverse health effects. All alternatives, other than no 
action and long-term storage as UF6, could involve the 
transportation of relatively large quantities of chemicals such as 
ammonia and AHF because conversion would be required. Severe accidents 
involving these materials could result in releases that caused 
fatalities with HF posing the largest potential hazard. For example, if 
a severe accident involving a railcar containing HF occurred in an 
urban area under unfavorable weather conditions, it was estimated that 
up to 30,000 people would experience irreversible adverse effects (such 
as lung damage) and 300 fatalities could occur. However, because of the 
low probability of such accidents, the maximum calculated risk for 
these accidents would be zero fatalities. If HF were to be neutralized 
to CaF2 at the conversion facility, the risks associated 
with its transportation would be eliminated.
    Ground Water Quality. For operations under all alternatives, 
uranium concentrations in ground water at the three current storage 
sites would remain below guidelines throughout the project duration if 
cylinder maintenance and painting activities are performed as expected. 
Ground water impacts are possible under the disposal alternative if the 
disposal facility were located in a ``wet'' environment. In a dry 
environmental setting, ground water impacts for the severe situation 
would be unlikely for at least 1,000 years.
    Air Quality. Under all alternatives, impacts to air quality from 
construction and facility operations would be within existing 
regulatory standards and guidelines. Under the no-action alternative, 
however, if cylinder maintenance and painting do not reduce cylinder 
corrosion rates, it is possible that cylinder breaches could result in 
HF air concentrations greater than the regulatory standard level at the 
K-25 storage site around the year 2020; HF concentrations at the 
Paducah and Portsmouth Sites were estimated to remain within applicable 
standards or guidelines.
    Waste Management. Under all alternatives requiring conversion, 
there is the potential that significant amounts of fluorine-containing 
wastes could be generated. If the HF produced from conversion were not 
used, CaF2 generated from the neutralization of HF might 
have to be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste.
    Socioeconomics. Positive socioeconomic impacts would occur under 
all alternatives. The no-action alternative would create about 140 
direct jobs and generate about $6.1 million in direct income per 
operational year. The storage as UF6 alternative would 
create about 610 to 1,200 direct jobs and generate about $35 to $65 
million in direct income per year. The other alternatives (long-term 
storage as oxide, use as oxide, use as metal, disposal, and preferred 
alternatives) would have more beneficial socioeconomic impacts, 
creating about 970 to 1,600, 1,250 to 1,600, 1,260 to 1,600, 900 to 
2,100, and 1,600 to 1,840 direct jobs per year, respectively, and 
generating about $55 to $85 million, $79 to $93 million, $79 to $93 
million, $55 to $120 million, and $89 to $110 million in direct income 
per year, respectively. Continued cylinder storage under all 
alternatives would result in negligible impacts on regional growth and 
housing.
    Cumulative Impacts. The continued cylinder storage and cylinder 
preparation components of the depleted UF6 management 
alternatives would result in environmental impacts that would be 
expected to be relatively minor. The estimated cumulative doses to 
members of the general public at all three sites would be below levels 
expected to result in a single cancer fatality over the life of the 
project, and the annual dose to the off-site maximally exposed 
individual would be considerably below the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) maximum standard of 10 mrem/year from the air pathway. The 
cumulative collective dose to workers at the three sites would result 
in one to three additional cancer fatalities over the duration of the 
program. Cumulative demands for water, wastewater treatment, and power 
would be well within existing capacities at all three sites. Relatively 
small amounts of additional land would be

[[Page 43363]]

needed for depleted UF6 management at the three current 
storage sites. The cumulative impacts of conversion, long-term storage, 
and disposal activities could not be determined because specific sites 
and technologies have not been designated for these options. Further 
analyses of cumulative impacts would be performed as required by NEPA 
regulations for any technology or siting proposals that would involve 
these facilities.

VI. Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    Overall, the potential for adverse environmental impacts tends to 
be the smallest for the no-action and long-term storage alternatives 
primarily because they do not require construction and operation of 
conversion facilities or significant transportation operations. 
Although the potential impacts tend to be small for all alternatives, 
differences do exist among the alternatives. The presence of a 
conversion facility results in the potential for both facility and 
transportation accidents involving hazardous chemicals that could have 
severe consequences. However, it must be recognized that the 
probability of such accidents is low, and accident prevention and 
mitigative measures are well established for these types of industrial 
activities. In addition, beneficial socioeconomic impacts tend to be 
smallest for the no-action and long-term storage as UF6 
alternatives and greatest for those alternatives involving conversion. 
Finally, the differences in impacts among the alternatives tend to be 
small when considering the uncertainties related to the actual 
processes and technologies that will be used and the fact that actual 
sites have not been identified. In general, because of the relatively 
small risks that would result under all alternatives and the absence of 
any clear basis for discerning an environmental preference, DOE 
concludes that no single alternative analyzed in depth in the Final 
PEIS is clearly environmentally preferable compared to the other 
alternatives.

VII. Mitigation

    Specific mitigation measures may need to be developed as part of 
the design of the particular conversion facilities. Such measures would 
be addressed during the preparation of project-specific NEPA reviews.

VIII. Comments on Final PEIS

    The Final PEIS was mailed to stakeholders in mid-April 1999, and 
the EPA issued a notice of availability in the April 23, 1999, Federal 
Register. In addition, DOE issued a notice of availability in the April 
29, 1999, Federal Register. The entire document was also made available 
on the World Wide Web. Comments were received by five reviewers, and at 
the same time, about two dozen responses to the aforementioned 
expression of interest were received. The following is a summary of the 
comments received by reviewers of the Final PEIS:
     Comments related to the preferred alternative. One 
reviewer, BNFL Inc., reiterated their previous comments that DOE should 
have analyzed in depth, the environmental impacts of conversion of the 
depleted UF6 to depleted uranium metal for long-term storage 
and disposal. DOE addressed these comments in volume 3 of the Final 
PEIS and earlier in this ROD. At this time, the Department does not 
believe that long-term storage as depleted uranium metal and disposal 
as depleted uranium metal are reasonable alternatives; however, the 
Department remains open to exploring these options further. Should the 
Department be persuaded that it is reasonable to convert the depleted 
UF6 to depleted uranium metal for long-term storage or 
disposal, these alternatives would be analyzed in detail in future NEPA 
reviews, as necessary.
     General comments. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
commented that the Department has adequately addressed its concerns on 
this project and suggested that DOE use a single location for a 
conversion pilot plant as it conducts its further planning and 
environmental analysis. The Kentucky Heritage Council recommended that 
any previously undisturbed areas impacted by the proposed project be 
surveyed by a professional archaeologist. Should the Department decide 
to construct a conversion facility in the State of Kentucky, the 
decision to conduct the requested survey would be addressed at that 
time. The Kentucky Department for Environmental Conservation, Division 
of Water, affirmed that the concerns they raised on the Draft PEIS have 
been addressed in the Final PEIS. The Kentucky Department for 
Environmental Conservation, Division of Waste Management, reiterated 
the concerns that were raised in their April 23, 1998, letter regarding 
the Draft PEIS. These comments were addressed in volume 3 of the Final 
PEIS. The Kentucky Department for Environmental Conservation, 
Underground Storage Tank Branch, is currently waiting for closure 
reports and documentation for several tanks from the Paducah Site. This 
comment was forwarded to the site for appropriate action. Finally, 
should the Department decide to construct a conversion facility in the 
State of Kentucky, the Department would address the issue of using on-
site landfills for disposal of waste generated by such a facility at 
that time.

IX. Other Factors

    Public Law 105-204. In accordance with this law, the Secretary of 
Energy submitted to Congress a plan for the construction of plants at 
Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to convert its large inventory 
of depleted uranium hexafluoride. These proposed activities would be 
subject to review under NEPA. The preferred alternative is consistent 
with this legislation.
    Cost. As part of the analysis done to develop a long-term 
management plan, the comparative costs associated with representative 
technologies for each of the alternatives were calculated. The Cost 
Analysis Report provided life-cycle cost estimates for each of the 
alternatives and estimates the primary capital and operating costs for 
each alternative reflecting all development, construction, operating, 
and decontamination and decommissioning costs as well as potential 
offsetting revenues from the sale of recycled materials. The costs are 
estimated at a preconceptual design level. Depending on the technology 
and the option selected for disposal, conversion, long-term storage, 
and cylinder preparation, there was a wide variation in the cost of 
various alternatives. In general, the no-action alternative was the 
least costly, while the disposal and use as metal alternatives were the 
most costly.
    Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS). USEC Inc. announced 
on June 9, 1999, that it would suspend AVLIS technology development 
activities. The Final PEIS had identified that the AVLIS process could 
potentially be used to re-enrich depleted UF6. USEC Inc. has 
announced that it will move forward with evaluating potentially more 
economical technology options, such as the Silex laser enrichment 
process and gas centrifuge technology.

X. Decision

    DOE has decided that it will select the preferred alternative from 
the Final PEIS. This decision includes the following actions:
     DOE will take the necessary steps to promptly convert the 
depleted UF6 inventory to depleted uranium oxide, depleted 
uranium metal, or a combination of both. Conversion to depleted uranium 
metal would occur

[[Page 43364]]

only when uses for the converted material are identified.
     The depleted uranium oxide will be used as much as 
possible and the remaining depleted uranium oxide will be stored for 
potential future uses or disposal, as necessary.
     Any proposal to proceed with the location, construction, 
and operation of a facility or facilities for conversion of the 
depleted UF6 to a form other than depleted UF6 
will involve additional NEPA review (i.e., project-specific EIS).
     The proposed facilities to be constructed to support this 
conversion decision would be built consistent with the plan submitted 
as required by Public Law 105-204.
     DOE anticipates that approximately 4,700 cylinders 
containing depleted UF6 that are located at the East 
Tennessee Technology Park at Oak Ridge would be shipped to a conversion 
facility.
     Depleted UF6 will be available for use until 
all of it has been converted to another form.

XI. Conclusion

    DOE believes conversion of the depleted UF6 inventory to 
depleted uranium oxide as soon as possible is the prudent and proper 
decision. Several factors, including increased chemical stability, 
socioeconomic benefits associated with the conversion, and public and 
congressional desire to move forward with conversion, have contributed 
to this decision. Conversion to depleted uranium metal would be 
performed only when uses for the converted material are identified. At 
this time, the Department does not believe that long-term storage as 
depleted uranium metal and disposal as depleted uranium metal are 
reasonable alternatives; however, the Department remains open to 
exploring these options further. DOE will continue to safely maintain 
the depleted UF6 cylinders while moving forward to implement 
the decisions set forth in this ROD.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. this second day of August, 1999.
Bill Richardson,
Secretary of Energy.
[FR Doc. 99-20471 Filed 8-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P