[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