[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48123-48127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23213]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facilities
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intention to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal to
construct, operate, maintain, and decontaminate and decommission two
depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF 6) conversion facilities,
at Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky. DOE would use the proposed
facilities to convert its inventory of DUF6 to a more stable
chemical form suitable for storage, beneficial use, or disposal.
Approximately 700,000 metric tons of DUF6 in about 57,700
cylinders are stored at Portsmouth and Paducah, and at an Oak Ridge,
Tennessee site. The EIS will address potential environmental impacts of
the construction, operation, maintenance, and decontamination and
decommissioning of the conversion facilities. DOE will hold public
scoping meetings near the three involved sites.
DATES: DOE invites public comments on the proposed scope of the
DUF6 conversion facilities EIS. To ensure consideration,
comments must be postmarked by November 26, 2001. Late comments will be
considered to the extent practicable. Three public scoping meetings
will be held near Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. The scoping meetings will provide the public with an
opportunity to present comments on the scope of the EIS, and to ask
questions and discuss concerns with DOE officials regarding the EIS.
The location, date, and time for these public scoping meetings are as
follows:
Portsmouth, Ohio: Thursday, November 1, 2001, from 6-9 p.m. at the Vern
Riffe Pike County Vocational School,
[[Page 48124]]
175 Beaver Creek Road--off State Route 32, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Paducah, Kentucky: Tuesday, November 6, 2001, from 6-9 p.m. at the
Information Age Park Resource Center, 2000 McCracken Blvd., Paducah,
Kentucky 42001.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Thursday, November 8, 2001, from 6-9 p.m. at the
Pollard Auditorium, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 210
Badger Avenue, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831.
ADDRESSES: Please direct comments or suggestions on the scope of the
EIS and questions concerning the proposed project to: Kevin Shaw, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of
Site Closure--Oak Ridge Office (EM-32), 19901 Germantown Road,
Germantown, Maryland 20874, fax (301) 903-3479, e-mail
DUF6.[email protected] (please use ``NOI Comments'' for
the subject).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the proposed
project, contact Kevin Shaw, as above. For general information on the
DOE NEPA process, please contact Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office
of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, telephone (202)
586-4600 or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Depleted UF6 results from the process of making uranium
suitable for use as fuel in nuclear reactors or for military
applications. The use of uranium in these applications requires
increasing the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope found in natural
uranium, which is approximately 0.7 percent (by weight), through an
isotopic separation process. A U-235 ``'enrichment''' process called
gaseous diffusion has historically been used in the United States. The
gaseous diffusion process uses uranium in the form of UF6,
primarily because UF6 can conveniently be used in the gas
form for processing, in the liquid form for filling or emptying
containers, and in the solid form for storage. Solid UF6 is
a white, dense, crystalline material that resembles rock salt.
Over the last five decades, large quantities of uranium were
enriched using gaseous diffusion. ``Depleted'' UF6
(DUF6) is a product of the process and was stored at the
three uranium enrichment sites located at Paducah, Kentucky;
Portsmouth, Ohio; and the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP--
formerly known as the K-25 Site) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Depleted
uranium is uranium that, through the enrichment process, has been
stripped of a portion of the uranium-235 that it once contained so that
it has a lower uranium-235 proportion than the 0.7 weight-percent found
in nature. The uranium in most of DOE's DUF6 has between 0.2
to 0.4 weight-percent uranium-235.
DOE has management responsibility for approximately 700,000 metric
tons (MT) of DUF6 contained in about 57,700 steel cylinders
at the Portsmouth, Paducah, and ETTP sites, where it has stored such
material since the 1950s. The characteristics of UF6 pose
potential health and environmental risks. DUF6 in cylinders
emits low levels of gamma and neutron radiation. Also, when released to
the atmosphere, DUF6 reacts with water vapor in the air to
form hydrogen fluoride (HF) and uranyl fluoride
(UO2F2), both chemically toxic substances. In
light of such characteristics, DOE stores DUF6 in a manner
designed to minimize the risk to workers, the public, and the
environment.
In October 1992, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)
issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging that DUF6 stored
at the Portsmouth facility is subject to regulation under State
hazardous waste laws applicable to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant. The NOV stated that OEPA had determined DUF6 to be a
solid waste and that DOE had violated Ohio laws and regulations by not
evaluating whether such waste was hazardous. DOE disagreed with this
assessment, and, in February 1998, DOE and OEPA reached an agreement.
This agreement sets aside the issue of whether the DUF6 is
subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulation and
institutes a negotiated management plan governing the storage of the
Portsmouth DUF6. The agreement also requires DOE to continue
its efforts to evaluate potential use or reuse of the material. The
agreement expires in 2008.
In 1994, DOE began work on the Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and
Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6 PEIS). The
DUF6 PEIS was completed in 1999 and identified conversion of
DUF6 to another chemical form for use or long-term storage
as part of a preferred management alternative. In the corresponding
Record of Decision for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted
Uranium Hexafluoride (ROD) (64 FR 43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decided
to promptly convert the DUF6 inventory to depleted uranium
oxide, depleted uranium metal, or a combination of both. The ROD
further explained that 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. In addition, according
to the ROD, conversion to depleted uranium metal will occur only if
uses are available.
During the time that DOE was analyzing its long-term strategy for
managing the DUF6 inventory, several other events occurred
related to DUF6 management. In 1995, the Department began an
aggressive program to better manage the DUF6 cylinders,
known as the DUF6 Cylinder Project Management Plan. In part,
this program responded to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB) Recommendation 95-1, Safety of Cylinders Containing Depleted
Uranium. This program included more rigorous and frequent inspections,
a multi-year program for painting and refurbishing of cylinders, and
construction of concrete-pad cylinder yards. Implementation of the
DUF6 Cylinder Project Management Plan has been successful,
and, as a result, on December 16, 1999, the DNFSB closed out
Recommendation 95-1.
In February 1999, DOE and the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation entered into a consent order which included a
requirement for the performance of two environmentally beneficial
projects: The implementation of a negotiated management plan governing
the storage of the small inventory (relative to other sites) of all
UF6 (depleted, low enriched, and natural) cylinders stored
at the ETTP site, and the removal of the DUF6 from the ETTP
site or the conversion of the material by December 31, 2009.
In July 1998, the President signed Public Law (P.L.) 105-204. This
law directed the Secretary of Energy to prepare ``'a plan to ensure
that all amounts accrued on the books''' of the United States
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) for the disposition of DUF6
would be used to commence construction of, not later than January 31,
2004, and to operate, an on-site facility at each of the gaseous
diffusion plants at Paducah and Portsmouth, to treat and recycle
DUF6 consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). DOE responded to P.L. 105-204 by issuing the Final Plan for the
Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (referred to herein as the
``'Conversion Plan''') in July 1999. The Conversion Plan describes
DOE's intent
[[Page 48125]]
to chemically process the DUF6 to create products that would
present both a lower long-term storage hazard and provide a material
that would be suitable for use or disposal.
DOE initiated the Conversion Plan with the announced availability
of a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) on July 30, 1999, for a
contractor to design, construct, and operate DUF6 conversion
facilities at the Paducah and Portsmouth uranium enrichment plant
sites. Based on comments received on the draft RFP, DOE revisited some
of the assumptions about management of the DUF6 inventory
made previously in the PEIS and ROD. For example, as documented in the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory study, Assessment of Preferred Depleted
Uranium Disposal Forms (ORNL/TM-2000/161, June 2000), four potential
conversion forms (triuranium octoxide (U308),
uranium dioxide (U02), uranium tetrafluoride
(UF4), and uranium metal) were evaluated and found to be
acceptable for near-surface disposal at low-level radioactive waste
disposal sites such as those at DOE's Nevada Test Site and Envirocare
of Utah, Inc. Therefore, the RFP was modified to allow for a wide range
of potential conversion product forms and process technologies.
However, any of the proposed conversion forms must have an assured
environmentally acceptable path for final disposition.
On October 31, 2000, DOE issued a final RFP to procure a contractor
to design, construct, and operate DUF6 conversion facilities
at the Paducah and Portsmouth plant sites. Any conversion plants that
result from this procurement would convert the DUF6 to a
more stable chemical form that is suitable for either beneficial use or
disposal. The selected contractor would design the conversion plants
using the technology it proposes and construct the plants. The selected
contractor also would operate the plants for a five-year period, which
would include maintaining depleted uranium and product inventories,
transporting all uranium hexafluoride storage cylinders in Tennessee to
a conversion plant at Portsmouth, as appropriate, and transporting
converted product for which there is no use to a disposal site. The
selected contractor would also prepare excess material for disposal at
an appropriate site.
DOE received five proposals in response to the DUF6
conversion RFP, and DOE anticipates that a contract will be awarded
during the first quarter of fiscal year 2002. Since the site-specific
NEPA process will not be completed prior to contract award, the
contract shall be contingent on completion of the NEPA process and will
be structured such that the NEPA process will be completed in advance
of a go/no-go decision. (See NEPA Process below.) DOE initiated the
NEPA review by issuing an Advance Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS
for the DUF6 conversion facilities on May 7, 2001 (66 FR
23010).
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
DOE needs to convert its inventory of DUF6 to a more
stable chemical form for storage, use, or disposal. This need follows
directly from the decision presented in the August 1999 ``Record of
Decision for Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium
Hexafluoride,'' namely to begin conversion of the DUF6
inventory as soon as possible.
This EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of
constructing, operating, maintaining, and decontaminating and
decommissioning DUF6 conversion facilities at the Portsmouth
and Paducah sites, as well as other reasonable alternatives. The EIS
will aid decision making on DUF6 conversion by evaluating
the environmental impacts of the range of reasonable alternatives, as
well as providing a means for public input into the decision making
process. DOE is committed to ensuring that the public has ample
opportunity to participate in this review.
Relation to the DUF6 PEIS
This EIS represents the second level of a tiered environmental
review process being used to evaluate and implement the DUF6
management program. Tiering refers to the process of first addressing
general (programmatic) matters in a PEIS followed by more narrowly
focused (project level) environmental review that incorporates by
reference the more general discussions. The DUF6 PEIS,
issued in April 1999, was the first level of this tiered approach.
The DUF6 PEIS addressed the potential environmental
impacts of broad strategy alternatives, including analyses of the
impacts of: (1) Continued storage of DUF6 at DOE's current
storage sites; (2) technologies for converting the DUF6 to
depleted U3O8, UO2, or uranium metal;
(3) long-term storage of depleted U3O8 and
UO2 for subsequent use or disposal; (4) long-term storage of
DUF6 in cylinders at a consolidated site; (5) use of
depleted UO2 and uranium metal conversion products; (6)
transportation of materials; and (7) disposal of depleted
U3O8 and UO2 at generic disposal
sites. The results of the PEIS analysis, as well as supporting
documentation, will be incorporated into this EIS to the extent
appropriate.
The ROD for the DUF6 PEIS declared DOE's decision to
promptly convert the DUF6 inventory to a more stable
chemical form. This tiered EIS will address specific issues associated
with the implementation of the DUF6 PEIS ROD.
Preliminary Alternatives
Consistent with NEPA implementation requirements, this EIS will
assess the range of reasonable alternatives regarding constructing,
operating, maintaining, and decontaminating and decommissioning
DUF6 conversion facilities. The following preliminary list
of alternatives is subject to modification in response to comments
received during the public scoping process.
Preferred Alternative: Under the preferred alternative, two
conversion facilities would be built: one at the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant site and another at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant site. The cylinders currently stored at the ETTP site near Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, would be transported to Portsmouth for conversion.
The conversion products (i.e., depleted uranium as well as fluorine
components produced during the conversion process) would be stored, put
to beneficial uses, or disposed of at an appropriate disposal facility.
This alternative is consistent with the Conversion Plan, which DOE
submitted to Congress in July 1999, in response to Public Law 105-204.
Subalternatives to be considered for the preferred alternative include:
Conversion technology processes identified in response to
the final RFP for DUF6 conversion services, plus any other
technologies that DOE believes must be considered.
Local siting alternatives for building and operating
conversion facilities within the Paducah and Portsmouth plant
boundaries.
Timing options, such as staggering the start of the
construction and operation of the two conversion facilities.
One Conversion Plant Alternative: An alternative of building and
operating only one conversion facility at either the Portsmouth or the
Paducah site will be considered. This plant could differ in size or
production capacity from the two proposed for Portsmouth and Paducah.
Technology and local siting subalternatives will be considered as with
the preferred alternative.
Use of Existing UF6 Conversion Capacity Alternative: DOE
will consider using already-existing UF6 conversion
[[Page 48126]]
capacity at commercial nuclear fuel fabrication facilities in lieu of
constructing one or two new conversion plants. DOE is evaluating the
feasibility of using existing conversion capacity, although no
expression of interest has been received from such facilities.
No Action Alternative: Under the ``no action'' alternative,
cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and
maintenance) would continue the ``status quo'' at the three current
storage sites indefinitely, consistent with the DUF6
Cylinder Project Management Plan and the consent orders, which include
actions needed to meet safety and environmental requirements.
Where applicable under the alternatives listed above,
transportation options, such as truck, rail, and barge, will be
considered for shipping DUF6 cylinders to a conversion
facility and conversion products to a storage or disposal facility.
Also, for each technology alternative, alternatives for conversion
products, including storage, use, and disposal at one or more disposal
sites, will be considered. Further, DOE would appreciate comments
regarding whether there are additional siting alternatives for one or
more new conversion facilities that should be considered.
Identification of Environmental and Other Issues
DOE intends to address the following environmental issues when
assessing the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives in
this EIS. Additional issues may be identified as a result of the
scoping process. DOE invites comment from the Federal agencies, Native
American tribes, state and local governments, and the general public on
these and any other issues that should be considered in the EIS:
Potential impacts on health from DUF6
conversion activities, including potential impacts to workers and the
public from exposure to radiation and chemicals during routine and
accident conditions for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
decontamination and decommissioning of DUF6 conversion
facilities.
Potential impacts to workers and the public from exposure
to radiation and chemicals during routine and accident conditions for
the transportation of DUF6 cylinders from ETTP to one of the
conversion sites.
Potential impacts to workers and the public from exposure
to radiation and chemicals during routine and accident conditions for
the transportation of conversion products that are not beneficially
used to a low-level waste disposal facility.
Potential impacts to surface water, ground water, and soil
during construction activities and from emissions and water use during
facility operations.
Potential impacts on air quality from emissions and from
noise during facility construction and operations.
Potential cumulative impacts of the past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions (including impacts resulting from
activities of the United States Enrichment Corporation).
Potential impacts from facility construction on
historically significant properties, if present, and on access to
traditional use areas.
Potential impacts from land requirements, potential
incompatibilities, and disturbances.
Potential impacts on local, regional, or national
resources from materials and utilities required for construction and
operation.
Potential impacts on ecological resources, including
threatened and endangered species, floodplains, and wetlands.
Potential impacts on local and DOE-wide waste management
capabilities.
Potential impacts on local employment, income, population,
housing, and public services from facility construction and operations,
and environmental justice issues.
Pollution prevention, waste minimization, and energy and
water use reduction technologies to reduce the use of energy, water,
and hazardous substances and to mitigate environmental impacts.
DOE received comments on the Advance Notice of Intent from the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OHEPA). TDEC commented that the
EIS should provide an adequate platform for coordination of
environmental issues between DOE, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee,
without additional agreements if certain specified topics were explored
in detail in the EIS. TDEC's comments emphasized issues related to the
transportation of the ETTP cylinders to Portsmouth. OHEPA's comment
concurred in TDEC's comment that the EIS should coordinate
environmental issues between DOE, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee,
especially emergency management issues associated with the
transportation of the ETTP cylinders to Portsmouth.
NEPA Process
The EIS for the proposed project will be prepared pursuant to the
NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality
NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE's NEPA Implementing
Procedures (10se CFR part 1021). Following the publication of this
Notice of Intent, DOE will hold scoping meetings, prepare and
distribute the draft EIS for public review, hold public hearings to
solicit public comment on the draft EIS, and publish a final EIS. Not
less than 30 days after the publication of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Notice of Availability of the final EIS, DOE may
issue a ROD documenting its decision concerning the proposed action.
In addition to the above steps, DOE is considering environmental
factors in selecting a contractor for the conversion services through
the procurement process, including preparation of an environmental
critique and an environmental synopsis pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.216. The
environmental critique evaluates the environmental data and information
submitted by each offeror and is subject to the confidentiality
requirements of the procurement process. DOE also is preparing a
publicly available environmental synopsis, based on the environmental
critique, to document the consideration given to environmental factors
in the contractor selection process. The environmental synopsis will be
filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and will be
incorporated into the EIS. In accordance with 10 CFR 1021.216(i), since
the NEPA process will not be completed prior to contract award, the
contract will be structured to allow the NEPA review process to be
completed in advance of a go/no-go decision.
Related NEPA Reviews
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for
Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted
Uranium Hexafluoride (DOE/EIS-0269, April 1999);
Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive
and Hazardous Waste (DOE/EIS-0200-F, May 1997);
Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium, Final
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/ EIS-0240, June 1996);
Environmental Assessment for the Refurbishment of Uranium
Hexafluoride
[[Page 48127]]
Cylinder Storage Yards C-745-K, L, M, N, and P and Construction of a
New Uranium Hexafluoride Cylinder Storage Yard (C-745-T) at the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky (DOE/EA-1118, July 1996);
Environmental Assessment for DOE Sale of Surplus Natural
and Low Enriched Uranium (DOE/EA-1172, October 1996);
Environmental Assessment for the Lease of Land and
Facilities within the East Tennessee Technology Park, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee (DOE/EA-1175, 1997);
Notice of Intent for Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Disposition of Scrap Metals (DOE/EIS-0327) (66 FR 36562,
July 12, 2001).
Scoping Meetings
The purpose of this Notice is to encourage early public involvement
in the EIS process and to solicit public comments on the proposed scope
of the EIS, including the issues and alternatives it would analyze. DOE
will hold public scoping meetings near Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah,
Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to solicit both oral and written
comments from interested parties. Oral and written comments will be
considered equally in the preparation of the EIS. See DATES above for
the times and locations of these meetings.
DOE will designate a presiding officer for the scoping meetings.
The scoping meetings will not be conducted as evidentiary hearings, and
there will be no questioning of the commentors. However, DOE personnel
may ask for clarifications to ensure that they fully understand the
comments and suggestions. The presiding officer will establish the
order of speakers. At the opening of each meeting, the presiding
officer will announce any additional procedures necessary for the
conduct of the meetings. If necessary to ensure that all persons
wishing to make a presentation are given the opportunity, a time limit
may be applied for each speaker. Comment cards will also be available
for those who would prefer to submit written comments.
DOE will make transcripts of the scoping meetings and other
environmental and project-related materials available for public review
in the following reading rooms:
DOE Headquarters, Freedom of Information Reading Room, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1 E-190, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone:
(202) 586-3142.
Oak Ridge/ DOE, Public Reading Room, 230 Warehouse Road, Suite 300, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee 37831. Telephone: (865) 241-4780.
Paducah/DOE, Environmental Information Center, Berkley Centre, 115
Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, Telephone: (270) 554-6979.
Portsmouth/DOE, Environmental Information Center, 3930 U.S. Route 23,
Perimeter Road, Piketon, OH 45661. Telephone: (740) 289-3317.
Information is also available through the project web site at
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium and on the DOE NEPA web site at http://www.tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa.
The EIS will also contain a section summarizing the nature of the
comments received during the scoping process and describing any
modification to the scope of the EIS in response to the scoping process
comments.
EIS Schedule
The draft EIS is scheduled to be published by June 2002. A 45-day
comment period on the draft EIS is planned, which will include public
hearings to receive oral comments. Availability of the draft EIS, the
dates of the public comment period, and information about the public
hearings will be announced in the Federal Register and in the local
news media.
The final EIS for the DUF6 Conversion Facilities is scheduled for
January 2003. A ROD would be issued no sooner than 30 days after the U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency notice of availability of the final
EIS is published in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 10th day of September, 2001.
Steven V. Cary,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 01-23213 Filed 9-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P